PDA

View Full Version : What ever happened to not voting the lesser of two evils??




RileyE104
10-10-2010, 11:16 PM
With November coming up, I see so many people on here supporting "the other" candidate.

Whether it's Democrat vs Republican or Republican vs Republican...
I've seen many instances now where the lesser evil of the two has been endorsed by people on this forum.

The only argument I hear is "Oh, you're just a purist! No one is perfect!"
Yes, no one is perfect, but does that mean you should vote for Stalin over Hitler or vice versa?

AuH20
10-10-2010, 11:25 PM
Whom are you referring to specifically? Bastards like Rubio get no love on this forum.

specsaregood
10-10-2010, 11:27 PM
Apparently having the house, senate and executive branch all controlled by the same party is just too much runaway evil. I think many here are hoping for a bit of a reprieve and beautiful gridlock.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-10-2010, 11:28 PM
Like the same kind of gridlock that stopped our loss of liberty from 2006 to 2008? That sort of gridlock? Don't make me laugh.

Bman
10-10-2010, 11:29 PM
I think, you are thinking too much. Most people will have three choices in November.

Bad candidate

Not as bad, but still bad candidate

Stay home

Maybe you'd choose to stay home but if they are not, then they have the first 2 choices. What would you have them do or say?

emazur
10-10-2010, 11:40 PM
YouTube - Harry Browne on voting for the lesser of 2 evils (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euckWFonKaU)

Brett
10-10-2010, 11:43 PM
Like the same kind of gridlock that stopped our loss of liberty from 2006 to 2008? That sort of gridlock? Don't make me laugh.

republican congress/democrat white house is much much better than vice-versa. if Republicans keep both houses of congress and the Republican isn't Ron Paul I see me voting Democrat in 2012.

Justinjj1
10-10-2010, 11:44 PM
Most of the people on here seem like they have turned into partisan Republicans who will blindly support every asshole who is running that has an (R) behind their name. A lot of these guys that are suddenly getting supported on here don't even have hardly any redeeming qualities.

It's the Scott Brown/Rand Paul syndrome that makes people delusional and think that a candidate is somehow much better than they actually are.

susano
10-11-2010, 01:15 AM
I will not be voting for either Rep or Dem for MI governor. The Rep is a globalist and the Dem, while good on some stuff like the foreclosure fraud, is too close to the unions.

GunnyFreedom
10-11-2010, 01:35 AM
Most of the people on here seem like they have turned into partisan Republicans who will blindly support every asshole who is running that has an (R) behind their name. A lot of these guys that are suddenly getting supported on here don't even have hardly any redeeming qualities.

It's the Scott Brown/Rand Paul syndrome that makes people delusional and think that a candidate is somehow much better than they actually are.

o O

I don't see any of that hannity crap around here. Maybe you are thinking of a different set of forums?

Bman
10-11-2010, 01:43 AM
o O

I don't see any of that hannity crap around here. Maybe you are thinking of a different set of forums?

I'm not so sure Gunny. Looking at his post it seems he thinks supporting Rand fits with the OP's complaint.

I think some lose track that we are new and on some people we are going to have to take a chance. We can't field candidates for every seat and burning bridges with everyone is just plain stupid. We as a group have to look for common ground with others so we can start to establish some good discourse. If we try to win with what we have we will never win a race based on a democratic system. We need to communicate not throw mud at everyone.

Every where I go it's rarely "I hate Ron Paul" that I hear. It's "I can't stand his supporters". When I do hear the first one it's because the people are intentionally trying to piss off Ron Paul supporters. Some people here really need to analyze how they plan on getting from point A to B with no car and an empty gas can.

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-11-2010, 02:06 AM
I think, you are thinking too much. Most people will have three choices in November.

Bad candidate

Not as bad, but still bad candidate

Stay home

Maybe you'd choose to stay home but if they are not, then they have the first 2 choices. What would you have them do or say?

lol

Vessol
10-11-2010, 02:27 AM
YouTube - Harry Browne on voting for the lesser of 2 evils (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euckWFonKaU)

+1

CCTelander
10-11-2010, 02:29 AM
What ever happened to not voting the lesser of two evils??

It was sacrificed on the alter of winning elections?

Jcambeis
10-11-2010, 02:37 AM
Could it be the best good is send a statement to the two evils by voting for the other candidate.

