#fiscal conservatism | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 5 months ago

Text

After several weeks of feverish speculation about her partner in an abbreviated presidential campaign, Democratic presidential nominee and incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris finally announced her running mate today: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

As we learn more about her decision, its political ramifications will start to become clear. It is a cliché to say that deciding on a vice presidential running mate is the first major decision that voters see the nominee make. But it is true. And as the rollout takes place, the wisdom of that decision can become a major storyline on the campaign trail. As history shows, results may vary.

The most important short-term effect of the presidential nominee’s decision is to tell us who they want by their side as a governing partner and who they would want in their place should they no longer be capable of doing the job.

Some vice presidential selections have boosted perceptions of how a presidential nominee intends to govern. This is often true of outsider candidates who are not known quantities. Former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter set the mold in 1976 when he turned to Minnesota Sen. Walter Mondale, a Great Society stalwart and an insider on Capitol Hill. After building an entire campaign around the fact that he was an outsider to Washington—someone voters could trust in the aftermath of former President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal—Carter needed to send a signal to Democratic politicians and interest groups that they could trust him as well. As one of the most respected and effective liberal legislators on Capitol Hill, Carter’s pick of Mondale demonstrated that he understood the need to work within his party and not just around it. New York Times reporter Charles Mohr observed that the pick was “highly acceptable to much of the Washington political establishment, which had viewed the outsider from Georgia with disquiet.” Jimmy Who?—as newspapers joked about this unknown candidate—had sent a strong signal that as much as he railed against politics as usual, he was no fool when it came to getting things done.

Four years later, there were similar concerns among Republicans about former California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Though Reagan had excited conservative activists with his charisma and bold ideas, there were serious worries that he wouldn’t be effective in the corridors of Washington. In addition, some veterans in Washington feared that Reagan would ignore the Republican establishment and the traditional ideas held by many of its members, including fiscal conservatism and the U.S. commitment to international alliances. Reagan’s main primary opponent, former CIA Director George H.W. Bush, was the epitome of the GOP establishment. When Reagan announced that he was turning to Bush—actually a last-minute pivot following the collapse of talks to recruit former President Gerald Ford—he consolidated the entire party, as the selection helped members feel comfortable that the great communicator was also a serious politician.

In 1992, 46-year-old Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton undertook an unconventional path. With many experts predicting that Clinton had to find someone who was older and from outside the South given that the party’s power base had shifted to the coasts, Clinton instead doubled down. With Sen. Al Gore from Tennessee as his running mate, Clinton had chosen another young, centrist, television-savvy, and bright Southerner. Rather than regional balance, he sought to craft a campaign around Democrats emerging from the shadows of the Reagan era. Clinton’s first major decision signaled to voters that he really understood how the nation craved a new generation of leadership—a stark contrast to the older Bush—and that Democrats were serious about expanding their coalition, rooted in the North since the 1960s, back to the new South as well.

The message Illinois Sen. Barack Obama sent to his voters in 2008 was that he understood the need to court traditional white male working-class constituencies and to supplement his limited experience in foreign policy. For this reason, Obama turned to Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. As Obama drew support from younger voters, college-educated suburbanites, and Black and Latino voters, he showed with the Biden choice an understanding and respect for working-class white voters—and that he, too, would do what was necessary to win over the Democratic legislative establishment. Obama also signaled that he understood the need to shore up his foreign-policy expertise; Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, was widely respected for his knowledge on this issue, and Obama needed to show he knew what he didn’t know. “I can tell you that Joe Biden gets it,” Obama said when he announced that Biden would be his running mate in August 2008. “He’s that unique public servant who is at home in a bar in Cedar Rapids and the corridors of the Capitol, in the VFW hall in Concord, and at the center of an international crisis.” The decision suggested Obama was not just a firebrand but that he had a sophisticated feel for the coalition he would need to win election, which he did.

And Donald Trump made an effective choice in 2016, too. With Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Trump alleviated some concerns among the conservative base of the party that they could really trust him. Trump calmed some nerves by selecting a predictable, conventional, and reliable right-wing conservative. David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, praised the choice as giving “hope that Mike Pence will be effective in pulling the Republican ticket toward economic conservatism and limited government.” Though at the time it was not clear just how turbulent Trump’s term would end up being, in the summer of 2016 his choice was perceived as offering evidence that, behind the curtains, Trump would not veer too far from the conservative coalition, particularly evangelicals, once he obtained power.

