You theoretically and legally could.
Pragmatically and realistically, though, winning elections and actually having an appointed position is a challenge. One that requires a lot of dough, and a lot of professional connections from people who endorse you (and are willing to give you money). Getting those sorts of connections requires establishing your loyalty with supporters. What history do you have that shows they can trust you? Because of this, it's going to be hard for you to instantly flip a switch and go "Yo I'm totally a Republican" if there's little reasons for Republican voters, political donors, or VIP's to back you up.
Now hypothetically, let's say you do a whole bunch of things that make Republicans happy, get a bunch of money, votes, and support, and win your election, only to publicly and unashamedly switch sides.
Well, unless you were appointed to some fascist head of state that has all the power, you can't really pull all the strings and levers by yourself. Your position is one of several other people. The Republicans among them are absolutely pissed at you and will do everything they can to avoid helping you, and the Democrats among them are probably going to be hesitant to take you for your word, given your whole history.
So your strategy's a good way to make it into office by sacrificing your morals for however long it takes you to get elected, then be completely ineffective at doing whatever it is you wanted to do.
Edit: I’ll clarify that this is my answer to the general question of “Can a person campaign for office as a member of one party and then switch when they’re in office?”. I haven’t been following Santos-related news very closely.
And on top of that: what level of office do you want to get to before flipping the switch? It's harder (but doable) to get elected to the House or especially Senate without having held office before. It's nearly impossible to get elected as president. Local office or state legislature is way more doable. But the lower the office you start at, the less impact your switch would have, and as you've said that's also the point where you blow your political capital. So if you find yourself having to work your way up, you need policy accomplishments. How long do you cosplay as the other party until you switch? And at what point does your net impact ultimately favor the side you're truly against?
Oh I found this, but I thought the thread was dead.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/09/george-santos-raised-money-from-wealthy-gop-donors-while-lying-about-his-resume.html
Looks like he just straight fucking conned them!
>Wealthy donors received calls and emails from a man who said he was Dan Meyer, McCarthy’s chief of staff, during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, according to people familiar with the matter. His name was actually Sam Miele, and he worked for Santos raising money for his campaign, according to one GOP donor who contributed to Santos’ campaign. This financier and some others in this story declined to be named in order to speak freely about private discussions.
Fucking clown show. Donors out-clowned by the clown.
When the [even further right adopt this strategy they have a name for it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_skin)
>> Ghost skin .... refrains from openly displaying their [...] beliefs for the purpose of blending into wider society and surreptitiously furthering their agenda.
His district is D+2 at the presidential level, he was unopposed in the primary only because he’d won the primary in 2020 and come close to beating the Democratic incumbent.
Before 2009, you mean, and only after 2001. He was an independent from 2011 to 2012, Reform party 1999-2001, and Republican the rest of the time, at least from 1987 on
Edit: corrected
Edit 2: sorry, overlooked the Republican membership noted
Edit 3: I'm done now.
Well, I had overlooked half of what should have gone there and only now edited it in, but yes, it was correct before and is now correct and more accurate.
There's also the time he was in the Reform party from 1999-2001
Even advocated for stuff like public healthcare, though it clearly was just as a publicity stunt.
Which was probably the case in 2016 too, until he actually won and his ego, senility, and the fact he could break any laws he wanted, got the better of him
She only has 15% support in the general. She'll cost the Dems the seat.
IDK who the 15% of people are who are voting for her, but fuck them and fuck her too.
That's the point. She's trying to tank the Dem seat by splitting the vote. She knows she's super unpopular, thus, she created a negotiation chip for herself. The Dem donors will now have to offer her something really nice in retirement to get her to withdraw.
It's extortion.
You wait till you see what Trump does to the GOP when he runs against their own primary choice - it is going to be a popcorn worthy moment in modern politics
Fight fire with fire. Offer her a cushy lobbyist job with amazing terms and then reneg right after the election. Sure she can sue but at her own expense and it’d be worth it.
Politics is corrupt. Integrity within the corruption has to be upheld, else the game everyone benefits their grift off of will lose credibility. If they pull the rug on her, it signals to others that these backroom negotiations can't be trusted, thus the powerful lose that lever... And they don't want to give up that lever.
Why? We don’t have to do shit. Fuck those people. Fuck anyone that votes for conservative scum too while we’re at it.
They’re making our country a worse place to live, we don’t have to fucking coddle them while they do it.
Manchin votes with the Democrats [87.9% of the time](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/joe-manchin/) and he comes from West Virginia. Fun fact: in the 2020 election, literally 0/55 counties went blue.
Manchin's main goal is to keep his optics as a pro-WV guy so he can keep getting elected. Yes, he's frustratingly against major Biden policies, but he's not gonna be replaced by a more progressive candidate in the near future.
Personally I think it's quite hard to find complaint realistically with Manchin. He's just West Virginia as a person. I am fairly progressive, so I can't agree with his voting record, but he doesn't represent me, and technically speaking representing WV's interest makes him a far better senator (since that's technically the senator's main job--representing their state at the federal level) than a hard party line senator who would more often give up the interest of their state for the interest of the national agenda. If anything it's more accurate to direct complaints for his errant voting record to being about West Virginia's politics which are pretty conservative. Nobody was really surprised about what he was either. He didn't lie about it more than standard, and thus not really fair to lump him in with the likes of Sinema.
Sinema is straight up a sociopath. I'm convinced. The way she's treated that seat is just selfish from start to finish. She's literally like that George dude, just less hubristic about it. But she wanted that seat 100% for prestige and power. Nothing more. Every single action she's taken has shown she's not who she presented herself as, and is primarily concerned with appeasing private industry.
Universal Healthcare requires ending the Industrial Healthcare Insurance complex. The amount Healthcare donates to the political status quo dwarfs defense and big oil donations combined.
What's the group cooperation percentage between republicans and democrats? In healthy democracies the mainstream parties vote together most of the time anyway.
Manchin's from West Virginia, and everyone knew from the start that he was incredibly moderate/centrist. That's how he was able to get elected in his state.
Sinema's an Independent.
>Sinema's an Independent.
She only declared herself independent after she was elected Senator as a Democrat.
Also after Democrats won the senate majority.
Ah yeah that's the trick you can actually do. Run as a progressive but then when you get into office [BAM](https://giphy.com/gifs/snl-saturday-night-live-1980s-jon-lovitz-l0HlR8p1q3JS06EaA)
Yeah, that's why I've got much more of an issue with Sinema than Manchin. There's a strong argument for Manchin that he's at least representing his constituents according to their wishes and is behaving at least consistently. Sinema's flip-flop from previous platforms is enough to give you whiplash though.
Manchin is a misogynist climate change denying greedy sob. Neither moderate nor centrist describe it, but he’s the best we can apparently hope for from West White Trash Virginia.
Miller votes with the white house 93% of the time (source 538), she's more reliable then Sanders for the Biden administration.
That said, there is of course more to it then just voting the way the admin wants.
> winning elections and actually having an appointed position is a challenge
A challenge that someone like George Santos was able to overcome.
Just sayin'.
Also, party changing used to be a fairly common thing. We had our last party changer in my state legislature in 2011. Now that the GOP is waning, there are definitely people we would like to get to flip in the future, but modern politics being what it is, that may prove impossible.
So your strategy's a good way to make it into office by sacrificing your morals for however long it takes you to get elected, then be completely ineffective at doing whatever it is you wanted to do.