Bman
10-11-2010, 02:50 AM
Could it be the best good is send a statement to the two evils by voting for the other candidate.

If you have another candidate sure. A bunch of people will only have two choices on the ballot.

GunnyFreedom
10-11-2010, 03:35 AM
Voting for the lesser of two evils is, has always been, and will always be obscene. I am, however, advocating a strategic voting plan for the State of North Carolina this year.

It may not be elsewhere, but this year is unique in North Carolina for over a century. Establishment Democrats have been in charge of the NC State Legislature for over 120 unbroken years, and it has become a pit of lawlessness. Districts are gerrymandered so far out of whack that only the establishment can possibly get elected. Anywhere.

For the first time in 120 years, a massive GOP pendulum swing coincides with redistricting. Redistricting could change things forever, and literally allow paulotypes to come to majority control over the course of several elections.

In any case, in North Carolina specifically, and in this specific election only (the circumstances here cannot be repeated for a decade, and they won't likely be repeated for six or eight decades), our best way forward in the NC Legislature is to literally vote for anything with an (R) after their name.

I never would have believed that I'd say that, and do please quote me on this: "I will never say it again." (caveat: unless we fail in 2011 and then some decade later we get another chance).

I do see this year and this state as unique both in time and place. Look at Mel Watt. By pure cold math, the more (R)'s in the NC House in 2010, the more likely he is gone in 2012. You could probably measure his chances directly two points down for every extra (R) that gets elected in 2010 into the State legislature. By (R)'s we are literally electing votes for or against fixing Mel Watt's district and bringing it into compliance with State law. More (R)'s elected means more votes to favor fixing Mr. Watt's district by a 1:1 ratio.

But not just Watt. BJ Lawson is in a tough district even this year. Without the pendulum he's in trouble. Again, every (R) elected to State House or State Senate is a vote to fix that.

The 2011 GOP crop will be a reformist bunch riding on a wave of popular outrage. The perfect environment for the introduction of RonPaulish type reform bills.

It can't happen in an off-census year (at regular intervals once a decade). It can only happen on a year when the minority party is expected to sweep into power (at random intervals averaging once every twelve elections [24 years]). So how often do those stars align? I don't have that math at the tip of my fingers, but it looks like somewhere between every 50 and 70 years the same or similar situation could happen again.

So anyway, I stand by my position and should the same ailment occur again then I will recommend the exact same treatment: "Vote for any State Legislature candidate what has an (R) after their name." Or vice-versa (D) for that matter, if they are the minority party.

So while I abhor the idea of voting the lesser of two evils, I do see a place for strategic voting in certain elections, albeit rare, this happens to be one of them. Every single (R) in the State House this year unlocks a new seat in the State House AND in the US Congress seats which a Constitutionalist/Pauler can stand up, run for, and win in 2012 or at some point in the future.

So yeah, after an entire lifetime of being repulsed by the lesser of two evils theory, and despising partisanship and partisan politics with every fiber of my being, I find myself actually supporting a "Vote anything (R) for the State House and State Senate" strategy. It doesn't matter that I know this leads directly to the victories we are working to accomplish, it still feels weird and unnatural.

I do take comfort in the fact that these stars align only once every sixty years or so. :D

nobody's_hero
10-11-2010, 05:12 AM
YouTube - Ron Paul: O'Donnell Can Win - We Live In Revolutionary Times! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as7LpvVXw4w)

Skip to 4:20 for a basic understanding of the difference between compromise resulting in loss of liberty, versus compromise resulting in regaining a little liberty but just not as much as you'd have wanted—but still it's better than nothing.

I'll be voting libertarian whenever possible, though.

Stary Hickory
10-11-2010, 05:20 AM
With November coming up, I see so many people on here supporting "the other" candidate.

Whether it's Democrat vs Republican or Republican vs Republican...
I've seen many instances now where the lesser evil of the two has been endorsed by people on this forum.

The only argument I hear is "Oh, you're just a purist! No one is perfect!"
Yes, no one is perfect, but does that mean you should vote for Stalin over Hitler or vice versa?


How about this ..I want to be free....I will always vote for the person who makes ME more free. I hate this defeatist garbage. I love the mantra....vote out Republicans when they misbehave and then when the Dems go nuts on us...well why are you voting for the lesser of two evils....interesting to say the least.