Then there were the picks that helped torpedo, or nearly torpedo, candidacies. The first major gaffe in the contemporary political era started in 1972. South Dakota Democratic Sen. George McGovern went with Sen. Thomas Eagleton. Eagleton had strong credentials. Yet the press discovered that he had suffered from depression and undergone shock treatment. When the news came out, it sent McGovern’s campaign into turmoil, resulting in Eagleton’s withdrawal from the race. At a time when mental health problems were treated as taboo, and opponents stirred fears about whether he could be trusted to one day have his “finger on the button,” the revelation raised questions about how astute McGovern was and whether he had made a carelessly hurried decision. After fighting to survive, Eagleton eventually withdrew. Was that the kind of leadership McGovern would bring to the White House? Indeed, when Carter took his time to deliberate over his choice in 1976, the press contrasted his decision-making style with that of McGovern.

Few people thought that a spelling bee would become problematic in 1988 when Vice President George H.W. Bush announced that the young and popular Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle would be by his side. At first, conservatives praised the decision. Quayle was considered a future leader in the GOP. But his vice presidential run didn’t go so well. In 1988, questions emerged about Quayle’s academic record as well as allegations that he had used connections to avoid being drafted into Vietnam through an appointment to the National Guard. According to then-Tennessee Republican State Chairman James Henry in late August: “It’s already a negative factor. It’s just a question of how much of a negative.”

Though the questions did not stop Bush from being victorious, Quayle caused problems again during Bush’s reelection campaign in 1992. During a photo-op at a spelling bee in New Jersey, he corrected a 12-year-old boy named William Figueroa, who had spelled “potato” the right way. Quayle said that there should be an “e” at the end. Figueroa made things worse by telling the press that it “showed that the rumors about the vice president are true—that he’s an idiot.” As with McGovern, in 1988 and 1992, Quayle became evidence that Bush was not competent in thinking about who should surround him and that he was willing to kowtow to younger mavericks not ready to hold office.

Fast-forward to 2008, when McCain fell into the same trap. An older McCain wanted to counteract some of the excitement that Obama brought to the trail by going with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin—who some thought represented the next generation for the GOP. But things quickly soured. Her stumbling performance in the media raised questions about McCain’s ongoing claims that he brought much more experience and wisdom to the White House. If that was true, how could he pick Palin, and what would it mean for her to be by his side once in power? During her rallies, moreover, Palin appealed to far-right, fringe elements of the party. A selection that once suggested McCain had an eye on the future ended up bringing in elements of the GOP that undermined his reputation as a reasonable, respectable, and moderate conservative in the Reagan mold.

Some are already arguing that Trump’s recent pick of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance sent the exact wrong message about how he thinks at a critical moment. Right after the assassination attempt, there were Republicans who hoped he would pivot slightly to the center, or at least demonstrate that he wanted to broaden his coalition and act in a tamer fashion. Instead, by picking Vance at the Republican National Convention, Trump indicated he was diving deeper into chaos and radicalism. Trump’s decision offered proof to his critics, and some supporters, that he could not be trusted to surround himself with people who understood where most voters were on core issues. Vance’s proximity to Project 2025 and comments about strong-armed governance amplified concerns, rather than diminished them, about Trump’s interest in autocratic methods of rule.

In the process of selecting her running mate, Harris offered a few hints as to how she might govern. There were no significant leaks in this highly scrutinized decision-making period, which suggests that Harris wants to and can run a tight ship—a contrast with stories that emerged about turbulence among her staff. Harris also showed media savvy, conducting the rollout in a way that captured valuable attention for more than a week in a shortened campaign time frame. She can play the reality game show strategy, too. Handling press attention so effectively is like waving kryptonite in front of Trump, who thrives by dominating coverage. Harris does not get frazzled when confronted with the need to make big decisions quickly and under an intense spotlight.

Through picking Walz, Harris hopes to send a message of seriousness and stability. Walz has experience as a governor and as a U.S. representative. At 60, he is older than some of the other people considered, but not too old. Despite his avuncular personality, Walz has a serious command of policy; having him by her side shows that Harris wants to surround herself with seasoned partners who want to govern. He has experience not only in government but also outside of it, as a public-school teacher.

