There has never been a candidate for office who agrees with me

[MineralMan]

on 100% of issues. I don't expect there ever to be. I don't base my decisions about voting on any single issue. If I did, I'd never be able to vote. Instead, I look at all of the issues and see how candidates stand on ones important to me and weigh the stances of everyone running against my own stands.

I'm never completely satisfied. I'm a Democrat. I know that the Democrat on the ballot will agree with me on more issues than any Republican ever will. That simplifies my decision in the general election, regardless of office.

So, Bernie Sanders soft approach on gun control won't keep me from caucusing for him in Minnesota. If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him in November of 2016, too. If he's not the nominee, then I'll vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. I'm a Democrat. I vote for Democrats.

Republicans agree with me on almost nothing. Democrats agree with me on most things. It's a very simple equation.

I don't see the problem, really, that seems to be taking up all the space in GD. I really don't.

[el_bryanto]

1. I suspect that even if I personally ran for president

I wouldn't agree with myself on 100% of the issues.

But yes, I am in agreement with this.

Bryant

[MineralMan]

2. Well, in my opinion, I'd be the ideal Presidential

candidate. I'd vote for me any time. However, I will never be a Presidential candidate, nor a candidate for any elected office, other than a DFL Party precinct chairperson.

Right now, I'm planning to support Bernie Sanders in the Minnesota caucuses and district conventions. As long as he's still running, that's what I'll do on March 1, when our precinct caucuses are held. I like him, although I do disagree with his positions on gun control.

Frankly, I doubt he'll be the nominee, but that's what primaries and caucuses are for. In November next year, I'll vote for the official Democratic nominee. I can't imagine doing otherwise, and wouldn't do otherwise.

I do expect to hear Sanders answer questions on gun control, though. I think he's wrong on the issue.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. My vote in the primary us up for grabs.

Sanders' votes on gun issues moved me from intending to vote for him in he primary to waiting to wee how he stacks up against all the other candidates on a number of issues. I may cast a vote for him. I think his economic policies are unlikely to be beaten by other candidates. But there re a lot of policies that are important to me, and I don't know enough about his stands on other polices to make that determination.

I will vote for the nominee in the general election.

[MineralMan]

4. I think that's a good approach.

There's plenty of time to learn about candidates.

[JI7]

5. this is why i look at candidate's overall record

if i wanted someone who agreed with me all the time i would have to run myself which i have no interest in doing.

[Terra Alta]

6. The only way you're going to get a candidate you agree with 100% of the time

is to run yourself.

I am leaning towards Bernie at the moment, but if Hillary gets the nomination I will gladly vote for her in the general election. I agree with her on the issues far more than I agree with any of the GOP clowns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Point of order

I know one local pol (he is a character) who does not all the time.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

9. I don't even agree with myself 100% of the time.

I keep myself up at night:
ME: You're wrong.
ME: I'm right!
ME: Shut up!
ME: You shut up!
ME: You shut up first.
ME: Why should I shut up first?
ME: Because.
ME: Because why?
ME: What was the issue again?

[Bonobo]

7. One might even say there is no issue that would prevent you from voting for anyone with a "D".

To put it the opposite way, that is.

[MineralMan]

10. In a General Election, you're quite correct.

I will vote for the Democrat in general elections. Where I live, that's never been a problem, since I'm part of the process that endorses candidates. For President, a Democrat or a Republican will win. I will always prefer the Democrat.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Just as a point of fact to meditate upon, LGBT Americans have never had the chance to vote for any

nominee who has not run saying and doing shitty things about us and to us.

[libdem4life]

11. As to gun issue, Bernie has explained that. He represented folks who hunt. That's a bit less

"national" than getting us into a war.

It's moot point. Going to take a guess his constituents do not plan on using them on police, are safety conscious and don't plan on shooting up schools and malls.

The only question is, what about national gun control. He said his NAR rating is a D. That says something.

[justiceischeap]

14. And yet an argument could be put forward

that he valued hunters over people that are killed senselessly by gun violence.