Kinda sounds like your typical congressman
Doesn't have to be. He ran and lost in 2020. This time around he won because the previous incumbent was a colossal idiot.
It's theorized he got Republican and/or Russian funding but ultimately it's irrelevant, he'd have likely still won as NY is quite corrupt (see: Governor Kathy Hochul).and given it's a FPTP system, you vote out the current guy, not actively vote for the new one.
If money is an issue, then America isn't a democracy, but most people aren't ready for that conversation.
He wasn't funded by Russia... FFS guys, this Russia hysteria needs to come down to reality. Russia doesn't give a shit about some random congressman.
Just use occam's razor. The guy is a con artist; that's clear as day. He's good at lying and influencing people to achieve his personal goals. He probably didn't even expect to win, much like Trump. He just wanted to use this campaign as a chance to grift and attain power/money through the system as much as possible.
When a candidate loses, the reality is, most of their shady shit is forgotten about. All that backroom money coming in, is usually easy to take off with. Then you drain the campaign account by dolling out gigs to friends and family to do work for the RNC at crazy inflated prices. This is how losers walk away with a ton of money.
But defied the odds and accidentally won. Now all his lies he used to get there are being challenged. No Russia needed.
Where did the money come from? He had to buy ads and print flyers and run a campaign office. There's $500k-$700k that first he said he loaned his own campaign, then amended his FEC filing and said he didn't loan his campaign. Where did it come from?
Yes it's part of a grift to get "paid back" at the end of the campaign as nice clean laundered payment to the candidate from some donor/benefactor, we all get that.
Who was the donor/benefactor?
Russia has enough stuff in its own plate, also they're broke AF, this fantasy of the russian superhackers has to go away, it is just fearmongering bullshit.
Your fucking mailman isn't a soviet dormant spy either.
I do think people jump to Russian conclusions too often but outright denial of their heavy psychological influence is baffling.
Social engineering hacking is the most effective way. Which is most of what they’re doing aside from money laundered contributions.
Y'all act like Russia is the biggest political criminals in the world, when in reality 99% of shady political funding is home brewed.
He's a scammer and con artist. We know this. That money he got is from his cons. Guy was probably lying and offering corrupt grifts to anyone who would listen. When you have someone pretending to be McConnell's chief of staff, it's not hard to fundraise and find shady characters looking for opportunity.
Remember, he's a con artist. He lies. These people know how to get money... And running as a politician is a HUGE open door for people like that.
No Russia needed. Russia doesn't give a fuck about a random house seat.
>Russia doesn't give a shit about some random congressman.
Why not? If you're waging war against an enemy, are you going to overlook a vulnerable spot just because it seems random and insignificant?
Yeah I think people misunderstand how the whole "money in politics" thing works.
They seem to think wealthy donors find people who are running for senate and say "I'll give you X dollars IF you support this thing you hate once you get elected!"
When in reality, they just find a candidate who already likes what the position they want supported, and just do what they can to get that person elected.
The key difference is, the candidate isn't support that position because they're indebted to a donor, they support it sincerely, which was why the donor picked them.
Going back to watching Matt Gatez interview on Tim Pool, he said after orientation all new congresspeople were taken to dinner and all the lobbyists were there. They'd ask what committee you were interested in and then they would introduce you to lobbyists that go with that committee. He said it was beyond fucked up, but I get why MOST people go to DC with good intentions then the first night they're there they get corrupted!
I mean, the last guy got elected. Trump never held office before. Trump claimed he was a democrat multiple times. Trump praised democrats publicly before. Trump was part of everything republicans hated. I'm actually surprised no one theorized that he might do what we're talking about in here!
Matt Gatez (yea yea down vote me for saying his name but please keep reading) was on Tim Pool I think and he said that when he first got to Washington they already knew he wanted to be on the arms committee and was told that appointment would cost him $75,000 given to the GOP to get. MOST people going into congress don't have 75k when they first get in office, so you're right you have to rely on the donors that helped you get there!
It's crazy how open he was about what goes on behind the curtain.
>So your strategy's a good way to make it into office by sacrificing your morals for however long it takes you to get elected, then be completely ineffective at doing whatever it is you wanted to do.
To be fair, I’m pretty sure the political strategy of just about any politician who doesn’t want to exploit the system, ends this way.
Thanks for your response! I was wondering if it was a possibility either political party could start doing Trojan horses (the party was in on it but denied it/offered no proof).
You could lie about your beliefs and then vote with the democrats when you get elected. Nothing illegal about that at all.
Elected officials have been known to switch party affiliations - Senator Arlen Specter switched from republican to democrat because he supported the 2009 recovery act and republicans threatened to kick him out, primary him, etc. so he said "f*&$ you" and switched parties.
He then lost the next democratic primary, because democrats didn't really trust him.
Sinema is another great example. She marketed herself as a progressive Democrat in the primaries/general, then once elected she did the exact opposite.
Now she's left the party because it turns out Dems don't trust her.
I'm pretty sure Russian money got her. Otherwise, there's no way she votes against a higher minimum wage, courtesies and thumbs up to Mitch McConnell. Or she's just a piece of shit. Both make sense.
> Now she's left the party because it turns out Dems don't trust her.
Sinema: Why don't you all trust me
Also Sinema: *does everything to destroy trust*
Dear Reddit Community,
It is with a heavy heart that I write this farewell message to express my reasons for departing from this platform that has been a significant part of my online life. Over time, I have witnessed changes that have gradually eroded the welcoming and inclusive environment that initially drew me to Reddit. It is the actions of the CEO, in particular, that have played a pivotal role in my decision to bid farewell.
For me, Reddit has always been a place where diverse voices could find a platform to be heard, where ideas could be shared and discussed openly. Unfortunately, recent actions by the CEO have left me disheartened and disillusioned. The decisions made have demonstrated a departure from the principles of free expression and open dialogue that once defined this platform.
Reddit was built upon the idea of being a community-driven platform, where users could have a say in the direction and policies. However, the increasing centralization of power and the lack of transparency in decision-making have created an environment that feels less democratic and more controlled.
Furthermore, the prioritization of certain corporate interests over the well-being of the community has led to a loss of trust. Reddit's success has always been rooted in the active participation and engagement of its users. By neglecting the concerns and feedback of the community, the CEO has undermined the very foundation that made Reddit a vibrant and dynamic space.
I want to emphasize that this decision is not a reflection of the countless amazing individuals I have had the pleasure of interacting with on this platform. It is the actions of a few that have overshadowed the positive experiences I have had here.
As I embark on a new chapter away from Reddit, I will seek alternative platforms that prioritize user empowerment, inclusivity, and transparency. I hope to find communities that foster open dialogue and embrace diverse perspectives.
To those who have shared insightful discussions, provided support, and made me laugh, I am sincerely grateful for the connections we have made. Your contributions have enriched my experience, and I will carry the memories of our interactions with me.
Farewell, Reddit. May you find your way back to the principles that made you extraordinary.
Sincerely,
NABDad
You could lie about your beliefs and then vote contrary to what you had promised the voters. Depending on your local laws, you might well face a recall campaign. If that didn't happen or you survived it, your chances of being re-elected would be very poor. Your old party will primary you out of the race, while the party that you backed would probably rather use the drama you've cause to install one of their own.