The Walz pick also shows that Harris wants to make decisions that respect the breadth of her coalition. The Minnesota governor is a proud progressive who does not shy away from defending social rights and championing government. He can help to fire up a base that is already fired up. Yet Walz is unusual for Democrats in that he embraces these values while also appealing to rural Americans who have veered red. Within his state, Walz has a history of doing well in Republican districts—among the kind of voters Vance likes to represent. Importantly, he appeals to such voters without selling out his political principles. He is not afraid to take on the Republicans, nor does he back away from his beliefs when confronted with the standard attacks about socialism. He is an embodiment of the alternative that exists for working Americans struggling with costs and insecurity: a path forward without the reactionary politics that have become sine qua non for the modern Republican Party.

And then there is the “weird” comment through which Walz rose to the top of the pack, framing Trump and Vance with rhetoric that caught fire within the Democratic Party. Doubling down on someone who has media savvy complements the rollout. Harris plans to build a team that can handle the press and counteract the Trumpian noise. Democrats have long complained that they are bad at messaging. Harris wants to fix that and to pass bold policies that she can sell to the public rather than assuming people will appreciate what she has done.

30 notes · View notes

luulapants · 10 months ago

Text

"The Democratic party is more progressive than it's ever been!!"

The people you're trying to argue with are talking about fiscal policy. You're talking about social issues. The current mainstream Democratic party is fiscally conservative, pro-corporation, anti-union, anti-regulation, pro-privatization.

That is what people are concerned about because socially progressive policies don't mean shit if we're all in debt and fighting for our next meal. Social progressivism requires a society to engage in empathy and survival mindsets decrease our capacity for empathy. Democracy requires an educated electorate and poverty decreases our capacity to learn. Fiscal conservatism is an existential threat, and we currently are being told to choose between two parties so fiscally conservative, we've basically recreated feudalism. When people say "both parties are the same" it's not because they can't see the difference in social policy, it's because they are talking about fiscal policy. And that's not even getting into global or tribal politics.

#us politics

65 notes · View notes

stephenist · 2 years ago

Text

CALLER: In 2019, there’s gonna be a $1 trillion deficit. Trump doesn’t really care about that. He’s not really a fiscal conservative. We have to acknowledge that Trump has been cruelly used.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it’s been around.

Source

#politics #david jolly #twitter #rush limbaugh #fiscal conservatism was always a sham

2K notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 7 months ago

Text

Tim Ganser at The UnPopulist:

Since the end of World War II, Germans had by and large steadfastly resisted voting for far-right populists. That norm was shattered in the last decade by the success of the political party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which seemed to gain more traction as it radicalized into a full-blown, hard right populist party. A year into its existence, spurred by widespread discontent with German fiscal policy, the AfD won seven seats in European Parliament. In 2017, after undergoing a hard-right turn, it won 94 seats in the German federal elections, good for third place overall. For the past year, the AfD has consistently ranked second in Politico’s poll aggregator tracking the public’s voting intentions.

In this Sunday’s European Parliament elections, roughly 1 in 6 German voters is expected to cast a ballot for the AfD, whose members have trivialized the Holocaust, encouraged their followers to chant Nazi slogans, and participated in a secret conference where they fantasized about forced deportations of naturalized citizens they derisively call “Passport Germans.” Worse still, the AfD is predicted to be the strongest party, with up to a third of the vote share, in the three elections for state parliament in Saxony and Thuringia on Sept. 1 and in Brandenburg on Sept. 22. And in generic polls for a hypothetical federal election, the AfD fares even better than it did in any previous election. How did Germany get to this point?

The AfD’s Origin Story

The AfD was founded in early 2013 by a group of conservatives, led by the economics professor, Bernd Lucke, greatly disillusioned with then-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s fiscal policy. In their view, the European debt crisis had revealed deep instability within the eurozone project as smaller nations found themselves unable to cope with the economic demands of membership, and they believed Merkel’s focus on saving the euro was coming at the expense of German economic interests. This was, however, the opposite of a populist complaint—in fact, the AfD was initially referred to as a “Professorenpartei” (a professor’s party) because of the party’s early support from various economics professors who were more interested in fiscal policy than catering to popular will. In its earliest days, the AfD could best be characterized as a cranky but respectable party of fiscal hardliners. Its anti-establishment posture stemmed entirely from its belief in the necessity of austerity. Even its name could be construed less as nationalistic and more an answer to the dictum coined by Merkel—“alternativlose Politik” (policy for which there is no alternative)—to defend her bailouts during the eurozone crisis.

