2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo you expect a candidate or office holder to agree with you on every issue?
If so you are delusional. It is rare that any two people agree on every issue unless they have not been thinking for themselves and have both been accepting without due consideration what they have been told by others. That kind of group think is almost cultist and is not what I consider rational.
And if you do disagree with a candidate or office holder on a issue what makes you think you are right and the candidate or office holder is wrong? For instance, let's say you disagree with the President's stance on TTP. Are you an expert on international trade so that you know that TTP is bad for the country? Do you really understand of agreement's provisions and protections for local workers? Or are your beliefs based on what you have been told by others who are maybe similarly ignorant of international trade agreements and their consequences. I am not arguing for TTP here; I am simply pointing out that our stances on issues often based on unfounded assumptions, not facts and well thought out conclusions.
The bottom line is that only thing that make sense is to determine which electable candidate comes closest to agreeing with you on the entire range of issues that care about and do your best to insure that that candidate is elected.
Wounded Bear
(58,706 posts)After all, voting "the lessor of two evils" is also voting "the better of available choices."
treestar
(82,383 posts)Though Obama comes close - and with the TPP type things that I don't have time to really understand as of yet - I trust him. I don't believe he would agree to anything purposely to hurt most of us and side with "the corporatists."
catbyte
(34,447 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)radical noodle
(8,013 posts)I fully understand that there are things our president knows that I do not. He can see the total picture while I cannot. As long as I have a president I feel I can trust (Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary) I expect them to do what is best for our country as a whole. If I have a president I do not trust (GW Bush) I will be concerned by anything they do.
That is exactly why I question whether the anti-TPP folks are right, because I trust President Obama to see the total picture and do the best for the country, and not just what's best for big corporations.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...that candidate wouldn't be working alone. I would expect to have to lobby that candidate along with everyone else.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)mostly we disagree about gambling.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Additionally, I have voted for candidates in a primary that hold less in common with my views than their counterpart. I will be doing so again very soon in the Florida Senate Primary. There is a lot more to politics than policy positions.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)There's really only one sensible question in an election. Which candidate will maximize benefit or minize harm. Note that feasibility is a major part of this. A candidate with no chance whatsoever of winning can have no effect on either benefit or harm. I fully realize the hypocrisy of voting for Dems in deep red states for statewide offices where they have no chance, but I rationalize that on the grounds of I am there to vote anyway so a single wasted X is all. Sometimes things will surprise us even there. Until "Gift from God", Joe Donnelly looked like he had no chance.
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)But I don't expect to see eye to eye with them on every issue, no.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...who agrees with you on those particular issues. Are you going to vote for the candidate who comes closest, or won't vote or throw your vote away?
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)So I put it on my blog:
Do you expect a candidate or office holder to agree with you on every issue?
cali
(114,904 posts)But this concept that one must be an "expert" to have an opinion is pernicious and plain wrong.
And yes, regarding the TPP, which you used as an example, I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose it. I do understand the provisions, and the lack of enforcement for workers in countries such as Vietnam. I know far more about it than that. I've been digging into it for YEARS. I've read many of the chapters- and commentary, including that from the USTR and White House, which sadly reads more like propaganda than real analysis. But then, that's what it is when the government is pushing an issue or agenda- propaganda. Which is not to say that all propaganda is bad, but it should be recognized for what it is.
I believe it is incumbent on me to inform myself on issues- using resources from a wide variety of viewpoints.
I also find idolization of politicians- whether it be of HRC, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump or anyone else to be dangerous. And trying to shut down criticism is anti-democratic.
As Forster said, one of the virtues of democracy is that allows criticism.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)You obviously know more about it than I do, that's why I am reserving judgement, but why do you think that President Obama is supporting it? Would you agree that he also understands all of its provisions at least as well has you do and has come to a legitimate conclusion as to why it is worth fighting for? Or do you think he has some kind of malicious intent?
cali
(114,904 posts)I attribute no malicious intent to him. I think he's wrong. Why he backs it so strongly is a mystery to me.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)The candidate I vote for, for the most part, does what I want as his or her constituent. That's any of the candidates I choose in the voting booth.
