We are Trump’s Republican challengers. Canceling GOP primaries is a critical mistake. (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

A op-ed from Friday's Washington Post:

Quote
We are Trump’s Republican challengers. Canceling GOP primaries is a critical mistake.

By Mark Sanford , Joe Walsh and Bill Weld

September 13

Mark Sanford was governor of South Carolina from 2003 to 2011. Joe Walsh represented Illinois’s 8th Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 2011 to 2013. Bill Weld was governor of Massachusetts from 1991 to 1997. All three are seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

The three of us are running for the Republican nomination for president in a race that will inevitably highlight differences among us on matters of policy, style and background. But we are brought together not by what divides us but by what unites us: a shared conviction that the United States needs a strong center-right party guided by basic values that are rooted in the best of the American spirit.

A president always defines his or her party, and today the Republican Party has taken a wrong turn, led by a serial self-promoter who has abandoned the bedrock principles of the GOP. In the Trump era, personal responsibility, fiscal sanity and rule of law have been overtaken by a preference for alienating our allies while embracing terrorists and dictators, attacking the free press and pitting everyday Americans against one another.

No surprise, then, that the latest disgrace, courtesy of Team Trump, is an effort to eliminate any threats to the president’s political power in 2020. Republicans have long held primaries and caucuses to bring out the best our party has to offer. Our political system assumes an incumbent president will make his case in front of voters to prove that he or she deserves to be nominated for a second term. But now, the Republican parties of four states — Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina — have canceled their nominating contests. By this design, the incumbent will be crowned winner of these states’ primary delegates. There is little confusion about who has been pushing for this outcome.

What does this say about the Republican Party? If a party stands for nothing but reelection, it indeed stands for nothing. Our next nominee must compete in the marketplace of ideas, values and leadership. Each of us believes we can best lead the party. So does the incumbent. Let us each take our case to the public. The saying “may the best man win” is a quintessential value that the Republican Party must honor if we are to command the respect of the American people. Cowards run from fights. Warriors stand and fight for what they believe. The United States respects warriors. Only the weak fear competition.

Across the aisle, the Democratic primary challengers are still engaged in a heated competition of debates, caucuses and primaries to give their voters in every corner of our country a chance to select the best nominee. Do Republicans really want to be the party with a nominating process that more resembles Russia or China than our American tradition? Under this president, the meaning of truth has been challenged as never before. Under this president, the federal deficit has topped the $1 trillion mark. Do we as Republicans accept all this as inevitable? Are we to leave it to the Democrats to make the case for principles and values that, a few years ago, every Republican would have agreed formed the foundations of our party?

It would be a critical mistake to allow the Democratic Party to dominate the national conversation during primary and caucus season. Millions of voters looking for a conservative alternative to the status quo deserve a chance to hear alternate ideas aired on the national stage. Let us argue over the best way to maximize opportunities in our communities for everyday Americans while the Democrats debate the merits of government intervention. Let us spend the next six months attempting to draw new voters to our party instead of demanding fealty to a preordained choice. If we believe our party represents the best hope for the United States’ future, let us take our message to the public and prove we are right.

Trump loyalists in the four states that have canceled their primaries and caucuses claim that President Trump will win by a landslide, and that it is therefore a waste of money to invest in holding primaries or caucuses. But since when do we use poll numbers as our basis for deciding whether to give voters an opportunity to choose their leaders, much less their presidents? Answer: We don’t.

Besides, the litigation costs these four state parties will likely be forced to take on in defending legal challenges to the cancellations will almost certainly exceed the cost of holding the primaries and caucuses themselves.

In the United States, citizens choose their leaders. The primary nomination process is the only opportunity for Republicans to have a voice in deciding who will represent our party. Let those voices be heard.
Thoughts?

I know it's not unprecedented to cancel primaries.  For example, the Arizona Democratic party canceled primaries in 2012 and 1996 when Presidents Obama and Clinton, respectively, were running for re-election.  Was it wrong then and wrong now?  Or should a state party exercise it's right to conclude that the winner is preordained and thus cancel the primary to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of funds?

 

[The Commish]

Thoughts?

I know it's not unprecedented to cancel primaries.  For example, the Arizona Democratic party canceled primaries in 2012 and 1996 when Presidents Obama and Clinton, respectively, were running for re-election.  Was it wrong then and wrong now?  Or should a state party exercise it's right to conclude that the winner is preordained and thus cancel the primary to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of funds?