Although the AfD had launched an abstract economic critique of Merkel’s policies that could be hard to parse for non-experts, its contrarian stance resonated with a significant portion of Germans. Right out of the gate, the AfD obtained the highest vote share of any new party since 1953, nearly clearing the 5% threshold for inclusion in the Bundestag, Germany’s Parliament, in its first electoral go round. Its success was also measurable in terms of membership, passing the 10,000 mark almost immediately after its formation. The rapid increase in membership, however, helped lay the groundwork for its turn toward right-wing populism. Perhaps due to pure negligence—or a combination of calculation and ambition—the party’s founders did little to stop right-wing populists from swelling its rolls. And as the German economy emerged through the European debt crisis in good financial shape, fiscal conservatism naturally faded from the public’s consciousness. However, a new European crisis having to do with migrants came to dominate the popular imagination. The AfD hardliners seized on the growing anti-migrant opinion, positioning the AfD as its champion, thereby cementing the party’s turn towards culture war issues like immigration and national identity.

Starting in late 2014, organized right-wing protesters took to the streets to loudly rail against Germany’s decision to admit Muslim migrants, many fleeing the Syrian civil war. The AfD right wing’s desire to become the political home of nativism led to a rift within the party that culminated in founder Bernd Lucke’s being ousted as leader in 2015, and his replacement with hardliner Frauke Petry. Lucke left the party entirely, citing its right-wing shift, following in the footsteps of what other party leaders had already done and more would do in the coming year. Up until this point, the AfD unwittingly helped the cause of right-wing populism. If the reactionary far-right had tried to start a party from scratch, it would have likely failed. The AfD, after all, was created within a respectable mold, trading on the credentials of its earliest founders and leaders. But with saner voices now pushed out, right-wing populists had the party with public respectability and an established name all to themselves. And they deliberately turned it into a Trojan horse for reactionary leaders who wanted to “fight the system from within.

[...]

A New Normal in Germany

As right-wing populist positions have become part of the political discourse, Germany is now in the exact same position as some of its European neighbors with established hardline populist parties. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni ascended to the premiership in October 2022 as the head of her neo-fascist Fratelli d’Italia party, which is poised to perform well in the upcoming European Parliament elections. In France, the Marine Le Pen-led far-right Rassemblement National (RN) is set to bag a third of votes in those elections, roughly double what President Macron’s governing coalition is expected to obtain.

What makes the situation in Germany especially worrisome is that, unlike in France and Italy, far-right parties had failed to garner any meaningful vote share in nationwide elections until just seven years ago; indeed, until the 2017 federal election, there had never been a right-wing populist party that had received more than six percent of the national vote in Germany. The nation’s special vigilance toward far right ethnonationalism in light of its history of Nazi atrocities was expected to spare Germany the resurgence of far-right populism. But it actually led to complacency among mainstream parties. By 2017, the AfD—already in its right-wing populist phase—received nearly 13% of the vote in the federal election to become the third-strongest parliamentary entity. And by then it had also made inroads in all state parliaments as well as the European Parliament. The norm against it was officially gone.

To be sure, the AfD is not on track to take over German politics. It currently has the fifth most seats among all German parties in the Bundestag, fourth most seats among German parties in the European Parliament, and is a distant eighth in party membership. Nor is it currently a threat to dominate European politics—late last month, the AfD was ousted from the Marine Le Pen-led Identity and Democracy (ID) party coalition, the most right-wing group in the European Parliament. Le Pen, herself a far-right radical, explained the AfD’s expulsion by describing the party as “clearly controlled by radical groups.” But none of the above offer good grounds for thinking the AfD will be relegated to the fringes of German or European politics.

After the election, the AfD could rejoin ID, or it could form a new, even more radical right-wing presence within the European Parliament. Some fear that the AfD could potentially join forces with Bulgaria’s ultranationalist Vazrazhdane. Its leader, Kostadin Kostadinov, said that AfD’s expulsion from ID could create an opening to form “a real conservative and sovereigntist group in the European Parliament.” Also, ID’s removal of the AfD wasn’t due to its stated policy platform being out of step with Europe’s right-wing populist project. Rather, it was because the AfD’s leading candidate, Maximillian Krah, was implicated in a corruption and spying scandal involving China and Russia, and because he said he would not automatically construe a member of the Nazi Schutzstaffel (SS) to be a criminal. Absent these entirely preventable missteps, the AfD would be in good standing with right-wing populist partners in Europe.

Seeing far-right Nazi-esque Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) rise in prominence in Germany is a sad sight.

