6 ms·

In light of the actions of the previous Governor [1], does it make you re-think your party affiliation? [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/eric-grei

In light of the actions of the previous Governor [1], does it make you re-think your party affiliation? [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/eric-greitens-former-missouri-governor-who-resigned-amid-multiple-scandals-n1261785 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/eric-greitens-form...

froggertoaster 5y ago
What should I be instead, a Democrat? The answer to your question is no. Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based solely on the actions of two members of the party? I'll also add, other than this small stain, Parsons has been good. No major changes or upsets. It's boring here in Missouri politically, and I like that.
- dekhn 5y ago
  You shouldn't. You might want to write a letter to the governor expressing your concern at his lack of acumen, but beyond that, I wouldn't do anything.
- criley2 5y ago
  It's strange that you say "why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members" as if those two members weren't the two highest elected members of the state party. It's like if the CEO and Chairman of the board of a corporation were embezzling funds and someone replied "Why would I change my opinion of a company based on two random employees?" I think you did that because it's pretty obvious why someone might sour on an organization whose highest leaders continued in a pattern of bad behavior. In fact, quite the opposite of your claim here, I think it would be common sense to change your opinion on an organization based on a pattern of misbehavior by its top leaders. The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level.
  - froggertoaster 5y ago
    > The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level. Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Both parties suck. There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
    - celticninja 5y ago
      In part though that is because you are looking on the micro level. This Republican facing no consequences enables others to act the same, then when it is so widespread that it infects the entire party it becomes acceptable for all of the party. Now they know they can get away with it and the electorate doesnt punish them. Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse.
      - justin66 5y ago
        > Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse. In this case, it was not a guy but a woman running against Parsons. (Wow, those are some downvotes! People reacted to this comment like a Missouri voter reacts to a female gubernatorial candidate.)
      - dgfitz 5y ago
        > This Republican facing no consequences enables others to act the same, then when it is so widespread that it infects the entire party it becomes acceptable for all of the party. I'm sure we could compile a list of elected officials across a spectrum of political parties where no consequences are faced (for an action, in-action, decision, cover-up, etc) when they may be warranted. I don't think this is a valid argument.
    - 5y ago
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > What should I be instead, a Democrat? I never suggested that. There are plenty of people walking around who are unaffiliated or support 3rd parties. Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat". > Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members of the party? They are not just "two members of the party", they are last two heads of the party in your state. When Republicans stopped doing things I agreed with, I stopped calling myself a Republican.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    > Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat". If only both sides of the fence understood that...
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      This reads like finger pointing used to justify an existing stance.
- consumer451 5y ago
  I would recommend not being devoted to any political group or party. It's the greatest hack. You can chose policies à la carte, you can decide who you associate yourself with on a case-by-case basis. You can avoid group think errors in judgement. If you must register for primaries in your state, then that's fine. But that's where the association would end in my book.
- floodyberry- 5y ago
  Great Missouri facts: * One abortion clinic in the entire state! It would be zero if not for the pesky courts. If Mike gets his way, Missouri will be "the most Pro-Life state in the country!" * No permit required for open or concealed carry! Sell or buy your guns with whoever you like. You can even point your guns at filthy liberals with your finger on the trigger and the governor will pardon you of any crimes you may be convicted of * 54% of the state is fully vaccinated, one of the lowest rates in the country! If you need any more encouragement to visit, masks are optional and actually frowned upon by the better class of Missouri citizens (conservatives)! * Current Missouri Senator Josh Hawley attempted to overthrow the government on Jan 6! * No voting by mail! "So if they don’t [feel safe voting in person], then don’t go out and vote". Great words, Mike!
brimble 5y ago
What really sucks is that Greitens at least seemed to give half a damn about responsible governing. I'm very much not a Republican, but I'd much rather have him back, if those are my options. That sort's rare in either party—and, I might suggest, even rarer in the party that's openly anti-government much of the time.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  Reminds me of the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election, between Edwin Edwards (blatantly corrupt) and David Duke (Klansman). The bumper stickers all over the state said "Vote for the Crook! It's Important!".
jimbob45 5y ago
The problem is that the grass is not often greener on the other side. In states like Oregon, Texas, and Florida, there very often is significant support to move to the opposing party because the incumbent governor is truly bad. However, the opposition fails to put up a compelling candidate and those states remain stuck with the fools they have. Consider Florida. A lot of people really don't like DeSantis but the alternative the DNC of Florida put up was...a literal methhead[0]. Oregon has Kate Brown who has signed extremely unpopular legislation in Oregon but the opposition was...a guy who isn't even a Republican anymore[1]. Texas has Greg Abbott who is universally hated in Texas after the energy fiasco of 2021 but his opponent is a guy who failed to win a Senate election[2], let alone the governorship (have fun donating to that). It's easy to look at the political parties of a state's elected representatives and make assumptions about the people there but it's very important to consider the actual people being elected before you draw conclusions about the politics of the citizens. [0]https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-andrew-gillum-drugs-hotel-20200422-x5cpq645afbcbfzuydj5pikmsy-story.html https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-andrew-gill... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knute_Buehler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knute_Buehler [2]https://www.shorturl.at/xEKZ3 https://www.shorturl.at/xEKZ3
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > It's easy to look at the political parties of a state's elected representatives and make assumptions about the people there but it's very important to consider the actual people being elected before you draw conclusions about the politics of the citizens. I didn't draw any conclusions, they said they were Republican in Missouri who disagreed with the Governor. I simply asked if that made them "re-think" their their affiliation. That so many people assumed I was asking them to switch to Democrat is evidence of how dug in our society has become. It contains two big assumptions. 1. Re-assessing your affiliation based on political performance is the same as switching to another party 2. If you aren't a Republican, you must be a Democrat
  - wara23arish 5y ago
    I am an American as of 2 years ago. The whole gov/system is by default 2 party system. Some of the questions that you are asked during your citizenship interview is what are the two main parties. Im not saying I like it. But it’s a fair assumption to make when literally all voters only consider the two parties.
endisneigh 5y ago
I’m curious - by the same logic should an American re-think their citizenship based on the previous presidents?
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  How is citizenship related to political party? I didn't ask if they thought about moving, I asked if they thought about who they choose to support going forward?
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads into tedious partisan flamewars. They're repetitive, off topic, usually turn nasty, and are not what HN is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  My comment was very careful to not include partisanship or judgement. It was a question on if events caused them to "re-think" their affiliation. Flagging it, while allowing commenters to spew Russian propaganda for the past 2 weeks doesn't seem to be "what HN is for".
  - dang 5y ago
    I don't agree; it was a cross-examiney question, which is likely to feel like an attack even if it's carefully phrased, and the implicit point was obviously partisan. If you didn't intend it that way, then you needed to do a better job of disambiguating your intent. There are lots of ways to do that, but if you don't do it, a comment like this will have inflammatory effects on the thread whether you intended that or not. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... As for Russian propaganda, that isn't remotely representative of the forum. You may be falling prey to the bias that causes negative data points to stand out more (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), as well as the bias that causes internet users to feel that other commenters are foreign agents, astroturfers, spies, shills, bots, etc. On the latter, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If anyone wants an in-depth explanation, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 is one of many.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      > the implicit point was obviously partisan No, it was not. Partisan would be asking if they were going to switch to a specific different party. I asked if they re-thought their affiliation. > As for Russian propaganda, that isn't remotely representative of the forum. I never claimed it was, just that it has increased the past two weeks without much moderation. > the bias that causes internet users to feel that other commenters are foreign agents, astroturfers, spies, shills, bots, etc. Another thing I never claimed. All of these assumptions sound like they may be an example of the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight). Is that how this works?