It was wrong then and it's wrong now IMO.  Voices should be heard in every single election regardless of how confident a state is of the outcome.  When I hear "unnecessary expenditure of funds" in this context it translates to "don't want to spend the money providing the platform for your voice to be heard".

 

[Van Dyman]

It was wrong then and it's wrong now IMO.  Voices should be heard in every single election regardless of how confident a state is of the outcome.  When I hear "unnecessary expenditure of funds" in this context it translates to "don't want to spend the money providing the platform for your voice to be heard".

Completely agree.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I know it's not unprecedented to cancel primaries.  For example, the Arizona Democratic party canceled primaries in 2012 and 1996 when Presidents Obama and Clinton, respectively, were running for re-election.  Was it wrong then and wrong now?  Or should a state party exercise it's right to conclude that the winner is preordained and thus cancel the primary to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of funds?

If pressed I’ll agree it was wrong then, wrong now, but really.... the distinction in challengers matters. See if any presidential candidate had *3 primary opponents in an atmosphere of sub-40 approval, I don’t think so. Probably the guy with the biggest gripe was Buchanan one year (forget which). I don’t think there’s a decent, close comp justifying this. 

 

[bigbottom]

Are there any Republicans who have thoughts on the cancellation of primary elections and caucuses?  After all, it is Republican voters who are being denied the right to vote (or caucus) for their candidate of choice in four states. 

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Are there any Republicans who have thoughts on the cancellation of primary elections and caucuses?  After all, it is Republican voters who are being denied the right to vote (or caucus) for their candidate of choice in four states. 

Stop distracting from the fact that someone at the DNC said mean things about Bernie Sanders four years ago and rigged the election.

 

[[scooter]]

What does this say about the Republican Party? If a party stands for nothing but reelection, it indeed stands for nothing.

I think it's good for the party, both for the short-term and the long-term. If the Democrats had been smart enough to do this in 2016, Hillary would be president right now. (And I think that the current Democrat clownshow is doing little more than hurting every candidate. They would be much better off if they just selected their candidate internally and then kept him/her out of the spotlight through election day. Just run anti-Trump ads 24/7.)

The whole primary concept is kind of dumb, especially when they are spread out over several months -- giving disproportional influence to smaller states that vote early (e.g., New Hampshire and South Carolina).

I'm not saying that the parties should go back to selecting candidates in a smoke-filled room. But with today's technology, it shouldn't be too difficult for party leaders to get a gauge on what its members want, and then match it up with the candidate that has the best combination of A) matching the desires of membership, and B) electability.

 

[Sideshow Bob]

I would welcome the opportunity to vote for someone who is neither Trump nor one of these Dem candidates. Not that it would matter. 

 

[E Street Brat]

Are there any Republicans who have thoughts on the cancellation of primary elections and caucuses?  After all, it is Republican voters who are being denied the right to vote (or caucus) for their candidate of choice in four states. 

BRAT IN! 

NPA   

2016 Never Trumper     

2020 Fence sitter

Usually vote "R"

Yeah, I think it sucks. If their was challenger I liked. I'd switch from NPA to R to vote in the primary.   

 

[Murph]

If pressed I’ll agree it was wrong then, wrong now, but really.... the distinction in challengers matters. See if any presidential candidate had *3 primary opponents in an atmosphere of sub-40 approval, I don’t think so. Probably the guy with the biggest gripe was Buchanan one year (forget which). I don’t think there’s a decent, close comp justifying this. 

I sort of agree with this. But I don't think you can point just to the number of challengers. I like Weld, but let's face it, each of these guys barely a step above Vermin Supreme in terms of the seriousness of their challenge.

 

[Todem]

BRAT IN! 

NPA   

2016 Never Trumper     

2020 Fence sitter

Usually vote "R"

Yeah, I think it sucks. If their was challenger I liked. I'd switch from NPA to R to vote in the primary.   

I changed my party affiliation for the first time in my life since I registered to vote this year so I could vote in the Democratic primary's. 

You think I want a couple of socialist's (Bernie and Warren) potentially in the White House? Hell freaking no. Not while I have a vote. 