#Germany #Right Wing Populism #Far Right #AfD #Alternative für Deutschland #European Debt Crisis #Eurozone Debt Crisis #Bernd Lucke #Frauke Petry #Syrian Refugee Crisis #Björn Höcke

38 notes · View notes

elumish · 11 months ago

Note

Do you have any advice for writing characters I disagree with? I have a character who I think would be politically conservative, and I am not. They're not supposed to be good, but they should be likeable. I keep switching between giving them really bad strawman opinions and just giving them my own views, and none of those are right for the character. It's really difficult to get the nuance right.

I think the key here is thinking about how people end up with the beliefs that they end up with.

Whether it tracks through with facts, belief systems are generally built on some sort of logical infrastructure that would then show up in this character's thinking.

If you take anti-immigrant views, for example, there are a few types of things that you see, often ultimately based on fear and/or anxiety. One of the biggest fears is that immigrants are "stealing" people's jobs. This may be based on the character's own anxieties about economic access or instability, or it's based on having been fed a constant stream of media noise about it, etc. Alternatively, their fears may be about race or religion--about the idea that people with the same cultural, religious, and racial background as them will no longer be the majority. This may manifest in thinking about what "type" of country it is, or about economic or political access, or about fears of oppression by a previously marginalized group.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, but my point is this: people with every viewpoint, whether it's one we agree with or one with think is cartoonishly evil or anything in between, has a foundation to that view. That is how you write someone who believes something different from you: you decide what the foundation is of their beliefs and then you write them from there.

And sometimes you'll write them and hold your nose and say ick ick ick and know it's still the right way to write them because they accurately reflect a point of view that you hate.

(Also I just have to say - the concept of politically conservative, which was always a little complicated, has become extremely complicated in the last decade. Is their conservatism based in fiscal conservatism and being a deficit hawk? Is it based in the Christian right? Is it populist? Is it based primarily in racism? Are they a neo-con war hawk or an isolationist? Do they fall more in "everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" or "we should be bombing abortion clinics"?)

As for making them likeable--you can't make every reader like them, no matter how you write them. But if they're supposed to be likeable to other characters, then that is likely to do more with personality than with beliefs. There are charismatic conservatives, there are kind conservatives, there are generous conservatives--maybe not to everyone, but to the people who they like (and, to be fair, liberals/progressives are not necessarily kind or generous to people they dislike, either).

Someone can have anti-immigrant views and be good with kids. Someone can have fiscally conservative views and be sweet to their husband or wife. Someone can be anti-feminist and help their friend move. Political beliefs don't preclude personal kindness or charisma.

#conservatism #likeable characters

60 notes · View notes

tanadrin · 6 months ago

Text

This edition also includes some really useful historical notes to augment Book I of Utopia; the early 16th century was a time when the population was growing, adding slack to a labor market that had been tight since the Black Death (to the improvement of the position of the peasantry that survived it), there was gradual inflation that was also eroding at the position of anybody without much capital to invest, patterns of trade were changing, and of course the process of enclosure was spreading.

The problem wasn't just a lack of, like, theoretical underpinnings for dealing with these economic and social issues. Of course Henry VIII didn't have a court economist or anything to help him out with his fiscal policy. But it was also just that the conception of what the law and what government was for was different: in the much more leisurely pace of the premodern world, there was a strong feeling that the law and government were supposed to basically be a steady-state system. You would figure out the ideal set of laws, implement them, and be done; you might have to work to enforce those laws, but the laws were not supposed to be constantly changing, and you definitely weren't supposed to have to be continually updating and expanding them as an instrument of policy, because the world in general was supposed to be much like it always was, from one decade to the next.

And that's not a crazy way to view the world in the Middle Ages! Premodern inflation rates were low. People's intuitions around value and price were based on that experience. Population growth was low. Patterns of international trade didn't change quickly. When things did change suddenly, it was either because of a catastrophe like the Black Death or upheavals like war or famine; and communities and individuals that had won legal privileges from their feudal lords were jealous of those privileges, leading (along with the inherently fragile nature of subsistence agriculture) to a certain conservatism in the culture.

In this worldview, the job of a king or a minister isn't to be the careful manager of a dynamic system. It's to be a wise and thoughtful dispenser of justice and guardian of the inherited legal system. This is also the vision of Utopia itself: a society which has settled into an ideal steady-state, whose political economy is thus fixed, and which has no real room for "development," because the kind of development you or I think of as inherent to history is, at best, a synonym for "something went horribly wrong, and we have to repair it," if it exists at all. The irony there, of course, is that Utopia is not a medieval book: it's being written just as the Renaissance is bursting over Europe ushering in the beginning of modernity. Things are changing in England, and while they are changing slowly right now, the pace of change is about to pick up drastically, especially when that little German monk publishes his 95 theses.