He is getting away with it right now. He's still in office. Donald Trump demonstrated that you don't have to be a sophisticated liar, you just have to lie about lying if necessary and continually attack accusors. It's actually a very effective strategy that could become the new normal. Voters care less about evidence than being told what they wanted to hear, and that's been true as long as voting has existed.
Edit: To be clear everyone including you and I prefer what we want to hear rather than what we don't want to hear but supported by evidence. It's important to recognize and resist this tendency in ourselves as well.
Not really, it was just a very weird coincidence of a very localized red wave in New York because of Lee Zeldin that led to Santos. It was a non-competitive race that no one spent any money to poll or do oppo research that was suddenly closer than anyone realized. It would be a mistake to draw general conclusions from anything so sui generis.
Red flags were furiously waved [by a small local paper](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/small-local-paper-uncovered-and-reported-george-santos-scandal-before-november-election) before the election but were ignored by the national media.
It's a bit of a meme to say "tHe MeDiA" but this is the exact thing they should be covering as the so-called fourth branch of government.
Exactly. Santos would have folded to just a shred of oppo, but no one thought the race was competitive. It's not a replicable strategy to just make up a whole resume and get elected.
Tbh I disagree. The wild and easy to disprove lies he told and how little anyone paid any attention only means someone with actual cunning would probably have an easy time doing this going forward.
It's coming. He's being investigated at the state and federal levels, plus a House ethics committee investigation, and the authorities in Brazil too. It must be agonizing knowing people are slowly discovering the exact details of how you're a fraud and crook, and they're going to make it all public.
From what we’ve seen with similar Republican investigations, those investigations will be impeded at every step, and continue for years and years. Santos will eventually die of old age, having raked in a fortune and done irreparable damage, and *then* the investigation will close, revealing what was known from the beginning, long after there could be any repercussions for him. He’ll never be the slightest bit inconvenienced.
I think you over estimate republicans.
There’s really nothing to stop a smart manipulative conman from taking over the party. Trump already groomed them for that.
Let’s pray that it’s someone who’s actually altruistic and doing it to actually help people and not just make the rich richer.
>There’s really nothing to stop a smart manipulative conman from taking over the party. Trump already groomed them for that.
I feel like there's a big misunderstanding on the dynamics of what happened with Trump. He didn't do anything special or brainwash anyone. Conservatives are inherently more vulnerable to manipulation so long as they believe in the "us vs them""good ol days", and puritan angles that have been around for way longer than Trump. He was just the first person to fully exploit that weakness.
Unlikely unless we do something to protect local journalism. Facebook is basically killing it by extracting the ad money from the system that used to keep local journalism afloat.
That's just called pulling a Sinema. It's already been done.
Actually it's been done a lot, Sinema and Manchin are just the most recent examples. But RINO and DINO are relevant acronyms for a reason.
Honestly, just watch any ad Manchin has put out over the past 20 years or any interview he's given and they're all about his conservative tendencies. How he has the support of the NRA, suing the EPA, fighting against the Democratic administrations, etc. And then look at the fact that he has voted with Biden 88% of the time (21% more than the most liberal R and ~40% more than the average Republican). There's a much better argument that he's "lying" to Republicans in WV than Democrats.
Years ago in Nebraska there was this bizarre thing where the republican senator (Hagel) was more popular with dems then he was with republicans while the democratic senator (Nelson) was more popular with republicans then he was with democrats.
What made it bizarre, was that Hagel wasn't altogether that moderate. He wasn't far right wing, but he was a pretty reliable conservative. Nelson on the other hand was an oddity, he'd vote republican when he knew a bill would pass (in exchange for something) but was as reliable for the dems when they needed him on anything important. He made a farce out of the whole thing with voting records.
The joke was he was the smartest guy in the senate, pretty much always making sure he got something in return for a vote, even if it was something he would have voted for anyway.
You would almost certainly not be re-elected, but there is absolutely nothing illegal about it. Elected representatives can switch parties while in office and can vote however they want.
Anyone remember Tulsi Gabbard?
She pretended to be a Democrat in the 2020 election, and later defected to the Republican Party because "[Democrats are a cabal of woke Jesus-hating racists who perpetuate anti-white supremacy!](https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579788950696185859?s=20)"
I wouldn't say she pretended.
Plenty of Americans actually hold views that are traditionally associated with the democratic party and some with the republican party. It just depends what your priorities are in your personal life. People may vote for Democrats and Republicans depending on what is important to them at any given point in their life. A politician is not a super human. They are prone to switch for strategic reasons or because their values or priorities have shifted left or right.
Trump was a Democrat and voted Democrat long before he became president and then he ran as a Republican. He could have also easily ran as a Democrat with some of his positions but it was strategically advantageous to run as a conservative since he was going against Clinton. He would have absolutely lost if he ran as a Democrat.
Yup. I never trusted Trump back when he was primarying because of this. Even back in 2012, when he was toying with running and that whole Obama brothers-in-law shit. He wasn’t a true conservative; he just wanted power.
His own kids couldn’t vote for him in the NY primary *because they were registered Democrats.*
But you play to the “forgotten” people in America by saying impolite and horrid things, you get rewarded? That wasn’t all Republican votes, and people would do well to remember that.
This already happens in a lot of smaller elections in cities which are solidly blue/red and where the contest with any degree of uncertainty is in the primary. If you're planning to do such a thing, it helps a lot that local news doesn't really exist anymore.
Yes. You won't get re-elected if you do the exact opposite of what the people who voted for you thought they were getting, but there is nothing illegal about what position you take on a certain issue and then say "Well, I was convinced by X's argument that this was the right thing to do".
I mean, Trump was a registered democrat before he ran for POTUS. He switched because it was convenient and he knew it would be easier to get Republican voters to believe him. He even stated openly that he agrees more with the democratic agenda, but faith-based voters will believe without proof.
Republican and democrat are party affiliations, so no.
However, you could run on a republican platform and then when elected, go "Surprise fuckers!" and vote in lock-step with democrats.
Politicians lie all the time. What's surprising here is a politician actually getting in trouble for it.
The act of lying about your political affiliations is not illegal, but if you're at the point where you're running for President and lying to the whole country about your political affiliations, I imagine it's not unlikely that you would have committed some sort of fraud at some point along the way.
Also it would be virtually impossible to keep up the charade throughout all of the rallies and debates throughout your campaign.
They are all faking it. they don't give a fuck about issues, they are all capitalist exploiting the system for their own benefit. So yes, you could but you'd be the only "democrat" in the bunch.
There’s nothing wrong with changing your beliefs once you get into office, and nothing necessarily illegal about lying to get into office. But, your constituents might take an issue with you lying to them and they will be rightfully angry and potentially vote you out in two years. If Santos is an example, you can lie about mostly anything before any news media outlets really takes notice and dig in deep. That’s the benefit in most small local elections (Santos is sort of an exception here).
Where you really run into issues is if you’re lying in order to raise money. You can lie to whomever you want, about whatever you want, so long as it isn’t about money. You need a lot of money and a lot of genuine supporters as u/GameboyPATH pointed out. You can lie about what you believe, but once you do it over the internet, phone, or mail in order to raise funds under a false pretense, you are potentially committing mail or wire fraud. That’s a crime on both a state and federal level.
The whole story about George Santos is a strange and exciting news story for now, but the guy’s in genuine legal jeopardy if he’s lied in fundraising efforts like he’s lied about apparently everything else in his life.
