There is nothing principled about blindly voting against people simply because they belong to one political party while ignoring the views of the people you choose to vote for. You can argue for it as a strategic choice, but don't pretend it's a principled position.
There are obviously arguments for voting for people who might be better in some areas than others, but it takes a lot of spin to get to "my principles require me to vote for someone I agree with 10% of the time over someone I agree with 90% of the time because Trump is POTUS".
You should vote for whatever candidate will best represent your values and interests. Sometimes, even for a conservative, that could mean supporting a Democrat. But hard to see how it could blindly be a Democrat in every race. Same thing applies in reverse obviously.
For example: I would absolutely vote for the Democrat if I lived in Steve King's district. I don't see how I, given my beliefs (the very same ones that led me to be a critic of Trump), can justify voting for Debbie Stabenow over John James.
To simply, Milton Friedman once explained what is the key to getting politicians to do the right thing:
They key here is incentives. So what do you incentivize for politicians to do with your voting choice? What message do you send them?
They key here is incentives. So what do you incentivize for politicians to do with your voting choice? What message do you send them?
If you are a traditionally center right voter and choose to vote for straight D’s, you are telling reasonable R politicians that tiu aren’t their base & they can’t win you over so they must appeal to a different group of voters (thus ensuring they lose or become more polarized).
In addition, you are sending a message to extreme Democrats that they don’t need to change their views at all to align with yours for them to win you over. Extreme R’s already weren’t counting on your vote.
IOW you are incentivizing more polarization in both parties.
IOW you are incentivizing more polarization in both parties.