froggertoaster 5y ago

What should I be instead, a Democrat? The answer to your question is no. Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based solely on the actions of two members of the party? I'll also add, other than this small stain, Parsons has been good. No major changes or upsets. It's boring here in Missouri politically, and I like that.

dekhn 5y ago
You shouldn't. You might want to write a letter to the governor expressing your concern at his lack of acumen, but beyond that, I wouldn't do anything.
criley2 5y ago
It's strange that you say "why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members" as if those two members weren't the two highest elected members of the state party. It's like if the CEO and Chairman of the board of a corporation were embezzling funds and someone replied "Why would I change my opinion of a company based on two random employees?" I think you did that because it's pretty obvious why someone might sour on an organization whose highest leaders continued in a pattern of bad behavior. In fact, quite the opposite of your claim here, I think it would be common sense to change your opinion on an organization based on a pattern of misbehavior by its top leaders. The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level.
- froggertoaster 5y ago
  > The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level. Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Both parties suck. There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
  - celticninja 5y ago
    In part though that is because you are looking on the micro level. This Republican facing no consequences enables others to act the same, then when it is so widespread that it infects the entire party it becomes acceptable for all of the party. Now they know they can get away with it and the electorate doesnt punish them. Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse.
    - justin66 5y ago
      > Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse. In this case, it was not a guy but a woman running against Parsons. (Wow, those are some downvotes! People reacted to this comment like a Missouri voter reacts to a female gubernatorial candidate.)
    - dgfitz 5y ago
      > This Republican facing no consequences enables others to act the same, then when it is so widespread that it infects the entire party it becomes acceptable for all of the party. I'm sure we could compile a list of elected officials across a spectrum of political parties where no consequences are faced (for an action, in-action, decision, cover-up, etc) when they may be warranted. I don't think this is a valid argument.
  - 5y ago
long_time_gone 5y ago
> What should I be instead, a Democrat? I never suggested that. There are plenty of people walking around who are unaffiliated or support 3rd parties. Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat". > Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members of the party? They are not just "two members of the party", they are last two heads of the party in your state. When Republicans stopped doing things I agreed with, I stopped calling myself a Republican.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  > Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat". If only both sides of the fence understood that...
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    This reads like finger pointing used to justify an existing stance.
consumer451 5y ago
I would recommend not being devoted to any political group or party. It's the greatest hack. You can chose policies à la carte, you can decide who you associate yourself with on a case-by-case basis. You can avoid group think errors in judgement. If you must register for primaries in your state, then that's fine. But that's where the association would end in my book.
floodyberry- 5y ago
Great Missouri facts: * One abortion clinic in the entire state! It would be zero if not for the pesky courts. If Mike gets his way, Missouri will be "the most Pro-Life state in the country!" * No permit required for open or concealed carry! Sell or buy your guns with whoever you like. You can even point your guns at filthy liberals with your finger on the trigger and the governor will pardon you of any crimes you may be convicted of * 54% of the state is fully vaccinated, one of the lowest rates in the country! If you need any more encouragement to visit, masks are optional and actually frowned upon by the better class of Missouri citizens (conservatives)! * Current Missouri Senator Josh Hawley attempted to overthrow the government on Jan 6! * No voting by mail! "So if they don’t [feel safe voting in person], then don’t go out and vote". Great words, Mike!

