"I'll tell you why, because the people you vote in to government are predictably very bad for the majority of people, serving only themselves, their friends/family and the donor-class."

First off, there's a rather large non-sequitur between my statement and yours. If you think you can prove, using data, that one party is better than the other for "the majority of people" in some sort of globally significant way, I'd love to see it .... because there's plenty of data to the contrary. For one example:

This is an interesting chart, for several reasons. First, it shows that despite rising and lowering tax rates, changing the party of the President several times, and changing the House and Senate several times, income inequality has risen at substantially the same rate since 1968. So, we can quantitatively show that no party is better than the other when it comes to the issue of income inequality.

For another example, let's look at income with two different charts, the first giving us a long, global look at tax-adjusted real median income --- focus here on the red line:


After a long period of income growth which moved upwards (again) despite the party of the president, we experiened a wall corresponding to the beginning of the Carter presidency, who I believe was a (D). Median income dropped during his term, then grew again during the Reagan(R) period, dropped during the Bush I (R) term, grew during Clinton's(D) term, rode the neutral rail during Bush(R).....and now, let's switch to the other chart:


Looking now at the BLUE line, you can see the after the initial recession-driven drop off during the first Obama term, median income had reached parity with the Bush-era high by the time Trump took over, and has risen fairly steadily since.

So, sorry, I don't see any evidence in the data that the policies of one party are better or worse for the "majority of people" (your term) than the other. If you have other metrics in mind, I'd be glad to look at them.

"The corporations ARE the donors, so your point fails on its own terms."

Eh....my point "fails" only if you assume that corporations are the only donors to politicians. Not close to being true. Nobody aggregates more money than ActBLUE these days, and there are enormous sums given by unions, enviornmental groups, and pro-abortion groups, among others.

"The inevitable result of greater profitability -- particularly if it has been gained by the lifting of restrictions -- is businesses that want even fewer restrictions and even greater access to untaxed profit."

Granted. As I said, the behavior of corporations is predictable. There is no such thing as "enough profit" --- they will always want more. It is government's role to regulate their behavior when their means to generate that profit cause an existential social problem. Anti-pollution regs are an example of this. I suspect we agree.

"It's weird how you won't apply your own logic to corporate welfare (like the $20+ billion given to the already profitable fossil fuel industry)."

Yes, the example is always the fossil fuel industry, because it's the Democrats who protect all the others. :-) It's Chuck Schumer who has been the wingman for Wall Street these past few decades, the Dingells have defended the auto industry, and if you want to know how Starbucks got themselves classified as a manufacturer and not a restaurant (making them eligible for scads of corporate welfare that restaurants don't get) ask Maria Cantwell, although she's unlikely to want to talk about it.

But, bigger picture: How do you know I won't apply my own logic? I am a conservative, not a corporatist. The GOP tends to be far too corporatist for my tastes. Don't assume.

"Furthermore, most conservatives want to reduce the very laws required to "harness" and "manage", whether because they're pro-market or pro-small government (or both), so I'm finding it hard to take your position terribly seriously."

Sure. We are generally of the opinion that we have an overregulated economy and that regulations should be subject to an ROI test to determine if they are worth having around or not. That's hardly new news to anyone, and I don't see how it affects the matter of credibility in the slightest.

"I don't put my faith in many politicians, but the GOP are so nakedly self-serving it beggars belief."

Well, I'm not full in agreement with your "nakedly self-serving" term, but if I was, I'd rather be greeted with a knife than with a handshake, where the person shaking my hand and smiling has the knife in their left hand, ready to slip it into my back the first chance he gets.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.