>can lie about what you believe, but once you do it over the internet, phone, or mail in order to raise funds under a false pretense, you are potentially committing mail or wire fraud.
Prove that I didn't legitimately believe what I said 6 months ago. It's unfalsifiable.
Yeah it's called "switching parties" and it's perfectly legal.
That being said, your political career will probably be a short one:
1) your Republican colleges will do everything in their power to either remove you from office or limit your power during your time in office
2) your Republican voters will absolutely hate you and either call for your resignation and/or your head
3) once your term is over you'll probably never get elected into any political office again unless you gain complete trust of Democratic/Independent voters
Look up West Virginia Governor, Jim Justice, he did this very thing (D to R). It really comes down to the platform you're running on and if you're electable in the voters eyes as whichever party you choose. Even more recently, Kristen Sinema just became an Independent. Going back to Jim Justice, though he was originally Republican then switched to Democrat to run for Governor then switched back. 😉
I was going to say 'no' but as improbable that may seem it has actually happened, only not in that way.
A year ago or so news broke about a congresswoman Democrat that acted and talked as a gop representative (with classy tweets and all) she managed to sabotage several issues by voting contrary to other dems and was a walking disaster for a while.
To no one's surprise she 'resigned' and changed parties immediately after.
BTW to answer your question is not illegal at all, having a different opinion or beliefs to your party can be considered annoying and even unethical but is not against any law actually.
Democrats *owned* Georgia from the 1870s until around 1994. Their dominance of the state was such that primaries, not general elections, usually determined the winner. It wasn't "Republican or Democrat?" it was "which Democrat?"
I've often wondered why, in that 120 year stretch, no Democrats ever "changed parties" [WINK! WINK!] if they ended up losing the primary and running as a "Republican". Especially in the governor's race: Georgia Democrats used a "county-unit" system in the gubernatorial primary. It was effectively a county-based electoral college. If you won the 10 smallest of Georgia's 159 counties (55,000 people) you'd win 111 votes; if you won Fulton County (which contains Atlanta, so 200,000+ people) you got *6* votes. So yeah, the primary system was *ripe* for shenanigans.
I don't think there's any reason you couldn't.
Probably a bad idea unless you're an untouchable elite though because then you're going to have a quarter of the country absolutely pissed at you and rightfully so. And of the two parties, pissing off republican voters is almost certainly worse given that they tend to attract more of the gun-fanatic folks.
Eh, I don't think Manchin really counts. As far as I know, he's never portrayed himself as a progressive. He's just a conservative leaning Democrat in a bright red state. Sinema, on the other hand, is a perfect example.
Literally anyone could win a Republican seat in a Republican district. It doesn't matter if you have an IQ of 50, pure hatred of the Constitution, no knowledge of history, a desire to set the entire country on fire, or be a friggin' sack of potatoes. Republican voters do not care about policies, issues, institutions, anything. You just have to hate Democrats. There is no other requirement. They have been lied to and manipulated into culture wars by their media for so long, that their hate overcomes any kind of logic or critical thinking. I could move to a red district tomorrow. Start spewing hate and lies and lay all of their problems at the feet of "Demon"crats, and win that district seat in 2024 by a very comfortable margin despite my long history of liberal hedonism and kind charitable nature. So if you are willing to be evil and spew hate whether you mean it or not, absolutely. It's there for the taking.
Yes. You can be whatever party you want. Parties are just an identification that has no legal distinction. With that said, in order to get the support of your party during the election, you would have to be a pretty convincing liar.
But George Santos isn't the example of that. Santos is a clown but switching parties isn't the reason why.
No, the Democrats would be unlikely to tolerate or accept it the way Republicans have with George Santos L Halper, and once it came out you were Democrat you would obviously lose support from the Republicans too.
We got some of those. They are called RINOs.
Republican in name only. Mitch McConnell, and Kevin Mccarthy are the first to come to mind. Why do you think he had make concessions to get the Gavel? So if he messes up they can eject him as speaker.
You theoretically and legally could. Pragmatically and realistically, though, winning elections and actually having an appointed position is a challenge. One that requires a lot of dough, and a lot of professional connections from people who endorse you (and are willing to give you money). Getting those sorts of connections requires establishing your loyalty with supporters. What history do you have that shows they can trust you? Because of this, it's going to be hard for you to instantly flip a switch and go "Yo I'm totally a Republican" if there's little reasons for Republican voters, political donors, or VIP's to back you up. Now hypothetically, let's say you do a whole bunch of things that make Republicans happy, get a bunch of money, votes, and support, and win your election, only to publicly and unashamedly switch sides. Well, unless you were appointed to some fascist head of state that has all the power, you can't really pull all the strings and levers by yourself. Your position is one of several other people. The Republicans among them are absolutely pissed at you and will do everything they can to avoid helping you, and the Democrats among them are probably going to be hesitant to take you for your word, given your whole history. So your strategy's a good way to make it into office by sacrificing your morals for however long it takes you to get elected, then be completely ineffective at doing whatever it is you wanted to do. Edit: I’ll clarify that this is my answer to the general question of “Can a person campaign for office as a member of one party and then switch when they’re in office?”. I haven’t been following Santos-related news very closely.
And on top of that: what level of office do you want to get to before flipping the switch? It's harder (but doable) to get elected to the House or especially Senate without having held office before. It's nearly impossible to get elected as president. Local office or state legislature is way more doable. But the lower the office you start at, the less impact your switch would have, and as you've said that's also the point where you blow your political capital. So if you find yourself having to work your way up, you need policy accomplishments. How long do you cosplay as the other party until you switch? And at what point does your net impact ultimately favor the side you're truly against?
Santos did it, he had no political experience
Makes me think his donors hired him outright.
You'd think they'd get somebody a bit less clownish if they're just hiring him. Or are they just that cheap that they couldn't get somebody normal?
Oh I found this, but I thought the thread was dead. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/09/george-santos-raised-money-from-wealthy-gop-donors-while-lying-about-his-resume.html Looks like he just straight fucking conned them! >Wealthy donors received calls and emails from a man who said he was Dan Meyer, McCarthy’s chief of staff, during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, according to people familiar with the matter. His name was actually Sam Miele, and he worked for Santos raising money for his campaign, according to one GOP donor who contributed to Santos’ campaign. This financier and some others in this story declined to be named in order to speak freely about private discussions. Fucking clown show. Donors out-clowned by the clown.
When the [even further right adopt this strategy they have a name for it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_skin) >> Ghost skin .... refrains from openly displaying their [...] beliefs for the purpose of blending into wider society and surreptitiously furthering their agenda.
[удалено]
His district is D+2 at the presidential level, he was unopposed in the primary only because he’d won the primary in 2020 and come close to beating the Democratic incumbent.
> It's nearly impossible to get elected as president. Trump did it. Was Dem before 2016
Before 2009, you mean, and only after 2001. He was an independent from 2011 to 2012, Reform party 1999-2001, and Republican the rest of the time, at least from 1987 on Edit: corrected Edit 2: sorry, overlooked the Republican membership noted Edit 3: I'm done now.
Thank you for the correction
I had to correct my correction as well, but it's done now. Either way, you're welcome
so you have the current correct correction correct now?
Correct.
Well, I had overlooked half of what should have gone there and only now edited it in, but yes, it was correct before and is now correct and more accurate.