Do I expect miracles? HELL no. At whatever level, any elected official can only get as much done as their surrounding committees/congress/etc work with them to achieve.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I put a refined copy on my blog if you prefer to use that source.
Do you expect a candidate or office holder to agree with you on every issue?
ancianita
(36,133 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)voting since 1966. I don't expect ever to see that happen, unless I run for office myself, and even then, I probably wouldn't even agree with myself, really.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I do enjoy your posts.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)1. Climate change. It's real, we need to admit it and do something about it.
2. Middle-East. Our interfering and unwavering support if Israel is costing us dearly.
3. Economic policy: Mixed economies work the best. The top 1% need to pay their fair share and we need to hold corporations accountable for the economic health of our country.
SDJay
(1,089 posts)We all have different ideas about different things. Some have come close, but I've never seen someone's platform and said, "Wow, it's like that's me up there." Even if I did, I also realize I'm not right about every issue, so that's probably a good thing.
There are certain "issues" - and I'm using quote marks because I don't consider them debatable issues - that if you do disagree with me you're automatically disqualified from my ballot:
1. If you deny climate change, you should not hold public office.
2. If you deny evolution, you should not hold public office.
3. If you deny a woman's right to choose, you should not hold public office.
4. If you in any way work to restrict the right to vote - the very foundation of our democracy - you should not hold public office.
5. If you think all of us should be governed by one religious ideology, you should not hold public office.
There are probably others, but when I hear a candidate go against me on any of those I'm not voting for that candidate, regardless of party affiliation. Fortunately Democrats have it right on all of these.
3catwoman3
(24,041 posts)...my hot items.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)that the candidate and I are in agreement on most issues, and I expect to continue to participate by trying to persuade them on the balance should he/she win office. I also will not rule them out as an office holder if they change their minds on an issue. Everyone integrates new information into their decision making processes. I also believe that change does occur incrementally. Historically, sudden change has been met with sure backlash. We have seen cycles of this manifest itself throughout history. Even today we are seeing backlash to the New Deal and to civil rights legislation. You take a step or two forward and get pushed back a bit, but you keep moving forward. I chose a candidate that I believe understands this.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Motley13
(3,867 posts)I definitely disagree with Hill about fracking, I don't want it under any circumstance.
I support TPP.
Can't think of anything else.
Can't think of one thing I agree with the maggot on.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)I think I will follow her lead until such time she flip-flops on it.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... as to what our most important issues are, much less how to deal with them. Kind of proves my original point.
mcar
(42,372 posts)Anyone who does is unrealistic, to say the least.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)I think that if Bernie Sanders had not run, the platform and postions of our nominee would be much different. It took that grass roots movement to move the party to the left.
I am however very skeptical that it isn't just lip service.
I'm not ready to rubber stamp policies that I don't like with my vote. Once you start doing that you own them when they are passed.
I will keep a close eye on where Hillary and the party is on the key issues right up to the moment I step into the booth.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)The only reason that Bernie got into the race was to move Hillary to the left. What happened thereafter was probably beyond his wildest dreams.
That said it worked, but I don't think that he did Hillary any favors in the General election. The most most radical, most enthusiastic elements of both parties are always trying to tug their most electable candidates away from the center. Since those who decide Presidential elections in swing states are mostly in the center, normally the more more successful the those elements are, the less likely it is that their party's candidate will be elected. That's why after winning their party's nomination, the nominees often pivot back to the center.
Had not the most likely Republican challengers in this weird election year been Cruz and Trump, a far right candidate and a total wild card, I don't think Hillary would have moved so far to the left against Sanders. Had Bush or Rubio been the Republicans' choice, Hillary would stayed more focused on remaining center left.
My point is that Hillary's move to the left probably won't hurt her in this election against Trump who is trying to run to her left of some issues like trade (which is unheard of for a Republican nominee), but it wouldn't work as well against a center right mainstream Republican nominee.
In other words it may be a tactic that works this time, but it is not something we would want to see happen in the future.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)"You need to stand for something". We are Democrats.
Looks at the seats lost at the state and local level over the last 8 years.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)do you see a correlation?
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)uponit7771
(90,363 posts).... not the broke looking unicorns without sparkling tails / sarcasm <--- cause this is needed around here