The thing that gets me about the whole "Hillary voted for the war" issue is that even if she hadn't voted for the war, we still would have gone to war. It's not as though her vote was the deciding factor. I'm personally not going to hold that vote against her if she ends up being the winner of the primaries because as so many others have pointed out, Hillary Clinton is better than any Republican any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[libdem4life]

16. Yes, thus I wonder how many "Gun Accidents" have killed Vermonth children. I was raised in a rural

area, and everyone had guns...no handguns, only rifles for deer hunting season or other such events. In rural areas, the food was necessary and eaten. We were given a portion of the meat, as the local minister. My dad would never pick up a rifle. I did to practice hitting tin cans...wasn't very good at it he didn't condemn the act and refuse the meat..it was a kind of tithe. These people were poor. They were for hunting and self-protection. It's a different situation now.

Your argument for the Iraq War... I dunno. But her constituents wanted it, so she shouldn't be tarred and feathered for it, either.

[True Blue Door]

13. Some people think representative government is supposed to be robots acting out instructions.

They get furious when a candidate or an officeholder does anything other than exactly what they think they'd do in that position.

Such people bore me, and are self-selectedly inconsequential in political change.

[kentuck]

15. The possible flaw that I see in your argument...

...is if a politician knows they have your vote locked down, why do they even have to try to make things better? Why should they ever take a controversial stand? They have your vote regardless.

[MineralMan]

17. The President is our only national candidate.

Winning a national election means appealing to a very, very broad set of requirements. We forget that and, in forgetting, ignore the fact that our state and federal legislators are people who represent far smaller constituencies. In our own districts, we have an opportunity to elect people who represent out views that is far different than electing a President. More important, too.

The President's powers are limited, constitutionally. Every President depends on Congress to present bills for signature. It is our legislators who write and vote those bills. Our election turnout should be the reverse of what it is. It should be huge during mid-term elections. Sadly, that is not the case.

That's why my focus is on legislative elections. Electing a President is a national issue. We cannot, and should not, expect any President to reflect a tightly focused set of goals. Presidential candidates have to win enough states to get sufficient electoral votes to win. A narrow focus cannot do that.

We focus too much on elections for President, and not enough where our votes really matter. More's the pity.

[kentuck]

18. Winning means little if you don't have any idea where you are going.

The President should lead on the important issues. He should use his bully pulpit at every opportunity. Simply keeping the seat warm for the corporatists is not enough.

[MineralMan]

20. As someone who listens to President Obama's remarks, including

his Saturday morning radio addresses, it seems to me that he's been using that bully pulpit frequently and eloquently. I'm always struck by how few people bother to listen. Threads about his remarks and addresses on DU are very poorly followed.

Faced with a hostile Congress, many of Obama's initiatives have not succeeded. Others have, but only through compromise with that Congress. Had we given him a Congress with strong Democratic super-majorities, things would be quite different as his two terms come to an end. Even so, progress has been made, albeit not enough.

Issues that are important to Presidents can only be dealt with with the assistance of Congress and a supportive population. Since we don't bother to turn out in large numbers in mid-term elections, we've let Congress drift further and further to the right. I despair sometimes about the chance that we will ever reverse that trend of non-participation.

The bully pulpit only works if the congregation shows and listens to the sermon.

[JoePhilly]

27. When he uses the Bully Pulpit, these folks scream "Pretty Speech!!"

Its hard to take some of them seriously.

[MineralMan]

28. Yes. I've noticed that.

From time to time, I try to post threads calling attention to presidential remarks and appearances, with links to streaming coverage. Those threads are almost universally ignored.

Very frustrating.

[JoePhilly]

31. YUP ... and when not ignored ...

... those threads pick apart the "pretty speech" in search of the secret code words Obama certainly must have used to hide his true intentions anyway.

Your view outlined in the OP, and throughout the thread, makes very good sense.

[theboss]

24. I'd be curious to know what percentage of DUers are active in local or state races

Want to know why the Republican primary is going to be a reality show of 50 maniacs seeking the highest office in the land? Because they have a pretty deep pool of maniacs in state houses and state legislatures to keep moving along right now. They control 67 of 98 legislative chambers and 31 governor's offices.