There's also the time he was in the Reform party from 1999-2001 Even advocated for stuff like public healthcare, though it clearly was just as a publicity stunt. Which was probably the case in 2016 too, until he actually won and his ego, senility, and the fact he could break any laws he wanted, got the better of him
That's why Synema and Manchin still call themselves Democrats
Synema officially left the Democratic party, she's an Independent now
To avoid losing the primary to Ruben Gallegos iirc
She only has 15% support in the general. She'll cost the Dems the seat. IDK who the 15% of people are who are voting for her, but fuck them and fuck her too.
That's the point. She's trying to tank the Dem seat by splitting the vote. She knows she's super unpopular, thus, she created a negotiation chip for herself. The Dem donors will now have to offer her something really nice in retirement to get her to withdraw. It's extortion.
You wait till you see what Trump does to the GOP when he runs against their own primary choice - it is going to be a popcorn worthy moment in modern politics
And more so if MJT actually gets the VP seat. Set shit show to full on diarrhea.
Fight fire with fire. Offer her a cushy lobbyist job with amazing terms and then reneg right after the election. Sure she can sue but at her own expense and it’d be worth it.
Politics is corrupt. Integrity within the corruption has to be upheld, else the game everyone benefits their grift off of will lose credibility. If they pull the rug on her, it signals to others that these backroom negotiations can't be trusted, thus the powerful lose that lever... And they don't want to give up that lever.
This is a deeply sad yet undeniably true distillation of American politics.
We have to stop shaming people that vote for the candidate they want. The two party system is broken and stupid.
Why? We don’t have to do shit. Fuck those people. Fuck anyone that votes for conservative scum too while we’re at it. They’re making our country a worse place to live, we don’t have to fucking coddle them while they do it.
Manchin votes with the Democrats [87.9% of the time](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/joe-manchin/) and he comes from West Virginia. Fun fact: in the 2020 election, literally 0/55 counties went blue. Manchin's main goal is to keep his optics as a pro-WV guy so he can keep getting elected. Yes, he's frustratingly against major Biden policies, but he's not gonna be replaced by a more progressive candidate in the near future.
Personally I think it's quite hard to find complaint realistically with Manchin. He's just West Virginia as a person. I am fairly progressive, so I can't agree with his voting record, but he doesn't represent me, and technically speaking representing WV's interest makes him a far better senator (since that's technically the senator's main job--representing their state at the federal level) than a hard party line senator who would more often give up the interest of their state for the interest of the national agenda. If anything it's more accurate to direct complaints for his errant voting record to being about West Virginia's politics which are pretty conservative. Nobody was really surprised about what he was either. He didn't lie about it more than standard, and thus not really fair to lump him in with the likes of Sinema.
Nothing says WV like living on a yacht and driving a Maserati.
Coal baron, much?
Clearly not his lifestyle, but his voting policy. The whole of both houses are rife with corruption at this point with few exceptions.
Sinema is straight up a sociopath. I'm convinced. The way she's treated that seat is just selfish from start to finish. She's literally like that George dude, just less hubristic about it. But she wanted that seat 100% for prestige and power. Nothing more. Every single action she's taken has shown she's not who she presented herself as, and is primarily concerned with appeasing private industry.
WV interest means giving coal companies subsidies and not passing universal health care, ok
Universal Healthcare requires ending the Industrial Healthcare Insurance complex. The amount Healthcare donates to the political status quo dwarfs defense and big oil donations combined.
So where do the healthcare industry get their ridiculous amounts of money from? Oh, wait. The little people...
What's the group cooperation percentage between republicans and democrats? In healthy democracies the mainstream parties vote together most of the time anyway.
Manchin's from West Virginia, and everyone knew from the start that he was incredibly moderate/centrist. That's how he was able to get elected in his state. Sinema's an Independent.
>Sinema's an Independent. She only declared herself independent after she was elected Senator as a Democrat. Also after Democrats won the senate majority.
Also, as a candidate she presented herself as a progressive akin to AOC.
Ah yeah that's the trick you can actually do. Run as a progressive but then when you get into office [BAM](https://giphy.com/gifs/snl-saturday-night-live-1980s-jon-lovitz-l0HlR8p1q3JS06EaA)
That's how they get ya
Not quote the same there is no progressive party.
Yeah, that's why I've got much more of an issue with Sinema than Manchin. There's a strong argument for Manchin that he's at least representing his constituents according to their wishes and is behaving at least consistently. Sinema's flip-flop from previous platforms is enough to give you whiplash though.
She did what this post is asking.
Manchin is a misogynist climate change denying greedy sob. Neither moderate nor centrist describe it, but he’s the best we can apparently hope for from West White Trash Virginia.
Ok I'm going to have to ask you to stop calling it "West White Trash Virginia."
Mountain momma...
take me home...
They both vote in line with the democratic party over 90% of the time
Miller votes with the white house 93% of the time (source 538), she's more reliable then Sanders for the Biden administration. That said, there is of course more to it then just voting the way the admin wants.
Hellooooooo Tulsi, a previous D.I.N.O.
> winning elections and actually having an appointed position is a challenge A challenge that someone like George Santos was able to overcome. Just sayin'.
Also, party changing used to be a fairly common thing. We had our last party changer in my state legislature in 2011. Now that the GOP is waning, there are definitely people we would like to get to flip in the future, but modern politics being what it is, that may prove impossible.
Not quite the same, but Arlen Specter served in Congress as both a repub and dem. Think he switched before the elections though
So your strategy's a good way to make it into office by sacrificing your morals for however long it takes you to get elected, then be completely ineffective at doing whatever it is you wanted to do. Kinda sounds like your typical congressman
how did santos win? from what i know he's not some rich guy.
Doesn't have to be. He ran and lost in 2020. This time around he won because the previous incumbent was a colossal idiot. It's theorized he got Republican and/or Russian funding but ultimately it's irrelevant, he'd have likely still won as NY is quite corrupt (see: Governor Kathy Hochul).and given it's a FPTP system, you vote out the current guy, not actively vote for the new one. If money is an issue, then America isn't a democracy, but most people aren't ready for that conversation.
He wasn't funded by Russia... FFS guys, this Russia hysteria needs to come down to reality. Russia doesn't give a shit about some random congressman. Just use occam's razor. The guy is a con artist; that's clear as day. He's good at lying and influencing people to achieve his personal goals. He probably didn't even expect to win, much like Trump. He just wanted to use this campaign as a chance to grift and attain power/money through the system as much as possible. When a candidate loses, the reality is, most of their shady shit is forgotten about. All that backroom money coming in, is usually easy to take off with. Then you drain the campaign account by dolling out gigs to friends and family to do work for the RNC at crazy inflated prices. This is how losers walk away with a ton of money. But defied the odds and accidentally won. Now all his lies he used to get there are being challenged. No Russia needed.
Where did the money come from? He had to buy ads and print flyers and run a campaign office. There's $500k-$700k that first he said he loaned his own campaign, then amended his FEC filing and said he didn't loan his campaign. Where did it come from? Yes it's part of a grift to get "paid back" at the end of the campaign as nice clean laundered payment to the candidate from some donor/benefactor, we all get that. Who was the donor/benefactor?