Really, I wonder what it must have felt like to be a humanist at the beginning of the 16th century. There is much to be excited about--news from the new world (not yet the battleground of large European empires), the rediscovery of classical learning, the flourishing of art and literature. But so much is about to change--and much of it in a bad way! the European Wars of Religion are just around the corner!--and you have no idea.

31 notes · View notes

13thpythagoras · 2 years ago

Text

GOP: I want school vouchers because I don’t trust the government

same GOP: I trust the government police with my life

🍵🍵🍵

Someone been brewing some mighty fine tea this week

#same energy #politics posts #police get over 10x the education budget but GOP wants to cut the education budget #that's not fiscal conservatism that's math illiteracy / straight up fascism

161 notes · View notes

ingek73 · 5 months ago

Text

Celebrity·Posted on Aug 9, 2024

Republicans Voting For Kamala Harris Over Donald Trump Are Sharing The Reasons Why, And This Makes So Much Sense

"Donald Trump is destroying the GOP, and the only way to stop that is to help Kamala Harris defeat him."

by Morgan Sloss

BuzzFeed Staff

Since President Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed his VP, I've seen quite a few social media posts from Republicans announcing that they'll vote for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump.

Kamala Harris smiling in a suit next to Donald Trump in a suit and red tie

Andrew Harnik/ Brandon Bell / Getty Images

Naturally, I was curious why so many conservatives are willing to vote against their party. So, I recently asked the Republicans in the BuzzFeed Community and got nearly 600 responses in one day! Here's what they had to say:

1. "Because I'm voting against MAGA, not for Harris. I believe in small government, personal freedoms, balanced budgets, and strong alliances. I used to vote Republican until 2016 when that party I voted for stopped existing. I'm willing to lend my vote to the Democrats for as long as the GOP continues to be the party of forced religion, forced patriotism, forced birth, white nationalism, and isolationism."

—purplesnail73

2. "I’m a Texan, a born-again Evangelical Christian, and a gun owner. I'm also a Navy veteran who proudly served. I cannot and will not vote for Donald J. Trump. His words and actions are antithetical to Christ’s teaching. His willingness to lie and wildly exaggerate is off-putting at best. As a veteran, his denigrating remarks toward senior brass undermine the good order and discipline required for a strong and effective military. His praise of dictators and autocrats is abhorrent."

—ancyghoul56

3. "I consider myself a conservative moderate, but I strongly believe in reproductive rights, so I’ll be voting for Harris. I wasn’t going to vote for Biden though, so I’m happy she’s the ticket now."

—laurieh4d6629bb4

4. "I became a registered Republican when we were in the days of Mitt Romney and John McCain — people who deeply cared about our country, had relevant leadership experience, and seemed capable of reviving and maintaining our economy. I was terrified of the socialist agenda being pushed by Bernie Sanders and wanted anything but that. But I’ve realized that the only thing scarier than the extreme left is the extreme right."

"Being a 'New England Republican,' it’s more about libertarian values (states’ rights and a free market) than social conservatism based in religion. I am not a religious person and do not want my (or anyone else’s) rights dictated by others’ religious beliefs. Project 2025 and the decrease in women’s rights are now some of my greatest fears — along with genuine questions about Trump’s mental state, criminal record, and his ability to work with other nations. I would not only be scared to have him as president but embarrassed, so at this point, I’ll vote for anyone else."

—Anonymous

5. "I am a registered Republican. However, I have never voted for Trump. In 2016, I couldn’t get past the Access Hollywood tape. In 2020, I knew he was only interested in what the presidency could do for him. In 2024, Trump SCARES ME TO MY CORE."

—Anonymous

6. "I am a lifelong Republican. Jimmy Carter is the only Democrat I have ever voted for. I voted for Trump twice because I am a Republican, but mostly because he looked to me to be the lesser of two evils. I just can’t bring myself to vote for him again. He has become the greater of two evils! I’m not thrilled by the Democratic platform or many of their priorities. But Trump is just too divisive, and as a nation, we desperately need to come together and find shared solutions to the problems our country is facing."