[MineralMan]

25. I don't know. I know that I am very active.

It's my main focus.

[theboss]

19. Thomas Jefferson figured out our system of government almost immediately

50 percent +1 gives you all the power. It's a binary choice, and there is nothing to be done about that unfortunately.

Once a Democrat wins the nomination, he or she has my vote unless they are, like, completely ridiculous in some manner. Primaries are where we can hash out these differences, but I think where we lose focus is this idea that candidates within a primary or the enemy. I was strongly behind Obama in 2008, but I was going to vote for whoever came out of the primary.

[MohRokTah]

21. My choices in primaries re never 100% related to issues.

To me, the single most important factor is my assessment as to which candidates can actually defeat the Republican.

[MineralMan]

22. In general, people use that criterion to choose primary candidates.

Some voters will cast their vote for an idea or for a candidate who espouses ideas with which they are in strong agreement. Most primary voters, though, vote for the person they think has the best chance in the General Election.

This is Senator Sanders' toughest challenge, I think, for the primary season. In primaries, I vote for the candidate I hope might be President. Often, however, that candidate does not prevail, so I end up supporting the official nominee of the party in the end. I expect to do that again in 2016. I'll be caucusing for Senator Sanders on March 1, and will support him in our district convention, as well. However, support for Hillary Clinton among district convention delegates and precinct caucus attendees will probably make my support moot. I expect that to be the case.

Minnesota will almost certainly send Hillary Clinton delegates to the Democratic National Convention. I suspect that will be true in most states. The result will be that Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee. I think that Super Tuesday will make that clear on a national basis. Too bad, but that's the reality where I live.

Frankly, I doubt that Sanders will win even a single primary or caucus. If I'm right, he will be forced to recognize that his campaign will not result in a nomination quite early in the primary process. When he does, he will endorse Hillary Clinton. That's political reality, which will end up prevailing on a national basis. That's my prediction, despite my enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders. I know he'll continue to support progressive causes in the Senate, though.

[JoePhilly]

29. I think you've nailed it.

For Bernie to win the nomination, he (and his supporters) are going to have to convince a large number of people who would already be perfectly happy to vote for Hillary, to switch and support Bernie.

And they have to do it before the early primary states make their decisions. If Bernie loses in the early states, his support will erode. Folks who had supported Clinton, but started to consider Bernie, will slide right back to Hillary.

The folks who endlessly attack Hillary, or attack those who'd be happy to vote for her, aren't helping their own cause.

Their attacks don't do much to get other democrats to become confident that Bernie would win in the general and switch their vote.

It probably has the opposite effect.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Yep. Obama ran in 2008 opposing marriage equality,

yet most DUers voted for him. In 2012 he had come around on this issue but still supports free trade agreements, along with the death penalty, whuch puts him at odds with most DUers on these issues. Kerry voted for the IWR. Clinton and Gore ended welfare as we know it and pushed NAFTA through. Nobody is going to agree with you on everything.

[MineralMan]

26. I never expect complete agreement, frankly.

Never have. I know I won't get it.

[gwheezie]

30. same here

I had to overlook Hillary's Iraq vote in the 08 primary. I can understand Bernie's gun votes better because he represents Vermont. I would like to know his position as a national candidate

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. MM, you know you're among my most favored and level headed posters on this site, but I will never...

forgive Bernie Sanders for this:

Bernie Sanders: Obama Primary Challenge From A Progressive Would 'Enliven' 2012 Debate

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an interview this week that President Barack Obama facing a primary challenge from the left could serve to "enliven" the race for the White House in 2012.

In an interview on New York-based radio station WNYC, Sanders tamped down speculation that he might be considering challenging Obama himself. However, he then went on to endorse the idea of the president having to defend himself on Democratic turf.

"But if a progressive Democrat wants to run, I think it would enliven the debate, raise some issues and people have a right to do that," Sanders said. "I've been asked whether I am going to do that. I'm not. I don't know who is, but in a democracy, it's not a bad idea to have different voices out there."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/bernie-sanders-obama-primary_n_837819.html

I will forever resent Sanders for that, and AFAIC, much like Ralph Nader, he's someone I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR!