Because you always research who you vote for.
Here's the synopsis for a local Democrat for mostly irrelevant local position (think of it like, local village official dog-walker or some shit):
Former US military (infantry officer), no obvious Leftist endorsements, many years spent as a Judo athlete, private practice attorney, no significant political experience, adequate physiognomy, official Democrat Party information page made no appeals to Culture War topics, or even really any significant political topics at all. (I live in a pretty red area)
Here's the quote for the local Republican for the same position:
Accomplishments:
Promoted diversity training for [government strata] employees
He's a multi-year incumbent. Has been either an attorney or a politician for the past 30 years. Poor physiognomy.
Just because there is an R in their name doesn't mean they aren't supporting DIE in the government.
CLEAR. THEM. OUT.
I voted straight red. The local Dems were very clear with their support of crazy stuff. That is good that you have local Dems who aren’t crazy. But it is good to research always
Yeah, agreed. I wanted to vote more Libertarians, but there aren't any.
Sounds like you ought to run next time around.
The thing I've learned about some parts of local government is how fucking malicious and corrupt and petty it is.
I'd need to clear them out, to be honest. And to do that, I'd need backers and allies.
You go into local politics by your lonesome and they'll cut your throat out because they are probably trying to steal many hundreds of dollars a year.
I’ve voted for libertarians in local elections before but unless they had ranked voting I couldn’t vote for any on a higher level
Also, check the party page. Even the candidates own pages don't really tell you much, but whenever I checked the Democrats official page, there was always a quote in there that made you think, "Ah, so you're one of those."
One Dem candidate said, "I got interested in politics because there weren't enough women and minorities in positions of power." She was running against an incumbent woman minority who had been in power for over 10 years.
I honestly do think 10% of the people here could probably win local elections, even if your post history here was publicly available.
What do you mean if? I'd win because it is!
Less Feminine Way Party™
Jokes aside, it isn't hard to win local elections, scrutiny only starts hitting when you're running for national elections, to be a House or Senate member.
There's a really strong incumbent advantage at the local level in Canada.
It's virtually impossible to get elected to city council unless the incumbent abdicates their seat.
A local councilor did lose last month for the first incumbent loss in forever, but it was at least in part because there was a scandal that his wife was caught posting fake comments on his FB page.
I'm not saying I'd vote for you, but I wouldn't NOT vote for you.
The scrutiny steps up any time you try to rise above city. I challenge you to try for a state office.
Honestly, you probably could. I think people will be happy to vote for more varied opinions, specifically at the local level.
I'm kind of disgusted how every politician looks almost identical.
I live in the deep deep South. If I ran for office, I could use quotes from my posts here as official slogans.
"Is you is or is you ain't, my constituency?"
Homer Stokes: https://youtu.be/Z3LU-DzT8i4
You don't think that won't all change the minute they get into office and are surrounded by weirdo lefty sycophants?
In his specific case, its a choice between "probably will end up changing after time" and "already openly and obviously corrupted and woke." A small chance for a small time frame of improvement.
If they won, they'd be surrounded by right-wing boomers. And yeah, Adamrises has got my point. It's a choice between corrupted and potential corruption.
There's a big difference between someone who says that they allowed a DIE training to go through after it was ordered by the state, or the result of pressure from voters; and someone who lists it as an accomplishment.
The staff at every government office are weirdo lefty sycophants. He won't be surrounded by boomers he'll be bitching about how backward they are with the secretary.
You have to do your research on the candidates.
Last election there were multiple candidates for the school board. They don't run under a party flag, so you can't just "straight ticket" and think you're doing good.
There was one candidate whose info in the ballot brochure seemed fairly innocuous, but I went to her website and the first thing the came up was DIVERSITYYYYY, EQUITYYYYY, and INCLUSIOOOOOOON and that's a big hell no, lady.
There were multiple justices on this year's ballot. Had to do a bit of googling to find most of them got a no from me.
Yeah, you just got to straight up read their previous decisions, and see how they are thinking.
Hard to find info on school trustee candidates up here in Canada.
Often they only have an email registered officially with no other online presence whatsoever.