—charmingkid887

7. "I consider myself fiscally conservative and feel strongly about smaller, more efficient government, less regulation, and fewer entitlements. Let's be real: Trump's idea of fiscal responsibility is giving more to the 1%. Repeatedly, Trump's government handed money to the rich! Throughout the pandemic, large companies were allowed to reap benefits from the government that smaller businesses did not have the resources to explore. Less regulation and freedom have always been a cornerstone of the Republican party, yet laws were passed regulating what a woman can do with her own body."

"Freedom to Trump and the current makeup of the Republican party seems to be giving your money to the rich. Lastly, Trump is a liar and a convicted felon and belongs behind bars, NOT in any position of power."

—Anonymous

8. "I care about the future of my grandchildren. I’m a white woman, and my grandchildren are Black. I am very proud of who they are. I want them to have freedoms and choices, not hatred and racism. Former president Trump's views do not line with my views; the future of this country depends on us making a major change. I believe in Kamala Harris and what she stands for and our country. As for our gay communities, people's choice to love who they choose is also very relevant to my family. I love them — male, female, or undecided. We are all people; we all bleed. This country has bled enough. We will win. God bless Kamala Harris."

—Anonymous

9. "I am an Eisenhower/Kinzinger Republican with three sons serving in the US military. How is this a difficult choice for any educated, ethical human being? Trump is a horrible person, utterly devoid of any political vision, ethical compass, or personal integrity. He’s a convicted felon. Adjudicated fraudster. Indicted for multiple other felonies. A vocal supporter of the world’s worst megalomaniac dictators. For real? I have to explain why no one should ever support him, regardless of party affiliation? Is that what we’ve come to? That’s what MAGA has done to our country in general and the GOP in particular. It’s elevated crass and criminal behavior to a level of normalcy."

—Anonymous

10. "Trump is a wannabe dictator, and Vance doesn’t respect my existence as a single, childless dog mom! Project 2025 scares the crap out of me, and we need decency in the White House! We are fighting for our LIVES here!"

—Betherick85

11. "I’m a former US Marine and was a registered Arizona Republican until 2021, when I switched to Independent. I reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, but after January 6, I was done with him. Donald Trump is destroying the GOP, and the only way to stop that is to help Kamala Harris defeat him. A defeat would break Trump’s grip on the GOP and signal a shift in American politics. It would mean that Trump’s brand of politics no longer holds the same influence, which is crucial for the future of our democracy."

—youngpear70

12. "I’m voting for Harris because I like the level-headedness I see in her and Walz. I’m hopeful that she’ll be our first woman in the Oval Office. I detest Trump, who seems to be an unethical, arrogant bully and threatens the progress made in human rights over the last 100 years. It boggles my mind how Americans are cool with his lies and crimes. He has been both a joke and a danger to the world. I vote based on research, not my party."

—heathere4b60bc97b

13. "I have been a Republican since before I could vote, back when I enlisted in the National Guard as a 17-year-old. At that time, and throughout my 23-year military career, I swore an oath to the Constitution, not the president. I believe in democracy, I believe in God, and I believe in a lot of what Republicans say they stand for. But I absolutely do not believe in Trump and his supporters. They have clearly demonstrated that their only objective is power and control, not democracy, truth, or honesty. Oh, and they are weird!"

—Anonymous

14. "I am scared of what will happen to women and the LGBTQ community under another Trump presidency. I couldn't live with that on my conscience if I voted for Trump, and he won."

—Anonymous

15. "Trump is a convicted felon who has turned the GOP into a MAGA cult. He tried to steal the 2020 election. He lies about the legal system and law enforcement. He attempts to destroy anyone not 100% loyal to him. His entire administration says he is unfit to serve. Vance is a fraud. Harris and Walz are normal people who care about America."

—Anonymous

16. "Registered Republican since 1996 at 18, and 2016 was the first year I did not vote for a Republican for president (also did not for him in 2020 and definitely not in 2024). The constant belittling of those who don't like him, the number of blue-collar workers he and his cronies have screwed over the years, and the hijacking of faith (when he is clearly one of the most godless people by his deeds and words)."

—Anonymous

17. "I voted Republican for 40 years. I don’t recognize the Republican Party anymore. Where are the fiscally conservative, free enterprise, foreign policy hawks of the past? All I hear now is hate. And while I fully support free enterprise, we can’t deny the science of climate change and need to find ways to reduce our impact on the planet before it is too late."

—Anonymous

18. "I did not like how former president Trump attacked Vice President Harris’ race. That crossed a line for me as I have a family member of mixed race. I do not see Trump as a sensitive human. I’m seeing hate from the former president, and I don’t think he can control his temper. I like Tim Walz."