If either of them win the Democratic nom.......Trump wins in a landslide. The Democrats are so clueless and in fighting so much they have no shot unless Biden wins the Nom. And even then it will be 50/50 with Biden vs Trump. If he puts Warren on his ticket? Death. 

They are clueless.

 

[The Commish]

We really need to resurrect the "HOT TAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" thread from the days of yore.  

 

[KCitons]

Are there any Republicans who have thoughts on the cancellation of primary elections and caucuses?  After all, it is Republican voters who are being denied the right to vote (or caucus) for their candidate of choice in four states. 

They're probably a little gun shy. It didnt turn out so well for Gary Johnson voters.

 

[rockaction]

I'm conservative and don't like their cancellation. I do not know enough about the dynamics of the primaries to really argue pro- or con-, but it seems like often, challengers come from large deficits to win primaries once given a bully pulpit from which to speak. I'd love to hear these guys get to take their intellectual and policy-driven shots at Trump. 

 

[moleculo]

I think they are going to regret this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Are there any Republicans who have thoughts on the cancellation of primary elections and caucuses?  After all, it is Republican voters who are being denied the right to vote (or caucus) for their candidate of choice in four states. 

I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of primaries/caucuses vs. candidates selected by party leaders.  (I'm confident that there are a lot more advantages to the latter than people want to admit, but I'm not sure if those advantages outweigh the drawbacks).

I do think it's unhealthy to have presidential campaigns start two years before the election.  Even if we all agree that something like our current primary system is the way to go, it's ridiculous that people get emotionally invested in candidates that early and that for that long.  We would probably get better candidates if the entire process took six months or less from start to finish, and I'm 100% sure that it would be better for our collective mental health.

 

[rockaction]

I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of primaries/caucuses vs. candidates selected by party leaders.  (I'm confident that there are a lot more advantages to the latter than people want to admit, but I'm not sure if those advantages outweigh the drawbacks).

I do think it's unhealthy to have presidential campaigns start two years before the election.  Even if we all agree that something like our current primary system is the way to go, it's ridiculous that people get emotionally invested in candidates that early and that for that long.  We would probably get better candidates if the entire process took six months or less from start to finish, and I'm 100% sure that it would be better for our collective mental health.

Yes. The never-ending campaign began in the nineties it seemed, and never stopped. The faces changed, but the concentration on opinion polls for every little thing the executive did was a disaster to both our policy and our sanity.

 

[FF Ninja]

I changed my party affiliation for the first time in my life since I registered to vote this year so I could vote in the Democratic primary's. 

You think I want a couple of socialist's (Bernie and Warren) potentially in the White House? Hell freaking no. Not while I have a vote. 

If either of them win the Democratic nom.......Trump wins in a landslide. The Democrats are so clueless and in fighting so much they have no shot unless Biden wins the Nom. And even then it will be 50/50 with Biden vs Trump. If he puts Warren on his ticket? Death. 

They are clueless.

Peculiar take. They are both leading him by a comfortable margin in polls. In reality, the Dems will win with any candidate they field - sure, trump still has a large swath of uneducated folks that will remain loyal to the end, but center leaning Republicans and independents know what has to be done. As a previously Republican leaning independent, I know I'll vote for any Dem over trump this time. I voted for Gary Johnson last time as a protest vote, but won't do it again. I'm not a fan of some of their policies, but there are two important things to remember when considering voting for Warren/Sanders:

1. They can't possibly blow through money faster or more recklessly/wastefully than Trump. I'd rather give poor people money than ultra rich. Of course my true preference is a balanced budget, but neither party is interested in that.
   
2. Sanders and Warren are both serious about fighting corruption, something the Republican party has consistently reminded us (via voting patterns) that they are not. Maybe they blow some money forgiving college debt, but in the long run, if they can reign in corruption via reform of lobbying and campaign finance, that will be a huge win for Americans as a whole. 
   

2018 was the last time I'll ever vote in the Republican primary (and I mainly did that to spite my awful rep). They are all dead to me for at least a generation. Anyone who stood by and supported trump deserves to lose their office. I'll now be voting for the most fiscally responsible Dems I can find.