I was all for the GOP getting whacked when they acted like idiots and I am way for the Dems getting whacked after what this administration had done. In any case any serious change to this system will come from the ground up..we are limitied in what we can accomplish in the political sphere anyways. Even with Ron Paul or what have you as POTUS. Change is not going to come from the top.

States rights and individual refusal are the only thing that can kneecap this beast.

DamianTV
10-11-2010, 05:25 AM
With November coming up, I see so many people on here supporting "the other" candidate.

Whether it's Democrat vs Republican or Republican vs Republican...
I've seen many instances now where the lesser evil of the two has been endorsed by people on this forum.

The only argument I hear is "Oh, you're just a purist! No one is perfect!"
Yes, no one is perfect, but does that mean you should vote for Stalin over Hitler or vice versa?

I think a lot of people have just given up and don't vote period. At the same time, a lot of peole are so pissed at the people currently in office that they are going to try to vote for "the other guy" just because they do NOT want whoever is currently in to stay in.

This will probably be a record low for voter turnout elections.

tjeffersonsghost
10-11-2010, 06:04 AM
Whom are you referring to specifically? Bastards like Rubio get no love on this forum.

Alex Sink or Rick Scott for Florida Governor. I wont be voting for either. They are both thieves....

RM918
10-11-2010, 06:23 AM
YouTube - Ron Paul: O'Donnell Can Win - We Live In Revolutionary Times! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as7LpvVXw4w)

Skip to 4:20 for a basic understanding of the difference between compromise resulting in loss of liberty, versus compromise resulting in regaining a little liberty but just not as much as you'd have wantedóbut still it's better than nothing.

I'll be voting libertarian whenever possible, though.

This. The people equating Scott Brown and Rand Paul as the exact same thing are incapable of seeing the difference.

angelatc
10-11-2010, 06:31 AM
It just depends on the candidate.

I wouldn't vote for John McCain because he and I didn't agree on practically anything. But I will vote for candidates that I agree with 90% of the time without hesitation. When I go to the polls this November, I won't vote for the GOP incumbent in the House. I'll either vote 3rd party (if there is one) or just skip it. However, I'm wildly enthusiastic about my candidate for the Michigan Senate.

cindy25
10-11-2010, 06:46 AM
Like the same kind of gridlock that stopped our loss of liberty from 2006 to 2008? That sort of gridlock? Don't make me laugh.

not the same at all; Republican president Democratic congress does not work; the Dems always cave in

but more like the divided government of 1994-2000 that restrained Clinton, balanced the budget.

Obama is not that bad on foreign policy; McCain/Palin would already be at war in Iran, as would Hillary. congress has little input on foreign policy.

but Obama's socialism is destroying the economy; a GOP congress stops this.

RM918
10-11-2010, 06:51 AM
not the same at all; Republican president Democratic congress does not work; the Dems always cave in

but more like the divided government of 1994-2000 that restrained Clinton, balanced the budget.

Obama is not that bad on foreign policy; McCain/Palin would already be at war in Iran, as would Hillary. congress has little input on foreign policy.

but Obama's socialism is destroying the economy; a GOP congress stops this.

I don't think 'not that bad' are the words to use in that sentence.

Slutter McGee
10-11-2010, 07:45 AM
Those of us that support the lesser of two evil do so for reasons other than just "supporting the lesser of two evils".

1. Many only support the lesser of two evils in order to cause gridlock.

2. Others do so because the candidate is good on one or two specific issues that are most important to them at this point in time.

3. Many learned from the last four years that this is going to be a slow process, and we want to do what ever we can to slowly move things in the right direction. Outside of Kentucky, BJ's District, Justin's District, and Gunny's District there are very few liberty candidates that are worth voting for.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

angelatc
10-11-2010, 07:50 AM
You can't be part of the conversation if you don't have a seat at the table. We have to win elections.

Vessol
10-11-2010, 08:11 AM
Voting for the lesser of two evils is, has always been, and will always be obscene. I am, however, advocating a strategic voting plan for the State of North Carolina this year.

It may not be elsewhere, but this year is unique in North Carolina for over a century. Establishment Democrats have been in charge of the NC State Legislature for over 120 unbroken years, and it has become a pit of lawlessness. Districts are gerrymandered so far out of whack that only the establishment can possibly get elected. Anywhere.