Voting against the incumbent is usually a safe bet at least because they all tend to be pinkos.
I watched a local broadcast for school trustee candidates out of boredom, and it got into the French trustees... And only one of them spoke French. The rest were 100% baizuo stereotype. Then it got to the Catholic School Board positions... And only two of the, like, eleven or twelve candidates actually used the words "God" or "Catholic". And I mean that. The rest used "CSB" as a shortform, they never even used the word Catholic for the position they were running for in the Catholic School Board, let alone concerning what values or opinions they uphold. The word "Muslim", however, was used five times.
In Texas, I researched all of the candidates on the ballot before I went to vote and I voted all red.
The Democrat candidates in Texas are all woke progressives who support transgender ideology, BLM, open borders, unrestricted abortion and gun control. Fuck no to all of that.
"Moderate" Democrats don't exist anymore in Texas and they don't exist in most states.
They all support that, including Gizortnik's Mr. "physiognomy". The fact that he's a Democrat means he will vote in favor of all that shit.
That's why it's good to just be a straight ticket republican, and the true choice you make is in the primary, not the general.
I generally agree (see my comments on Oz v. Fetterman) but the one caveat to that is if the person would be so outnumbered in their office that they can't do any harm, then its safe to vote down the compromised R for the L or D and then work to elect a non-compromised R next time around. For example, I'd vote L if I lived in eye patch McCain's district because I'm confident that the GOP will have a comfortable margin in the House this election.
You can do protest votes by writing in, for example write in "eyepatch mccain"
I think Texas is a targeted state, specifically because the Progressives assumed that it would be entirely in the bag for them because of immigration from both Mexico and California. Thus, the vast majority of Dems are absolutely that.
I think the Progressive Dems are kind of abandoning my state except for the hive cities and urban cores.
Dems thought wrong with their notion of the emerging Democrat majority. The author of that thesis Ruy Teixeira now constantly laments wokeness and how it has hampered his original thesis.
I myself am a Californian refugee. I would bet that after the COVID hysteria, much more California Republicans immigrated to Texas than California Democrats.
The Dem doesn't have the power to do those things.
The incumbent Rep never had to do those things as no one in the local Rep party pushes diversity. He chose to do that all on his own.
Based.
I don't believe in the Pseudo-Science, but it's true that you wear your virtue on your face to a degree.
Incumbent Republican had a literal open-mouthed soyface expression on his web-page. He could have just said, "I bought my Nintendo Switch today!"
The Dem just had a black-and-white, stoic, unsmiling face that looked pretty normal for a 50 year old man.
What you do and how you live reflects on your body.
Wrinkles on your face form where the skin bends. It's clear who smiles, and who "smiles", by their wrinkles. You don't actively notice it, but it's there.
Barring certain medical conditions, most people actively choose their hairstyle. Their makeup (or lack thereof) use.
But most importantly, when people are presenting themselves, in example for a photo on their own website, they're choosing their own pose and position. These aren't camera shots taken from a hidden spy cam halfway in a purse while they're mid-bite eating, it's something they carefully set up and staged with all the time in the world and multiple takes.
Which means that picture is not only the BEST they will ever appear, it is also EXACTLY how they want to be perceived. A soyface isn't an accident. Facing, lighting, expression, they were chosen with care to signal. So why is it controversial to note those signals? Dude spent a lot of money to plaster a soyface online, we should note it.
The questions I'd want an answer to: when & why did this person join the Democrat party?
Even if there is nothing obvious on this person's web bios, the Democrat machine has been full steam ahead in pushing DIE (just look at who they appoint in senior positions across various portfolios), and I would question how insulated even low level politicians can be from that.
If the local republican is a dud, were there any independent candidates on the ballot?
Unfortunately his specific history was unclear.
This is why I liked researching on the Party's page. It's meant to be a big rallying point for other Dems, so when they talk openly, they say the stupid shit that tells me their programming. Unlike nearly all of the others, he didn't have any of that.
Any Dem with endorsements from "the coalition of women voters" or "Our Revolution" is right out the door. The CoW is basically a big front to get the Dems to re-district in their own favor.