 

[Sideshow Bob]

@IvanKaramazov

I'm curious. If the GOP outright dumped Trump tomorrow (This is dreamland.  Humor me) and decided to run a reasonable, sane, more traditionally conservative candidate, are you likely voting for them? I get you'd want to know some specifics about the candidate, etc.  But assume it's someone you find largely acceptable.

 

[Todem]

Peculiar take. They are both leading him by a comfortable margin in polls. In reality, the Dems will win with any candidate they field - sure, trump still has a large swath of uneducated folks that will remain loyal to the end, but center leaning Republicans and independents know what has to be done. As a previously Republican leaning independent, I know I'll vote for any Dem over trump this time. I voted for Gary Johnson last time as a protest vote, but won't do it again. I'm not a fan of some of their policies, but there are two important things to remember when considering voting for Warren/Sanders:

1. They can't possibly blow through money faster or more recklessly/wastefully than Trump. I'd rather give poor people money than ultra rich. Of course my true preference is a balanced budget, but neither party is interested in that.
   
2. Sanders and Warren are both serious about fighting corruption, something the Republican party has consistently reminded us (via voting patterns) that they are not. Maybe they blow some money forgiving college debt, but in the long run, if they can reign in corruption via reform of lobbying and campaign finance, that will be a huge win for Americans as a whole. 
   

2018 was the last time I'll ever vote in the Republican primary (and I mainly did that to spite my awful rep). They are all dead to me for at least a generation. Anyone who stood by and supported trump deserves to lose their office. I'll now be voting for the most fiscally responsible Dems I can find.

And this is the massive problem facing our country right now. The extreme left and extreme right have taken over politics and both parties. They simply do not represent most of us who are moderates. 

This whole mentality of "you are either with us or against us" has infected our countries policy makers and parties. You can't even really have a civil conversation with people anymore about politics because if god forbid you disagree with some of their thinking you are a hater and anti this or anti that. I am sick of it.

Biden is a moderate. I pray he get the nomination. I realize he is old. I realize his debating skills are a weakness of his (and simply is not a litmus of how good of a president he could potentially be). But Warren and Sanders are not what our country needs. We must get both sides to come into the middle. It's crazy to think, but Obama was more of centrist than either Sanders or Warren. Like a lot more.

It is a sad state of affairs and we have to get common sense and more centrist polices back into the system. Where in god's name are all the moderates anymore?

Oh that's right, they were all pushed out of office by the Progressives and Tea Party nut jobs. 

Polls polls polls......bottom line is if either Sanders or Warren get the nod....Trump will win. No doubt in my mind.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

@IvanKaramazov

I'm curious. If the GOP outright dumped Trump tomorrow (This is dreamland.  Humor me) and decided to run a reasonable, sane, more traditionally conservative candidate, are you likely voting for them? I get you'd want to know some specifics about the candidate, etc.  But assume it's someone you find largely acceptable.

I pretty much always vote Libertarian, and I imagine I would most likely do so in this scenario as well.  But sure, I would root for a sane traditional conservative over Elizabeth Warren, for example, even if I still voted third party.

 

[FF Ninja]

And this is the massive problem facing our country right now. The extreme left and extreme right have taken over politics and both parties. They simply do not represent most of us who are moderates. 

This whole mentality of "you are either with us or against us" has infected our countries policy makers and parties. You can't even really have a civil conversation with people anymore about politics because if god forbid you disagree with some of their thinking you are a hater and anti this or anti that. I am sick of it.

Biden is a moderate. I pray he get the nomination. I realize he is old. I realize his debating skills is a weakness of his (and simply is not a litmus of how good of a president he could potentially be). But Warren and Sanders are not what our country needs. We must get both sides to come into the middle. It's crazy to think buy Obama was more of centrist than either Sanders or Warren. Like a lot more.

It is a sad state of affairs and we have to get common sense and more centrist polices back into the system. Where in god's name are all the moderates anymore? How that's right they were all pushed out of office by the Progressives and Tea Party nut jobs. 

This is not entirely true. One party is full of traitors and the other party is a mixture of what should be multiple parties. Is one of those parties extremely left? Yep. But not all the sitting dems are extreme left. Not by a long shot.

As much as I'd like a moderate, I think the absolute most important thing right now is fixing corruption and Biden isn't the man for that. Among other things, we need campaign finance reform and we need lobbying reform. The rich are currently writing our laws. The fact net neutrality got repealed despite STRONG bipartisan support should tell you two things: 

1. Our democracy is broken right now. If both Republican voters AND Democratic voters both support net neutrality at above 80% each, then there should be no way in hell that it is repealed.
   