For the first time in 120 years, a massive GOP pendulum swing coincides with redistricting. Redistricting could change things forever, and literally allow paulotypes to come to majority control over the course of several elections.

In any case, in North Carolina specifically, and in this specific election only (the circumstances here cannot be repeated for a decade, and they won't likely be repeated for six or eight decades), our best way forward in the NC Legislature is to literally vote for anything with an (R) after their name.

I never would have believed that I'd say that, and do please quote me on this: "I will never say it again." (caveat: unless we fail in 2011 and then some decade later we get another chance).

I do see this year and this state as unique both in time and place. Look at Mel Watt. By pure cold math, the more (R)'s in the NC House in 2010, the more likely he is gone in 2012. You could probably measure his chances directly two points down for every extra (R) that gets elected in 2010 into the State legislature. By (R)'s we are literally electing votes for or against fixing Mel Watt's district and bringing it into compliance with State law. More (R)'s elected means more votes to favor fixing Mr. Watt's district by a 1:1 ratio.

But not just Watt. BJ Lawson is in a tough district even this year. Without the pendulum he's in trouble. Again, every (R) elected to State House or State Senate is a vote to fix that.

The 2011 GOP crop will be a reformist bunch riding on a wave of popular outrage. The perfect environment for the introduction of RonPaulish type reform bills.

It can't happen in an off-census year (at regular intervals once a decade). It can only happen on a year when the minority party is expected to sweep into power (at random intervals averaging once every twelve elections [24 years]). So how often do those stars align? I don't have that math at the tip of my fingers, but it looks like somewhere between every 50 and 70 years the same or similar situation could happen again.

So anyway, I stand by my position and should the same ailment occur again then I will recommend the exact same treatment: "Vote for any State Legislature candidate what has an (R) after their name." Or vice-versa (D) for that matter, if they are the minority party.

So while I abhor the idea of voting the lesser of two evils, I do see a place for strategic voting in certain elections, albeit rare, this happens to be one of them. Every single (R) in the State House this year unlocks a new seat in the State House AND in the US Congress seats which a Constitutionalist/Pauler can stand up, run for, and win in 2012 or at some point in the future.

So yeah, after an entire lifetime of being repulsed by the lesser of two evils theory, and despising partisanship and partisan politics with every fiber of my being, I find myself actually supporting a "Vote anything (R) for the State House and State Senate" strategy. It doesn't matter that I know this leads directly to the victories we are working to accomplish, it still feels weird and unnatural.

I do take comfort in the fact that these stars align only once every sixty years or so. :D

Thanks for your input Glenn and perspective. You've made me reevaluate my decision not to vote at all this election in North Carolina. I'll look into it some more.

LibertyEagle
10-11-2010, 08:46 AM
I'm not so sure Gunny. Looking at his post it seems he thinks supporting Rand fits with the OP's complaint.

I think some lose track that we are new and on some people we are going to have to take a chance. We can't field candidates for every seat and burning bridges with everyone is just plain stupid. We as a group have to look for common ground with others so we can start to establish some good discourse. If we try to win with what we have we will never win a race based on a democratic system. We need to communicate not throw mud at everyone.

Every where I go it's rarely "I hate Ron Paul" that I hear. It's "I can't stand his supporters". When I do hear the first one it's because the people are intentionally trying to piss off Ron Paul supporters. Some people here really need to analyze how they plan on getting from point A to B with no car and an empty gas can.

Good points.

MRoCkEd
10-11-2010, 08:53 AM
We all have different standards for candidates. But I don't think anyone here is saying "vote for any Republican" besides sarahgop. :p

I would vote for people like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ken Buck, Joe Miller, and maybe Sharron Angle.

I would not vote for Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Christine O'Donnell, or Pat Toomey, although I might prefer that they win over the Dem.

ChaosControl
10-11-2010, 08:55 AM
My problem is in my state I either have to vote for the lesser evil or not vote. The piece of **** political parties installed the forever-2-party-system aka top-2 system. So you have to vote for one or the other or just not vote. The only office excluded is the presidential.