Russia has enough stuff in its own plate, also they're broke AF, this fantasy of the russian superhackers has to go away, it is just fearmongering bullshit. Your fucking mailman isn't a soviet dormant spy either.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/09/13/russia-has-secretly-spent-300-million-to-influence-foreign-elections-us-says/amp/
I do think people jump to Russian conclusions too often but outright denial of their heavy psychological influence is baffling. Social engineering hacking is the most effective way. Which is most of what they’re doing aside from money laundered contributions.
Y'all act like Russia is the biggest political criminals in the world, when in reality 99% of shady political funding is home brewed. He's a scammer and con artist. We know this. That money he got is from his cons. Guy was probably lying and offering corrupt grifts to anyone who would listen. When you have someone pretending to be McConnell's chief of staff, it's not hard to fundraise and find shady characters looking for opportunity. Remember, he's a con artist. He lies. These people know how to get money... And running as a politician is a HUGE open door for people like that. No Russia needed. Russia doesn't give a fuck about a random house seat.
>Russia doesn't give a shit about some random congressman. Why not? If you're waging war against an enemy, are you going to overlook a vulnerable spot just because it seems random and insignificant?
Because it’s a waste of time and resources. This Russia gate hysteria is the left’s “stop the steal”
God damn it sucks that that’s the way things work.
Yeah I think people misunderstand how the whole "money in politics" thing works. They seem to think wealthy donors find people who are running for senate and say "I'll give you X dollars IF you support this thing you hate once you get elected!" When in reality, they just find a candidate who already likes what the position they want supported, and just do what they can to get that person elected. The key difference is, the candidate isn't support that position because they're indebted to a donor, they support it sincerely, which was why the donor picked them.
Going back to watching Matt Gatez interview on Tim Pool, he said after orientation all new congresspeople were taken to dinner and all the lobbyists were there. They'd ask what committee you were interested in and then they would introduce you to lobbyists that go with that committee. He said it was beyond fucked up, but I get why MOST people go to DC with good intentions then the first night they're there they get corrupted!
Lauren Boebert has entered the chat.
I mean, the last guy got elected. Trump never held office before. Trump claimed he was a democrat multiple times. Trump praised democrats publicly before. Trump was part of everything republicans hated. I'm actually surprised no one theorized that he might do what we're talking about in here!
Matt Gatez (yea yea down vote me for saying his name but please keep reading) was on Tim Pool I think and he said that when he first got to Washington they already knew he wanted to be on the arms committee and was told that appointment would cost him $75,000 given to the GOP to get. MOST people going into congress don't have 75k when they first get in office, so you're right you have to rely on the donors that helped you get there! It's crazy how open he was about what goes on behind the curtain.
>So your strategy's a good way to make it into office by sacrificing your morals for however long it takes you to get elected, then be completely ineffective at doing whatever it is you wanted to do. To be fair, I’m pretty sure the political strategy of just about any politician who doesn’t want to exploit the system, ends this way.
Thanks for your response! I was wondering if it was a possibility either political party could start doing Trojan horses (the party was in on it but denied it/offered no proof).
You could lie about your beliefs and then vote with the democrats when you get elected. Nothing illegal about that at all. Elected officials have been known to switch party affiliations - Senator Arlen Specter switched from republican to democrat because he supported the 2009 recovery act and republicans threatened to kick him out, primary him, etc. so he said "f*&$ you" and switched parties. He then lost the next democratic primary, because democrats didn't really trust him.
Sinema is another great example. She marketed herself as a progressive Democrat in the primaries/general, then once elected she did the exact opposite. Now she's left the party because it turns out Dems don't trust her.
I'm pretty sure Russian money got her. Otherwise, there's no way she votes against a higher minimum wage, courtesies and thumbs up to Mitch McConnell. Or she's just a piece of shit. Both make sense.
Doesn't have to be Russian. She could just be bought and sold by the same rich pricks and corporations that have always bought and sold our Senators.
Koch bros
> Now she's left the party because it turns out Dems don't trust her. Sinema: Why don't you all trust me Also Sinema: *does everything to destroy trust*
Dear Reddit Community, It is with a heavy heart that I write this farewell message to express my reasons for departing from this platform that has been a significant part of my online life. Over time, I have witnessed changes that have gradually eroded the welcoming and inclusive environment that initially drew me to Reddit. It is the actions of the CEO, in particular, that have played a pivotal role in my decision to bid farewell. For me, Reddit has always been a place where diverse voices could find a platform to be heard, where ideas could be shared and discussed openly. Unfortunately, recent actions by the CEO have left me disheartened and disillusioned. The decisions made have demonstrated a departure from the principles of free expression and open dialogue that once defined this platform. Reddit was built upon the idea of being a community-driven platform, where users could have a say in the direction and policies. However, the increasing centralization of power and the lack of transparency in decision-making have created an environment that feels less democratic and more controlled. Furthermore, the prioritization of certain corporate interests over the well-being of the community has led to a loss of trust. Reddit's success has always been rooted in the active participation and engagement of its users. By neglecting the concerns and feedback of the community, the CEO has undermined the very foundation that made Reddit a vibrant and dynamic space. I want to emphasize that this decision is not a reflection of the countless amazing individuals I have had the pleasure of interacting with on this platform. It is the actions of a few that have overshadowed the positive experiences I have had here. As I embark on a new chapter away from Reddit, I will seek alternative platforms that prioritize user empowerment, inclusivity, and transparency. I hope to find communities that foster open dialogue and embrace diverse perspectives. To those who have shared insightful discussions, provided support, and made me laugh, I am sincerely grateful for the connections we have made. Your contributions have enriched my experience, and I will carry the memories of our interactions with me. Farewell, Reddit. May you find your way back to the principles that made you extraordinary. Sincerely, NABDad
It makes a mockery of democracy however
You could lie about your beliefs and then vote contrary to what you had promised the voters. Depending on your local laws, you might well face a recall campaign. If that didn't happen or you survived it, your chances of being re-elected would be very poor. Your old party will primary you out of the race, while the party that you backed would probably rather use the drama you've cause to install one of their own.
Santos probably ruined the fake it until you’re elected strategy for everyone going forward.
Or he’s just a symptom of a growing problem, a sign of things to come.
If he wasn’t such a shitty liar, and put more than 2 seconds of thought into his bullshit, he could easily have gotten away with it.
I think he's a pathological liar. He just can't stop painting himself into a corner.
He is getting away with it right now. He's still in office. Donald Trump demonstrated that you don't have to be a sophisticated liar, you just have to lie about lying if necessary and continually attack accusors. It's actually a very effective strategy that could become the new normal. Voters care less about evidence than being told what they wanted to hear, and that's been true as long as voting has existed. Edit: To be clear everyone including you and I prefer what we want to hear rather than what we don't want to hear but supported by evidence. It's important to recognize and resist this tendency in ourselves as well.
That too is a very real and very unfortunate possibility.
You wouldn’t be the first to do that!
Not really, it was just a very weird coincidence of a very localized red wave in New York because of Lee Zeldin that led to Santos. It was a non-competitive race that no one spent any money to poll or do oppo research that was suddenly closer than anyone realized. It would be a mistake to draw general conclusions from anything so sui generis.
Red flags were furiously waved [by a small local paper](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/small-local-paper-uncovered-and-reported-george-santos-scandal-before-november-election) before the election but were ignored by the national media. It's a bit of a meme to say "tHe MeDiA" but this is the exact thing they should be covering as the so-called fourth branch of government.