brimble 5y ago

What really sucks is that Greitens at least seemed to give half a damn about responsible governing. I'm very much not a Republican, but I'd much rather have him back, if those are my options. That sort's rare in either party—and, I might suggest, even rarer in the party that's openly anti-government much of the time.

NoGravitas 5y ago
Reminds me of the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election, between Edwin Edwards (blatantly corrupt) and David Duke (Klansman). The bumper stickers all over the state said "Vote for the Crook! It's Important!".

jimbob45 5y ago

The problem is that the grass is not often greener on the other side. In states like Oregon, Texas, and Florida, there very often is significant support to move to the opposing party because the incumbent governor is truly bad. However, the opposition fails to put up a compelling candidate and those states remain stuck with the fools they have. Consider Florida. A lot of people really don't like DeSantis but the alternative the DNC of Florida put up was...a literal methhead[0]. Oregon has Kate Brown who has signed extremely unpopular legislation in Oregon but the opposition was...a guy who isn't even a Republican anymore[1]. Texas has Greg Abbott who is universally hated in Texas after the energy fiasco of 2021 but his opponent is a guy who failed to win a Senate election[2], let alone the governorship (have fun donating to that). It's easy to look at the political parties of a state's elected representatives and make assumptions about the people there but it's very important to consider the actual people being elected before you draw conclusions about the politics of the citizens. [0]https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-andrew-gillum-drugs-hotel-20200422-x5cpq645afbcbfzuydj5pikmsy-story.html https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-andrew-gill... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knute_Buehler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knute_Buehler [2]https://www.shorturl.at/xEKZ3 https://www.shorturl.at/xEKZ3

long_time_gone 5y ago
> It's easy to look at the political parties of a state's elected representatives and make assumptions about the people there but it's very important to consider the actual people being elected before you draw conclusions about the politics of the citizens. I didn't draw any conclusions, they said they were Republican in Missouri who disagreed with the Governor. I simply asked if that made them "re-think" their their affiliation. That so many people assumed I was asking them to switch to Democrat is evidence of how dug in our society has become. It contains two big assumptions. 1. Re-assessing your affiliation based on political performance is the same as switching to another party 2. If you aren't a Republican, you must be a Democrat
- wara23arish 5y ago
  I am an American as of 2 years ago. The whole gov/system is by default 2 party system. Some of the questions that you are asked during your citizenship interview is what are the two main parties. Im not saying I like it. But it’s a fair assumption to make when literally all voters only consider the two parties.

endisneigh 5y ago

I’m curious - by the same logic should an American re-think their citizenship based on the previous presidents?

long_time_gone 5y ago
How is citizenship related to political party? I didn't ask if they thought about moving, I asked if they thought about who they choose to support going forward?

dang 5y ago

Please don't take HN threads into tedious partisan flamewars. They're repetitive, off topic, usually turn nasty, and are not what HN is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

long_time_gone 5y ago
My comment was very careful to not include partisanship or judgement. It was a question on if events caused them to "re-think" their affiliation. Flagging it, while allowing commenters to spew Russian propaganda for the past 2 weeks doesn't seem to be "what HN is for".
- dang 5y ago
  I don't agree; it was a cross-examiney question, which is likely to feel like an attack even if it's carefully phrased, and the implicit point was obviously partisan. If you didn't intend it that way, then you needed to do a better job of disambiguating your intent. There are lots of ways to do that, but if you don't do it, a comment like this will have inflammatory effects on the thread whether you intended that or not. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... As for Russian propaganda, that isn't remotely representative of the forum. You may be falling prey to the bias that causes negative data points to stand out more (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), as well as the bias that causes internet users to feel that other commenters are foreign agents, astroturfers, spies, shills, bots, etc. On the latter, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If anyone wants an in-depth explanation, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 is one of many.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > the implicit point was obviously partisan No, it was not. Partisan would be asking if they were going to switch to a specific different party. I asked if they re-thought their affiliation. > As for Russian propaganda, that isn't remotely representative of the forum. I never claimed it was, just that it has increased the past two weeks without much moderation. > the bias that causes internet users to feel that other commenters are foreign agents, astroturfers, spies, shills, bots, etc. Another thing I never claimed. All of these assumptions sound like they may be an example of the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight). Is that how this works?