FrankRep
10-11-2010, 08:56 AM
Every where I go it's rarely "I hate Ron Paul" that I hear. It's "I can't stand his supporters". When I do hear the first one it's because the people are intentionally trying to piss off Ron Paul supporters. Some people here really need to analyze how they plan on getting from point A to B with no car and an empty gas can.


Ron Paul supporters are their own worst enemy sometimes.

http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1223756&postcount=14



Ron Paul has seemed to attract a crowd that is willing to keep things divided. They seem to have the "we are right and everyone else is irrelevant" mind set. That is not what this country needs. It will not unify anything. Now, if something constructive came out of folks mouths now and again, it would make for more interesting talk, and might attract some listeners. I am sick and tired of hearing "that person is a fool, or stupid". That kind of speech only attracts fellow haters, and I have heard enough of that junk.

Until the Ron Paul supporters get it figured out, I have no interest in supporting him. He attracts a dangerous group of people in my view...

RM918
10-11-2010, 09:18 AM
How come no other candidate is lambasted for their supporters, Frank? Do you REALLY think there's just so many more assholes in the movement here than in Obama's camp to make it a legitimate point?

It's guilt-by-association, plain and simple. They have absolutely nothing left on ideas, so all that they can do is demand that we tear each other to shreds because a few individuals offend their palette. Even if we COULD accomplish that, do you really think they'd jump ship and all that's stopping them are all the pricks on RPF?

It's just a round-about way of name-calling. When they can't go after Paul, they go after us. It's so much easier than actually thinking about ideas.

klamath
10-11-2010, 09:25 AM
Apparently having the house, senate and executive branch all controlled by the same party is just too much runaway evil. I think many here are hoping for a bit of a reprieve and beautiful gridlock.
Yes

LibertyEagle
10-11-2010, 09:32 AM
How come no other candidate is lambasted for their supporters, Frank? Do you REALLY think there's just so many more assholes in the movement here than in Obama's camp to make it a legitimate point?

It's guilt-by-association, plain and simple. They have absolutely nothing left on ideas, so all that they can do is demand that we tear each other to shreds because a few individuals offend their palette. Even if we COULD accomplish that, do you really think they'd jump ship and all that's stopping them are all the pricks on RPF?

It's just a round-about way of name-calling. When they can't go after Paul, they go after us. It's so much easier than actually thinking about ideas.

RM918, the issue is HOW we are going to get them to listen to our ideas. Insulting their religion and getting in their faces and telling them how stupid they are, surely are not winning approaches to getting them to consider much of anything we have to say. Worse than that, it has the real possibility of driving them away from Ron Paul and other candidates we support.

Brett
10-11-2010, 09:40 AM
. Many learned from the last four years that this is going to be a slow process, and we want to do what ever we can to slowly move things in the right direction. Outside of Kentucky, BJ's District, Justin's District, and Gunny's District there are very few liberty candidates that are worth voting for.

Glenn Thompson is very rarely mentioned on this forum, who has the liberal district encompassing Penn State, scored perfect on Campaign for Liberty's test. He's running against some fast-food worker who graduated from PSU recently.. lol?

Brian4Liberty
10-11-2010, 10:00 AM
With November coming up, I see so many people on here supporting "the other" candidate.

Whether it's Democrat vs Republican or Republican vs Republican...
I've seen many instances now where the lesser evil of the two has been endorsed by people on this forum.


"Lesser of two evils" is a phrase we all like to use, even when we use it on someone we agree with 70-80% of the time. We overuse it.

Third Party is always an option when both the GOP (and Dem) are truly bad...

Wren
10-11-2010, 10:07 AM
If it's not Ron Paul, then I'm staying home. I think it differs here with senate/congressional candidates, most are just looking for fiscal, liberty oriented conservatives who would help Ron Paul if he were elected POTUS

TheTyke
10-11-2010, 10:19 AM
1.) No one will agree with you 100% - so define your terms. Is "evil" anyone who doesn't agree with you? Or is it someone who can't be trusted to keep his word? We do end up having to choose people we don't entirely agree with, but you may help shift policy in your direction. Sometimes there is no good candidate - and that's why we all need to run for office ourselves.

