Johanna#23 – You have the stats backward. We in the financial community have known this for ages. The most saving Americans do is during hard times; very little is done during good times.
In good times you see no need to save, everthing is hunky, dorey. During hard times you know you have to save if you want to acquire something.

It was about browning a beef for stew.

Republicans (and probably some others, but I mostly hear it from Republicans these days) like to harp on how the federal government is just like a family sitting around its kitchen table. It isn’t, generally, but in this respect it sort of it. When times are good, a sensible family puts some money aside (or pays down some debt, which in this case is equivalent) in preparation for a rainy day. Then, when the rainy day comes (a pay cut, job loss, or unexpected expense), they can tap their emergency fund, or even use credit cards to tide them over. (Most families don’t have access to credit cards that charge negative interest rates after inflation, but if they did, they would surely use them in situations like that.)

A sensible family does not spend every penny it has and then some during good times. Nor, when faced with a pay cut or job loss, does it stop paying for necessary medicine or home maintenance (that’s likely to turn into a more expensive problem if neglected) rather than use a low-interest credit card. Nor does it completely rule out the possibility of looking for a better paying job.

I see this as the other way around – that the gap between Republicans and Democrats is so great that most people will NOT clearly identify with one side or the other. There are so very many issues to be divided about, what are the odds that my opinions on ALL (or even many) of them will line up with one party. For example, I believe in abortion AND capital punishment, in gay rights AND gun rights, in separation of church and state AND stringent fiscal policy. To which party to I belong? I just have a hard time believing that most people who are paying attention can fall squarely with one party or the other. (And, it seems, if you choose an “off brand” party, your vote may as well be worthless.)

I’m beginning to dislike the two-party, us against them, politics that we’ve seen lately. And I don’t consider voting in the primary elections of either party stepping across party lines unless you are doing so simply to thwart the efforts of the other side. And actually, in doing that, you’re running the risk of putting a weak candidate who doesn’t have the capability to lead in the position of a possible win. Remember, there are people who will vote for a party regardless of the credentials of the candidate. With our divided nation, it’s a particularly dangerous strategy.

Personally, though, I will vote in any election that I feel will influence my life. The Republican primary is one of those elections.

“@John: But if it’s likely (or even just possible) that the winner of the Republican primary will win the general election, doesn’t everyone have a stake in the outcome of that election?”

That is one situation I can see as an exception.

I still don’t love the idea on principal, but it makes more sense there.

I’m thinking of those situations where 80% of the population always votes for one party or another. In those cases the election is really decided at the primary level before it even gets to the general election. Sometimes the minority party doesn’t even bother to put a serious candidate on the ballot.

That is not the case in the Iowa presidential caucus of course.

Joining a party just to vote down a candidate in a primary is meddling in the other party’s affairs. I don’t think it should be allowed, but I don’t know how they can possibly police it. Again, if you don’t like that person then vote against them in the general election.

I think participating in your own party should matter more. I think participating in a randomly chosen party for your own entertainment or just to be disruptive is dumb and dishonest.

If you’re an independent then that means you aren’t in a party because your beliefs don’t match any of the parties enough for you to join them.

If you join the democrats because you (correctly) think the greens have no chance of winning an election and then you also vote for the democrats then thats fine with me. Joining the democrats to vote for a democrat in a primary and then voting for a green in the general election doesn’t make much sense to me. Again I feel that is just dishonest meddling.

I think we need less duplicity in politics, not more.

If someone is doing this so that he is sincerely trying to pick the Republican candidate that he would most like to represent him – that he’d be most willing to elect when it comes down to it, than I think it firmly is fair.

Where it gets dirty is when somebody is trying to do it to purposefully get somebody nominated that they don’t think is electable.

Trent says he self-identifies as independent, but he absolutely has as much at stake in who is elected president as someone who identifies republican or democrat.

As much as I already dislike our current primary system, this makes it even worse.
Something about it just seems “dirty” to me.

It’s not illegal to switch parties every time there’s an incumbent election, but it breaks the spirit of the rules. It would be like me voting in British elections. Technically allowed to, but I haven’t lived there for decades. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to vote because I don’t have the same stake in British elections as the people who live in Britain.

Well, there is that – I absolutely agree that I wish people who didn’t seriously consider the issues and really understand why they’re voting the way they do wouldn’t meddle.

Of course, in my biased view, that applies to be the straight-ticket voters themselves – not the ones that involve themselves in the primaries, but the ones who just rubber stamp a party candidate without really educating themselves on where they stand.

I do disagree with jim that it’s somehow wrong to choose your party registration in part based on where you’ll have the most impact. Is it also wrong for someone whose beliefs align most closely with the Green party to register as a Democrat? I don’t think it is.