One bio said that the candidate had personally mailed out 16,000 flyers in 2016 to support the party, I didn't pick her either.
Because of how NPC programming works, you just have to wait for them to make the right virtue signal.
Not present. There is effectively no significant libertarian, green, progressive, or socialist opposition. It's unfortunately a very boomer-red region. This means that sometimes you find a based republican, but most of the time you're looking at someone who is concerned about the dangerous effects of video-games.
I'll never vote Democrat. I don't care if you think he is okay because he was a veteran and looks like a Nazi propaganda poster, he has still sworn allegiance to the Democrats, which are the party of globohomo, LGBT degeneracy, feminism, etc.
If I had your choice of a "this wet Democrat turd seems firm and does not smell like shit" versus a squish republican, I'd just vote for neither.
Too bad he's just going to do what Democrat puppeteers ask him 100% of the time and won't put any of his would-be "based" history to work for YOU.
Podunk literally-who local offices? in 2020, your local health department got real, didn't it? You never know what will come your way, so why give your enemy a foothold in anything?
You could also simply abstain voting for that race.
You have no evidence.
You will never be a woman.
Complete non sequitur. You're making paranoid claims about people you know literally nothing about except party affiliation. Take a deep breath.
The evangelical asks "Why don't you think God is real?" Every answer you give reflects the insurmountable standard of proof they expect. Fossil evidence? "That's how God works." Astronomy? "The heavens don't mean literally up." Plate tectonics? Carbon dating? Evolution? Chemistry? "The Lord works in mysterious ways."
Return the favor and ask "Why do you think God is real?" and the standard of evidence suddenly drops to zero. "The banana fits in the hand perfectly!" It's Reddit tier thinking along the lines of citing "correlation is not causation" as a magic ticket out of having to consider any connection whatsoever.
Aim higher.
Not every democrat in every position is a woke psychopath. They had literally placeholder candidates running for positions because any warm body with a D would do.
Things are not entirely controlled by political party. They are controlled by people. I know what the local health department did. Having R's in their name didn't make what they did better.
Voted straight red in my state. My state is a blue state - that means if you are a Democrat you automatically are to the left of me. Most of the Republican candidates here all want election integrity, defend the Second Amendment, adamantly support Trump, and want to do a bit of "nationalism" for our state by giving locals tax breaks and heavily restricting outside interference on our local supply of homes by giving preference to citizens of our state FIRST over outsiders.
Yeah, if you're stuck in Hawaii or some shit, I think straight R is the best you can do, unless you can use the Republican's weakness to organize a Libertarian movement.
I wish both my states candidates for governor were found guilty of treason.
I wish my state AG and SoS were found guilty of treason.
Had to vote for the R governor, but my hate was such that I voted libertarian for AG and SoS.
I really hate that my choice is between vote flipper and ballot stuffer.
This is why I like the Free State Project. Recognizing that you can't just have every available crazy run for higher office. You need your crazies to run for local office to actually get a chance of your non-crazies to win a higher office.
Of the one or two dems I voted for they were local things and were much like the one you voted for. As for where I live I'm well positioned to vote primarily for
Good old boys who've gotten fat off well-entrenched local GOP political machines, primarily if not entirely boomercons at best.
Weirdo dems who are running because the dems have to put someone on the ballot.
Libertarians whose stances consist of the heck-if-I-know. They aren't weirdos or boomercons and I know the boomercons are shoe-ins so I usually vote for the lolberts by default.
One of the Dems that was put up was literally just a placeholder candidate. Eventually the other Dems were like, "Well, uh, fuck it. You'll do." and so they were now the official candidate as of a few months ago.
Literally: no matter who.
Voting for real opinion based on policy research is a choice I'll always respect despite party. If you support it, you have every right to vote for it.
Voting out of cult devotion and some vague notion of good vs evil as if one party is the cool kids' table and the other is some threat to humanity is spiteful, toxic, and uninformed.
That said, we're getting to the point where abstaining your vote may be wiser than throwing it to the other party.
I actually did abstain on one choice because it looked like both were neo-liberals in both parties.