2. Republicans are straight up loyal to money (and their voters are too ignorant to realize it). Their constituents wanted to keep net neutrality, but their lobbyists paid them to repeal it. Look at the voting records of the House and Senate on the topic. It's sickening. It really might be 20 years before I consider voting Republican again.
   

If we all give up on Republicans altogether and start voting in the Democratic primaries we can find good politicians. People who will vote in our interest. If we ignore the primaries, you'll end up with someone too far left because most of us independents are done voting Republican and third party.

 

[Sideshow Bob]

I pretty much always vote Libertarian, and I imagine I would most likely do so in this scenario as well.  But sure, I would root for a sane traditional conservative over Elizabeth Warren, for example, even if I still voted third party.

Huh.  I did not realize this.

 

[Jobber]

I’m with you, entirely. I was a ~28 year straight line GOP voter. Then, I started actually paying attention and realized that the official platform of the party was not even in the same zip code as how the party acted and voted in reality.

I then threw a protest vote myself, to Gary Johnson, in 2016. Along with that, voted R down ballot. Then in 2018, I voted D top to bottom, and will do so for the foreseeable future. There is no winning me back without a purge of just about every politician and leader in the party.

 

[Todem]

This is not entirely true. One party is full of traitors and the other party is a mixture of what should be multiple parties. Is one of those parties extremely left? Yep. But not all the sitting dems are extreme left. Not by a long shot.

As much as I'd like a moderate, I think the absolute most important thing right now is fixing corruption and Biden isn't the man for that. Among other things, we need campaign finance reform and we need lobbying reform. The rich are currently writing our laws. The fact net neutrality got repealed despite STRONG bipartisan support should tell you two things: 

1. Our democracy is broken right now. If both Republican voters AND Democratic voters both support net neutrality at above 80% each, then there should be no way in hell that it is repealed.
   
2. Republicans are straight up loyal to money (and their voters are too ignorant to realize it). Their constituents wanted to keep net neutrality, but their lobbyists paid them to repeal it. Look at the voting records of the House and Senate on the topic. It's sickening. It really might be 20 years before I consider voting Republican again.
   

If we all give up on Republicans altogether and start voting in the Democratic primaries we can find good politicians. People who will vote in our interest. If we ignore the primaries, you'll end up with someone too far left because most of us independents are done voting Republican and third party.

Hence why I registered Democrat specifically to vote in this years primaries. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Hence why I registered Democrat specifically to vote in this years primaries. 

Yep, but do you see my point about the two parties? It's not really the two extremes you think.

 

[pollardsvision]

Peculiar take. They are both leading him by a comfortable margin in polls. In reality, the Dems will win with any candidate they field - sure, trump still has a large swath of uneducated folks that will remain loyal to the end, but center leaning Republicans and independents know what has to be done. As a previously Republican leaning independent, I know I'll vote for any Dem over trump this time. I voted for Gary Johnson last time as a protest vote, but won't do it again. I'm not a fan of some of their policies, but there are two important things to remember when considering voting for Warren/Sanders:

1. They can't possibly blow through money faster or more recklessly/wastefully than Trump. I'd rather give poor people money than ultra rich. Of course my true preference is a balanced budget, but neither party is interested in that.
   
2. Sanders and Warren are both serious about fighting corruption, something the Republican party has consistently reminded us (via voting patterns) that they are not. Maybe they blow some money forgiving college debt, but in the long run, if they can reign in corruption via reform of lobbying and campaign finance, that will be a huge win for Americans as a whole. 
   

2018 was the last time I'll ever vote in the Republican primary (and I mainly did that to spite my awful rep). They are all dead to me for at least a generation. Anyone who stood by and supported trump deserves to lose their office. I'll now be voting for the most fiscally responsible Dems I can find.

I agree somewhat with Todem. My gut says a Warren nom means we've got a good chance at 4 more years of Trump. She's an exceptional woman. She'd make a great President and, surely, could be as trusted to fight corruption as any legitimate candidate I've ever seen. I disagree on some things (mainly student debt forgiveness and a $15 hour national minimum wage), but I would happily vote for her to be President. 

But despite what polls might say, I just don't see her winning. She does have a gift of explaining things in a way people can understand and she's building a lot of momentum. Maybe. I hope so, but it feels like such a risk. 

She's great, but it just feels a little far to the left to win a national election. 

We can't ignore the fact that Trump actually won. We still exist in that world. 

As I've said before, I'd prefer a moderate that's not an 80 year old that's already in a bunch of special interests' back pockets. But that's not going to happen. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

@IvanKaramazov

I'm curious. If the GOP outright dumped Trump tomorrow (This is dreamland.  Humor me) and decided to run a reasonable, sane, more traditionally conservative candidate, are you likely voting for them? I get you'd want to know some specifics about the candidate, etc.  But assume it's someone you find largely acceptable.

I know you didn't ask me this but.... I honestly don't know the answer. Every GOPer that supported this needs to be removed from office so if having someone from the party win the White House keeps those others in power I don't like that.

But if my choice was, say, Kasich v. Warren?

Ugh.

 

[FF Ninja]

I agree somewhat with Todem. My gut says a Warren nom means we've got a good chance at 4 more years of Trump. She's an exceptional woman. She'd make a great President and, surely, could be as trusted to fight corruption as any legitimate candidate I've ever seen. I disagree on some things (mainly student debt forgiveness and a $15 hour national minimum wage), but I would happily vote for her to be President. 

But despite what polls might say, I just don't see her winning. She does have a gift of explaining things in a way people can understand and she's building a lot of momentum. Maybe. I hope so, but it feels like such a risk. 

She's great, but it just feels a little far to the left to win a national election. 

We can't ignore the fact that Trump actually won. We still exist in that world. 

As I've said before, I'd prefer a moderate that's not an 80 year old that's already in a bunch of special interests' back pockets. But that's not going to happen. 

Sounds like we are extremely similar voters. I feel the same way about Warren and her policies. But as for her being such a risk, I think what you and Todem are discounting is that in the 2016 election trump's base was fully energized. 100%. A lot of us were just put off by the whole thing. As an independent, I couldn't believe the Republicans had screwed up so badly as to let a clown win their nomination and I couldn't believe the Democrats were basically forcing a Republican-lite candidate onto the public (for example, I could totally see Hillary continuing to be way too soft on things like bank regulation). But trump's ineptitude and morally reprehensible actions have energized the independents and the apathetics. We're not voting third party or skipping the election this time around. As can be seen in the mid-terms, people are coming out in force to get rid of the scourge. 2020 will be even stronger. Youth voting shot through the roof in 2018 and it was almost entirely blue. Don't think it won't happen again.

The ignorant will stay ignorant, but it isn't spreading. The base voting against them is spreading, though.

And I feel the exact same way about Biden and special interest groups.

I'm extremely concerned about our federal debt, but I recognize that for the debt to get fixed we have to fix corruption first. We can't have a moderate come in and continue the status quo and expect to turn things around by trimming a little fat here or there. That's not going to fix a one trillion dollar annual deficit. With Super PACs, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc., we're going to continue to see tax cuts for the ultra rich and corporate tax loopholes. So if I have to watch Warren or Sanders tread water on the national debt while cleaning up corruption, I can live with that.

 

[Sideshow Bob]

I know you didn't ask me this but.... I honestly don't know the answer. Every GOPer that supported this needs to be removed from office so if having someone from the party win the White House keeps those others in power I don't like that.

But if my choice was, say, Kasich v. Warren?

Ugh.

This is where I was going with my question.  This is exactly where I am.

 

[roadkill1292]

Pubbies better start warming up the bullpen. Starter has lost the zip on his fastball.

 

[The Narrator]

I’m with you, entirely. I was a ~28 year straight line GOP voter. Then, I started actually paying attention and realized that the official platform of the party was not even in the same zip code as how the party acted and voted in reality.

I then threw a protest vote myself, to Gary Johnson, in 2016. Along with that, voted R down ballot. Then in 2018, I voted D top to bottom, and will do so for the foreseeable future. There is no winning me back without a purge of just about every politician and leader in the party.

I did this a decade or so ago. Even threw the protest vote to Gary Johnson before I was willing to admit to myself that the Dems actually have a platform that I mostly agree with.