2.) See past the rhetoric. If Barney Frank or Lindsey Graham suddenly start saying they love the Constitution and will represent the tea party, anyone should be smart enough to see through that. But some people want their favorite issues to be Rand's talking points, despite KY voters not being interested in hearing about them and that being a sure way to lose. But we know Rand has been fighting for liberty all his life. To win an election, politicians of every persuasion are forced to moderate their rhetoric - the trick is to look beyond that, determine a candidate's character and formative beliefs, and support the good ones through thick and thin.

3.) Strategic voting is legitimate To create an environment favorable to accomplishing our goals, SOUND political strategy may be employed. For example, without Obama as president, we wouldn't have a huge conservative uprising, which has boosted Constitutional candidates working through the Republican party. Gunny provides other examples. Great caution must be taken though to understand effective political action and strategy, before employing this method - something which our movement is still struggling to grasp.

RM918
10-11-2010, 10:33 AM
RM918, the issue is HOW we are going to get them to listen to our ideas. Insulting their religion and getting in their faces and telling them how stupid they are, surely are not winning approaches to getting them to consider much of anything we have to say. Worse than that, it has the real possibility of driving them away from Ron Paul and other candidates we support.

And what the hell can we do about that? Not much. There's just as many assholes in this movement as Obama's camp, if not less. Their protests are crap, the simple truth is that they can't bring themselves to change what they 'know' and blaming individuals in the movement as if we could do anything about it is their way of diverting attention.

nobody's_hero
10-11-2010, 10:55 AM
This. The people equating Scott Brown and Rand Paul as the exact same thing are incapable of seeing the difference.

Exactly. Whereas Rand Paul may not be as hardcore libertarian as some here would like, he would have rejected Obamacare outright. Scott Brown compromised and moved us in the direction of gov't controlled healthcare (bad compromise).

Suppose that the next election in Massachusetts is between a guy who wants to dismantle parts of Obamacare (say, individual mandate) but will do nothing about the rest. We would certainly not call such a candidate a hardcore libertarian, but suppose his opponent is a guy who wants to add on to Obamacare and increase the penalties for not purchasing health insurance.

Would that be a classic case of a 'lesser of two evils' voting choice, or instead, a case of one guy who moves us back in the right direction versus a guy who moves us further towards tyranny?

It then becomes a choice between "at least a very, very small amount of good, versus evil"

Brian4Liberty
10-11-2010, 11:04 AM
My problem is in my state I either have to vote for the lesser evil or not vote. The piece of **** political parties installed the forever-2-party-system aka top-2 system. So you have to vote for one or the other or just not vote. The only office excluded is the presidential.

We have that coming to California too. This is our last chance to ever vote Third Party in the General. The sheeple are brainwashed into the "Two Party" system.

DamianTV
10-11-2010, 11:51 AM
Although Im not a Tea Partier, the mere acknowledgement of its existence identifies the fact that a lot of people are starting to wake up. The frogs have finally realized that water is fucking hot!

GunnyFreedom
10-11-2010, 02:56 PM
Thanks for your input Glenn and perspective. You've made me reevaluate my decision not to vote at all this election in North Carolina. I'll look into it some more.

On the campaign trail, I am telling people that we need to stop voting for Republicans, we need to stop voting for Democrats, and we need to start voting the Constitution. Then I hand them a Constitution and say this is the way forward, back to stable and rational government, and back to jobs and prosperity. We can't rely on the politicians to do it, but we can rely on ourselves. We are our only source of real change for our State and our Nation, and the way to save America for generations to come is to know the Constitution - and vote to fire anybody who disrespects it. Their party doesn't matter.

I suppose my Constitutionalist voting strategy is somehow akin to a lesser of two evils in one limited aspect - you could end up voting for a creep just to get creepier out of office - but my thinking here is it doesn't really matter who gets elected it only really matters who gets fired. If the swing block becomes voters who will fire any legislator who disrespects the Constitution, then no corrupt lawmaker will even have the chance to build a dynasty in the first place. By himself he will have no power to do anything, so it won't actually matter how wacky his ideas are.

This "vote for any legislator with an (R) after their name" is just a special case for 2010 on account of the census, redistricting, and the actual real chance of seizing both majorities for the first time since the end of Reconstruction in 1894.

It sickens me that an "every-(R) sweep" type election strategy for the State House and Senate will necessarily bring in some real wieners. My thinking there is they can only last 2 years, while the effects of redistricting will last at least 10 years and maybe even 50.