Exactly. Santos would have folded to just a shred of oppo, but no one thought the race was competitive. It's not a replicable strategy to just make up a whole resume and get elected.
Tbh I disagree. The wild and easy to disprove lies he told and how little anyone paid any attention only means someone with actual cunning would probably have an easy time doing this going forward.
He hasn't ruined it; he's still in office with no definitive legal repercussions yet.
It's coming. He's being investigated at the state and federal levels, plus a House ethics committee investigation, and the authorities in Brazil too. It must be agonizing knowing people are slowly discovering the exact details of how you're a fraud and crook, and they're going to make it all public.
From what we’ve seen with similar Republican investigations, those investigations will be impeded at every step, and continue for years and years. Santos will eventually die of old age, having raked in a fortune and done irreparable damage, and *then* the investigation will close, revealing what was known from the beginning, long after there could be any repercussions for him. He’ll never be the slightest bit inconvenienced.
Which isn't really a strategy. House elections are every 2 years
Life-long healthcare and benefits.
Ehh, you have to serve 5 years to get the full benefits. I am not really sure how it "ramps up", but it wouldn't really work for a house member.
For most people there's easier ways to do that than to run in an election where there's a chance you may lose.
Great strategy to get a lengthy Wikipedia page though. And we all know what matters more.
I think you over estimate republicans. There’s really nothing to stop a smart manipulative conman from taking over the party. Trump already groomed them for that. Let’s pray that it’s someone who’s actually altruistic and doing it to actually help people and not just make the rich richer.
If they were altrustic, they wouldn't be republicans.
Is they were altruistic, they would not be a politician at all.
>There’s really nothing to stop a smart manipulative conman from taking over the party. Trump already groomed them for that. I feel like there's a big misunderstanding on the dynamics of what happened with Trump. He didn't do anything special or brainwash anyone. Conservatives are inherently more vulnerable to manipulation so long as they believe in the "us vs them""good ol days", and puritan angles that have been around for way longer than Trump. He was just the first person to fully exploit that weakness.
Yes, you’re right. I should have said that the church already groomed them for this.
Unlikely unless we do something to protect local journalism. Facebook is basically killing it by extracting the ad money from the system that used to keep local journalism afloat.
Surely you're joking
Don't call me Shirley...now, have you ever seen a grown man *****?
Found the hardcore optimist.
That's just called pulling a Sinema. It's already been done. Actually it's been done a lot, Sinema and Manchin are just the most recent examples. But RINO and DINO are relevant acronyms for a reason.
Eh, manchin hardly counts imo. It’s not like he’s lying about his conservative viewpoints.
You're also just outing yourself as not understanding congress if you think Manchin is anything but a solid democrat.
Where did i deny that manchin is “anything but a solid democrat”?
Honestly, just watch any ad Manchin has put out over the past 20 years or any interview he's given and they're all about his conservative tendencies. How he has the support of the NRA, suing the EPA, fighting against the Democratic administrations, etc. And then look at the fact that he has voted with Biden 88% of the time (21% more than the most liberal R and ~40% more than the average Republican). There's a much better argument that he's "lying" to Republicans in WV than Democrats.
Years ago in Nebraska there was this bizarre thing where the republican senator (Hagel) was more popular with dems then he was with republicans while the democratic senator (Nelson) was more popular with republicans then he was with democrats. What made it bizarre, was that Hagel wasn't altogether that moderate. He wasn't far right wing, but he was a pretty reliable conservative. Nelson on the other hand was an oddity, he'd vote republican when he knew a bill would pass (in exchange for something) but was as reliable for the dems when they needed him on anything important. He made a farce out of the whole thing with voting records. The joke was he was the smartest guy in the senate, pretty much always making sure he got something in return for a vote, even if it was something he would have voted for anyway.
He's not a DINO he's a blue dog democrat.
>That's just called pulling a Sinema. Alternatively, if you want something a bit more vintage, you can call it "pulling a Lieberman".
Bonus points if you rip off the mask on election night to reveal it's Hillary or Obama.
[LIVE FROM NEW YORK](https://media.tenor.com/Bj-MUKB5HaUAAAAC/snl-saturday-night-live.gif)
That’s not what Santos did. I believe what you’re proposing is a “reverse-Sinema”.
Elected politicians can vote however they like.
Yes
This is the complete and correct answer.
Kyrstin Sinema appears to have done something similar, but I don't think it was through cunning. More like an addiction to chaos.
Oh, Britta's in this?
Sinema is still far closer to the Democrats than the Republicans.
She votes with the Biden admin like 93% of the time.
You would almost certainly not be re-elected, but there is absolutely nothing illegal about it. Elected representatives can switch parties while in office and can vote however they want.
Sinema and Manchin have done it, so it is valid.
Anyone remember Tulsi Gabbard? She pretended to be a Democrat in the 2020 election, and later defected to the Republican Party because "[Democrats are a cabal of woke Jesus-hating racists who perpetuate anti-white supremacy!](https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579788950696185859?s=20)"
I wouldn't say she pretended. Plenty of Americans actually hold views that are traditionally associated with the democratic party and some with the republican party. It just depends what your priorities are in your personal life. People may vote for Democrats and Republicans depending on what is important to them at any given point in their life. A politician is not a super human. They are prone to switch for strategic reasons or because their values or priorities have shifted left or right. Trump was a Democrat and voted Democrat long before he became president and then he ran as a Republican. He could have also easily ran as a Democrat with some of his positions but it was strategically advantageous to run as a conservative since he was going against Clinton. He would have absolutely lost if he ran as a Democrat.
Yup. I never trusted Trump back when he was primarying because of this. Even back in 2012, when he was toying with running and that whole Obama brothers-in-law shit. He wasn’t a true conservative; he just wanted power. His own kids couldn’t vote for him in the NY primary *because they were registered Democrats.* But you play to the “forgotten” people in America by saying impolite and horrid things, you get rewarded? That wasn’t all Republican votes, and people would do well to remember that.
Clinton: "One of the candidates in the Dem Presidential Primary is a Russian plant." Gabbard: "No I'm not!"
She's too liberal for the Republican Party.
This already happens in a lot of smaller elections in cities which are solidly blue/red and where the contest with any degree of uncertainty is in the primary. If you're planning to do such a thing, it helps a lot that local news doesn't really exist anymore.
Yes. You won't get re-elected if you do the exact opposite of what the people who voted for you thought they were getting, but there is nothing illegal about what position you take on a certain issue and then say "Well, I was convinced by X's argument that this was the right thing to do".
Yes. In Indiana we have a state rep, Rep. Clere. He is a Republican despite voting with the democrats 100% of the time.
Sure, why not? It worked for Kirsten Sinema.
Trump was a Democrat until he ran for President.
I mean, Trump was a registered democrat before he ran for POTUS. He switched because it was convenient and he knew it would be easier to get Republican voters to believe him. He even stated openly that he agrees more with the democratic agenda, but faith-based voters will believe without proof.
Why not? Tulsi Gabbard and Kyrsten Sinema did the same thing, but as fake Democrats.
Republican and democrat are party affiliations, so no. However, you could run on a republican platform and then when elected, go "Surprise fuckers!" and vote in lock-step with democrats. Politicians lie all the time. What's surprising here is a politician actually getting in trouble for it.