—Anonymous

19. "I don't support dismantling the Department of Education. I do not support policies that would limit the ability of public schools to do their jobs. A voucher or tax credit system for 'school choice' is the death knell of a society. Public school serves as a baseline which all other forms of education are held to. Eliminating public schools will lead to the rise of schools with wacky and potentially dangerous ideologies. Public school is the fabric of our society and must be preserved."

—Anonymous

20. "I will be voting for Kamala Harris. I have not and will not vote for Donald Trump. I was raised as a Catholic in a Republican household and taught to be responsible for my own actions. Donald Trump has no concept of personal or social responsibility. Mr. Trump has lied, used, manipulated, and gaslighted everyone in his realm for personal gain. This type of person has no place in a leadership role for this country or any position of management and responsibility, for that matter. Mr. Trump does not understand the concept of accountability."

"My first impression of Mr. Trump was his role in The Apprentice, which was appalling. Mr. Trump's public behavior and lack of ability to address growth and social issues critical to the well-being of the citizens of this country or the world community is unacceptable. The framers of our Constitution must be rolling in their graves!"

—Anonymous

21. "Trump is the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party since Nixon and Watergate! The man is obviously unfit for public office. The only person Donald Trump cares about is Donald Trump. He knows next to nothing about the Constitution or democracy. The way he acted about the 2020 election results was absolutely DISGRACEFUL!"

—Anonymous

22. "I’m raising a daughter in this world, and I would never leave her in Trump's care. That means something to me. I don’t like Kamala, and I’m not happy to vote for her. But if I can’t even trust you around innocent children, how can I trust you to run a country?"

—Anonymous

23. "I haven't voted for a Republican since Trump got nominated the first time, despite being a registered Republican. I am okay with every Democrat and Republican who has ever held the office of president in my lifetime except Trump. I haven't always agreed with them or voted for them, but I respected them and believed they were doing what they thought was right. I think Harris will be similar. I think she knows that her job will be to do what is right. Trump has always believed his job was to take from everybody else. He was never qualified for the job."

—Anonymous

24. "Because Trump and Vance are both creepy. Trump was the worst president this country has ever had."

—c49a679543

25. "I am a Republican who served seven terms as the elected prosecuting attorney of a county in Missouri. I voted for Donald Trump twice. I will never, under any circumstances, vote for him again. I became a Republican during the Reagan years. We were the party of strong law enforcement, tough national defense, and limited government. Neither party was interested in making abortion a criminal offense. Donald Trump made a cult of the party. His reaction to the January 6 riots, his trashing of the FBI, his vow to pardon rioters who violated the Capitol building, and his 34 felony convictions have made it impossible for me to respect him. The only vote I would cast for him would be GUILTY if I ever got to sit as a juror in one of his cases."

—Anonymous

26. "Foreign policy: Stand by Ukraine. Stand by NATO. We can always deal with differences in domestic policy and legislation. Foreign policy is driven by the president, and the current GOP is dangerously enamored with dictators. Trump praises Putin and insults our own allies, making future conflicts more likely."

27. "There are a lot of things to not like about Trump. The thing that really gets me the most is what he manages to bring out in people. I’m slowly seeing people I love and highly respected turn into hypocritical, dramatically angry morons who can’t seem to see past themselves. I just can’t sit by and participate in letting that type of hatred keep growing."

"If I’m going to use my vote, then I’m going to use it towards making history in a positive way. And I would love to be able to say I voted for the first female president. I like Harris a lot more than I’ve ever liked Hilary."

—Anonymous

28. "Christian nationalism poses a threat to my Christian faith, my LGBTQ friends, and to the fabric of our nation. It’s terrifying to see what’s become of my family members who tout Christian beliefs but are posting photos with a convicted felon and convicted sexual predator as a new messiah. Horrific."

—Anonymous

29. And finally, "I will vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for two reasons. 1) I despise Donald Trump. He lacks character, dignity, morals, and empathy. He’s one of the worst humans on the planet and never should’ve been a presidential candidate, let alone a president. 2) I like the message of hope and a brighter future that Harris and Walz are bringing. They are good and decent people the American people can be proud to have as our President and Vice President."

—Anonymous

Note: Some responses have been edited for length and/or clarity.

#us elections #donald trump #kamala harris #republicans voting for harris #republicans #democrats #tim walz #jd vance

21 notes · View notes