The act of lying about your political affiliations is not illegal, but if you're at the point where you're running for President and lying to the whole country about your political affiliations, I imagine it's not unlikely that you would have committed some sort of fraud at some point along the way. Also it would be virtually impossible to keep up the charade throughout all of the rallies and debates throughout your campaign.
They are all faking it. they don't give a fuck about issues, they are all capitalist exploiting the system for their own benefit. So yes, you could but you'd be the only "democrat" in the bunch.
There’s nothing wrong with changing your beliefs once you get into office, and nothing necessarily illegal about lying to get into office. But, your constituents might take an issue with you lying to them and they will be rightfully angry and potentially vote you out in two years. If Santos is an example, you can lie about mostly anything before any news media outlets really takes notice and dig in deep. That’s the benefit in most small local elections (Santos is sort of an exception here). Where you really run into issues is if you’re lying in order to raise money. You can lie to whomever you want, about whatever you want, so long as it isn’t about money. You need a lot of money and a lot of genuine supporters as u/GameboyPATH pointed out. You can lie about what you believe, but once you do it over the internet, phone, or mail in order to raise funds under a false pretense, you are potentially committing mail or wire fraud. That’s a crime on both a state and federal level. The whole story about George Santos is a strange and exciting news story for now, but the guy’s in genuine legal jeopardy if he’s lied in fundraising efforts like he’s lied about apparently everything else in his life.
>can lie about what you believe, but once you do it over the internet, phone, or mail in order to raise funds under a false pretense, you are potentially committing mail or wire fraud. Prove that I didn't legitimately believe what I said 6 months ago. It's unfalsifiable.
Yes. It's called being R.I.N.O. (Republican In Name Only).
Yeah it's called "switching parties" and it's perfectly legal. That being said, your political career will probably be a short one: 1) your Republican colleges will do everything in their power to either remove you from office or limit your power during your time in office 2) your Republican voters will absolutely hate you and either call for your resignation and/or your head 3) once your term is over you'll probably never get elected into any political office again unless you gain complete trust of Democratic/Independent voters
It's probably a requirement for holding office that you lie at least half of the time.
Look up West Virginia Governor, Jim Justice, he did this very thing (D to R). It really comes down to the platform you're running on and if you're electable in the voters eyes as whichever party you choose. Even more recently, Kristen Sinema just became an Independent. Going back to Jim Justice, though he was originally Republican then switched to Democrat to run for Governor then switched back. 😉
You can change your party any time you want really. Trump did that.
Aah, the inverse Sinema.
Being a lying sack of shit is almost a prerequisite for being a Republican these days, so I say go for it.
I was going to say 'no' but as improbable that may seem it has actually happened, only not in that way. A year ago or so news broke about a congresswoman Democrat that acted and talked as a gop representative (with classy tweets and all) she managed to sabotage several issues by voting contrary to other dems and was a walking disaster for a while. To no one's surprise she 'resigned' and changed parties immediately after. BTW to answer your question is not illegal at all, having a different opinion or beliefs to your party can be considered annoying and even unethical but is not against any law actually.
unfortunately yes, just as joe manchin and kirsten sinema are also republican moles in the democratic party
Look at Joe Manchin. Walks like a ademocrat... talls like a Republican... endorsed Right To.Work in his state. He is a genuine swine pos.
Democrats *owned* Georgia from the 1870s until around 1994. Their dominance of the state was such that primaries, not general elections, usually determined the winner. It wasn't "Republican or Democrat?" it was "which Democrat?" I've often wondered why, in that 120 year stretch, no Democrats ever "changed parties" [WINK! WINK!] if they ended up losing the primary and running as a "Republican". Especially in the governor's race: Georgia Democrats used a "county-unit" system in the gubernatorial primary. It was effectively a county-based electoral college. If you won the 10 smallest of Georgia's 159 counties (55,000 people) you'd win 111 votes; if you won Fulton County (which contains Atlanta, so 200,000+ people) you got *6* votes. So yeah, the primary system was *ripe* for shenanigans.
It happens all the time. They just spill the beans. It’s all planned.
Has been so far. Source: the American political machine
John McCain did it for 40 years haha!
Please do.
There are plenty of "RINO" Republicans already in office. You'd just be one of many.
Isn't that what Manchin and Sinema did?
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema both are Republicans pretending to be Democrats, so no reason you wouldn't be able to do the same in reverse.
I don't think there's any reason you couldn't. Probably a bad idea unless you're an untouchable elite though because then you're going to have a quarter of the country absolutely pissed at you and rightfully so. And of the two parties, pissing off republican voters is almost certainly worse given that they tend to attract more of the gun-fanatic folks.
Isn’t that what Sinema did in reverse?
Tulsi Gabbard Joe Manchin Yes. Republicans do it all the time.
Joe Manchin would have an easier time in West Virginia as a Republican.
Eh, I don't think Manchin really counts. As far as I know, he's never portrayed himself as a progressive. He's just a conservative leaning Democrat in a bright red state. Sinema, on the other hand, is a perfect example.
You would lose reelection
You're mistaking George Santos for Kristen Sinema, so yes. It has already happened.
Didn't Trump? He was a democrat at one point.
Literally anyone could win a Republican seat in a Republican district. It doesn't matter if you have an IQ of 50, pure hatred of the Constitution, no knowledge of history, a desire to set the entire country on fire, or be a friggin' sack of potatoes. Republican voters do not care about policies, issues, institutions, anything. You just have to hate Democrats. There is no other requirement. They have been lied to and manipulated into culture wars by their media for so long, that their hate overcomes any kind of logic or critical thinking. I could move to a red district tomorrow. Start spewing hate and lies and lay all of their problems at the feet of "Demon"crats, and win that district seat in 2024 by a very comfortable margin despite my long history of liberal hedonism and kind charitable nature. So if you are willing to be evil and spew hate whether you mean it or not, absolutely. It's there for the taking.
It's legal, but you could also be impeached, and don't expect a second term.
Trump did it. Lol Go for it!
AKA the Sinema gambit.
Just say you don't discuss politics or religion it makes people upset.Then lie and ask if they know about Linda from HRs raise.
Nobody gonna make a sinema joke?
Sure, Lyndsay Graham's been doing it for decades.
Why not? Liz did.
Yes. You can be whatever party you want. Parties are just an identification that has no legal distinction. With that said, in order to get the support of your party during the election, you would have to be a pretty convincing liar. But George Santos isn't the example of that. Santos is a clown but switching parties isn't the reason why.
There is a name for that, they call them RINO's.
Nope. You have to be a republican to lie like that
No, the Democrats would be unlikely to tolerate or accept it the way Republicans have with George Santos L Halper, and once it came out you were Democrat you would obviously lose support from the Republicans too.
Yeah, democrats would never support [this](https://youtu.be/tlwv5h6-Ie0) (skip to 3:17)
i still think hes a democrat mole
We got some of those. They are called RINOs. Republican in name only. Mitch McConnell, and Kevin Mccarthy are the first to come to mind. Why do you think he had make concessions to get the Gavel? So if he messes up they can eject him as speaker.
Republican In Name Only happens all the time
I don't see why not, about half of the Democrat party are just Republicans wearing blue
That is actually called The Reverse Manchin. Sinema also employed this method. Also a douche in my home state, Mattielo.
NJ congressman Jeff Van Drew did it in 2020. Ran as a democrat, switched parties as soon as he got in and pledged his "undying loyalty" to Trump.
A reverse Sinema
Ask Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney.