That could not happen?

a lot of people on the right and a lot of people on the left. Neither party suits me perfectly.

in order to get your vote?

If I did that, I'd never get to vote for anyone, and I vote in every single election.

If I get to vote for a candidate that agrees with me on 80%, I feel pretty fortunate.

Alison Grimes is a good Democrat on all the major issues of our Party, except she is a gun-owner - not a gun nut, and she wants to protect the remaining coal mining jobs in Eastern Kentucky, and she thinks the ACA has problems that need fixing. Is she still an acceptable Democrat?

1. Gun owner - I'm cool with that. I own two guns myself.

2. Protect coal mining jobs - I'm all for it.

3. Fix the ACA - go for it. I want single-payer, universal health care.

I have no problems with Alison Grimes.

a republican

So how the hell could someone agree with me 100%?

like the death penalty, gay marriage, women`s right to choose, voting rights. I would never vote for a One Percenter who would turn his/her back on the poor, a racist or a war hawk. In most other cases, I would gladly listen to the other side and compromise if I knew it would help move my position forward some.


~PEACE~

Some of that percentage of agreement realistically depends on the candidates available to you on the ballot in your area. For me, it is more desirable to vote for the candidate available to me whose positions on issues mostly align with mine with the intention of working to move that candidate, if elected, toward my thinking. I have a few issues that are extremely important to me and that I look for first and others that are open to discussion. But not voting is something you will not find me doing.

Who wouldn't be?

I don't feel I have many incentives to vote for them. Case in point, my representative is a Bluedog who I have voted for in both the primary and general election until this year. For the primary I skipped that office (he won renomination by a large margin). For the general election, I wrote someone in. He's going to win the GE by a large margin as well. I'm just not willing to swallow the bs he's selling.

Put simply, my breaking issues are global warming, poverty and gay rights. I'mm vote for teh lesser evil as long as they agree with me on those three.

This is not a complete question, but a fragment. 'More inclined than.....'? More inclined compared to what?

And you also equate my basic civil rights with musical taste. I can tell you I'd be more inclined to vote for a pig in a poke than a person who sees human rights as negotiable.
I have to wonder if you'd put 'racism toward African Americans' on your list and ask people if they'd accept that if the candidate agreed about country music?
Sickening. Whatever candidate you are promoting here should go be a Republican. Thank God that's not the sort of choice I have to make.
I'd never vote for someone who was against my rights, nor yours. But you would, if they were against mine.

for your clarification.

Got it. More clarity in your evasion than in your direct statements.

I am not trying to equate one issue with another. I am just picking random issues that might disqualify a candidate from receiving your support. Did you find one? Is that the only one? Does the candidate have to agree with you on every issue?

If those other policies include doing things that continue wars, worsens our economy, or reverses discrimination then no thanks.

they actually ACTED on what that professed agreement.

Why wouldn't I?

Aren't we all more likely to vote for the candidate that comes the closest to our own positions on issues?

Oops. Let me rephrase. Aren't the majority more likely to vote for their party's candidate that comes the closest to our own position on issues, even if they only agree on 1% of the issues?

Last edited Mon Oct 27, 2014, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Would disagreement with President Obama's healthcare insurance plan, the ACA, be reason enough not to vote for someone? How much is someone permitted to disagree with this President and still be acceptable to voters?

I disagree with the ACA myself. I support universal national health care, easily and promptly available, and free at point of service to all, paid for 100% by taxes. For me, the issue of health care is not about Obama. It's about health care. Clearly, I'm going to be voting for people who disagree with me on health care, since my position is not the norm.

Of course, Obama isn't a factor in my votes for other politicians; I vote for someone based on their record, not Obama's. The only connection that might be made is if they were blindly supporting Obama in every bad policy his administration promoted, instead of acting like a Democrat. I don't need representatives who are more supportive of partisan concerns than they are of me.

Still, I voted to re-elect my Senator a week ago; he's earned it, not because of Obama, but because of his own record.

There are some issues that trigger non-support from me. Support for the neo-liberal education agenda, for example. I'm not voting for any politician promoting corporate education deform.

It is a health insurance plan.

This is an often ignored, but vital distinction.

'Affordable healthcare', not 'guaranteed healthcare'.

Thanks for the clarification.

Also, the reality is that once elected, the candidates don't seem to govern on the principles, values, or policies they claimed to hold before the election. I am firmly convinced that MOST politicians will say any damn thing to get power and hold it.

a bunch of left-leaning folks not to lose sight of the good in pursuit of the pure. (My wording is a bit ham-fisted this morning.) I've since taken that advice to heart and really must as a Democratic Socialist. Even Bernie Sanders, bless his heart, is no Socialist as the term is commonly used. And Elizabeth Warren is at most a 'reform Democrat,' in the tradition of FDR or Henry Wallace, i.e., no Socialist.

I could and would support Bernie Sanders' or Elizabeth Warren's presidential candidacy. I would try to work to get each to change his or her position on the issue of Palestine -- my principal area of disagreement with each, aside from the fact that I'm a Socialist and each of them is a Capitalist -- but each would be a God-send for American workers and for workers globally (assuming a way to negotiate with Congress was found, itself a tall assumption).

N.B. Sanders, while not nominally a Democrat, caucuses with them in the Senate. I'm pegging my comments to a putative decision by Sanders to register and run as a Dem in the primary nominating cycle. The various Socialist parties will predictably nominate candidates, none of whom will receive more than 1-2% of the vote in the General Election.

This is a really good question and I hope your thread gets many, many replies. It really should.

I may not have framed it as well as it should have been.

'lesser evilism,' i.e., of voting FOR the lesser of two evils, I respond by referencing the experience of the German Communist Party, ca. 1932-33, whose leadership touted the ascent of Hitler as the 'icebreaker' that would trigger the onset of the Great Proletarian Revolution. Fast forward a year and Hitler has almost all of the Socialists and Communists in concentration camps (along with trade unionists), showing shall we say the limits to that particular electoral strategy.

I then say, "I'm not voting FOR the lesser of two evils. I'm voting AGAINST the greater of two evils." That usually shuts up all but the most mule-headed Anarchist and Trotskyist types

The only person who is 100% with me on the issues is me and sometimes that is not true. What is important is to pick the battles that can lead to victory. Sorry to use military terms but the lack of strategic thinking in this country is destroying us as a nation. This is in industry and government. What we have are a bunch of little kingoids who are only concerned about their bailiwick and not the overall integrity of the company, nation or in the case of medicine of the patient.

I can't imagine someone who agrees with me 100% of the time and if someone said they did I'd be more inclined to not trust them. It's only when candidates sink below the 60% level that I have issues with.

Hell if I demanded 100% agreement I would have been done with the Democratic party once they stopped making gun control and opposition the death penalty 2 of their man issues about 15-20 years ago.

And even after that, once they stopped vigorously supporting organized labor and public education I would (maybe should?) have wiped my hands of any support. But as it is I do have a pragmatic streak, so......here I will go again voting D like the pathetic sucker that I am.

we might see comments on DU, when a politician takes a contrary position, someone may rant that they will never vote for that person again and will work to throw them out of office. But that is a very rare occurrence. Don't you agree?

If a politician is anti-choice or anti-gay rights, then those are both deal breakers for me. That could still put them at a majority of my own beliefs, but not 100%, but those are 2 things that I cannot abide in any candidate, so....yeah.

That's not demanding 100% agreement, it's just a matter of having issues within your sphere of belief that you will not compromise on because it rises above the level of simple policy and gets into matters of human and civil rights (for me).

I will still support a Dem who is against gun control, for the death penalty, and in favor of corporate croneyism (hell, if I fell on that sword, I wouldn't support most of our Dem leadership), but not one who is anti-choice or anti-gay rights.

Thanks.

I understand why various people like having it, I've heard the various arguments. But I can't understand why whether or not a party is against it should even be in the top 20 things that would decide whether or not you're willing to vote for that party.

Surely locking somebody up in supermax forever is close enough to death in terms of punishment or prevention that it shouldn't be a dealbreaker in a party, unless what you really require is 'eye for an eye' vengeance.

I am against the death penalty.

That used to be the go-to position for most Democratic politicians and the party as a whole.

The Clinton era ended that, and since then few, if any Democratic politicians speak out openly in opposition to it.

I thought you were saying you needed it to exist.

'Would I be more inclined to vote for someone who agrees with me 100% of the time?' In a vacuum, with no other variables? Sure. Anyone who wouldn't would be irrational.

'Or are you inclined to vote for someobe that you might agree with only 80% of the time?' Again, in a vacuum, with no other variables? Of course not. Again, that would be irrational.

This is the old 'perfect being the enemy of the good argument'. And while there is some small kernel of truth to it, the reality on the ground is that not all 20%'s are equal.

For instance, I would be more than happy to vote for someone who agrees with me on '80%' if the 80% they agree with me on includes the most serious problems facing every American, or even every human, ie economic inequality and climate change.

But what if they 'agree with me' on issues on which positively affect 15% of the population, but disagree with me on issues which affect 100% of the population? So they'll help 15% of the population in a good way, but at the same time negatively impact that same 15% in a far worse but different way? And negatively impact the other 85% in the same worse way?

Priorities matter. And I think Maslow's Hierarchy points out priorities pretty well. Survival is #1. If you don't survive, nothing else matters. So we desperately need candidates who actually want to work to ensure that the vast majority of humanity can survive. And that means working to stop big companies from continuing to pollute the planet as much as they can in the name of profit. That's survival of the entire world.

Second, economic inequality. No money, no survival. The poor have to be provided the means to survive, and that means limiting how much the wealthy suck up and hoard, and pushing that money to the poorest, not the richest. There's your minimum wage hikes, taking care of the poor, strengthening SS, Medicare, Medicaid.. That's survival for everyone in the country. Nationalized healthcare pop up here as well - all of it. Not just emergency hospitalization, but eyecare, dentistry, and other specialties that help people survive chronic problems.

Next, we move down into survival of specific subsets of the population. Justice reform is at this level. Changing how law enforcement operates, demilitarizing police, reworking the legal system to stop killing or funneling African Americans into a lifetime of being labeled criminal or ex-criminals. Increased civil rights for all minority groups, stopping discrimination on anything other than actual ability to do a given job.

Anything and everything else that doesn't directly impact survivability as directly counts far less.

So people who work to maintain keeping the rich and corporations rich at the expense of the environment or the poor are already failing on the most important '20%'. The fact that they might agree with me on the other 80% of potential topics is immaterial. They're killing too many people with their stances on those other issues. There's blood on their hands.

All issues are not equal.

...who holds the other half of the golden amulet.

One hundred percent is a very silly strawman. We have a much larger problem, which is that corporate purchase of our government is now bipartisan and systemic, to the point that the people aren't being represented anymore to any measurable degree.

Jimmy Carter: "America has no functioning democracy."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1268113

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4819356

*

*

*

*

*

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda,
(This list does not show a president trying to enact a liberal agenda and being obstructed. No, it shows him aggressively and proactively implementing policies for the banks and corporations at the expense of the 99 percent.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395

Just a Republican thing, huh? Assaulting the Constitution itself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5554112

Study: Obama's "Trade" Deal (TPP) Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
("A Republican is making me do it?!&quot
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

The Latest Betrayal of America and Americans in Favor of the Big Banks: TISA
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/26/1309671/--Obama-s-Latest-Betrayal-of-America-and-Americans-in-Favor-of-the-Big-Banks-TISA-by-Bill-Black

Bombing Syria: The next step in the PNAC playbook, remember?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025520459

The "Justice" Department....even under Democrats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025587151
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025586874

Look at the OFFERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060108

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

Thanks for trying to keep the waters clear, woo.

A clear answer to what is starting to look like an attempt to gently herd the Left Wing of what used to be the new Democratic Party into the Hillary tent.
Doesn't work.
And nowadays, I consider that for most candidates, there is a vast gulf between their agreeing with me on ANY issues, and what they will actually do/go along with in Washington. Big vast gulf.

Also, wanting to scuttle the TPP is not a fucking pony.

And it may be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff? For example, a candidate running in Kentucky that supports jobs for coal miners, even though we know it is terrible for the environment, is that the same as being a corporate toad?

I think most folks here have issues that they will not compromise on, including myself. But it is a challenge for me to try and accept some things in a candidate, without asking for purity, and still be able to support them as a Democrat? I have problems with candidates like Mary Landrieu or Charlie Crist or, frankly, Hillary Clinton, because of their closeness to corporations and Wall Street interests. This is too close to Republicanism to suit me. But, if I am in their state and I have to choose one or the other, I would probably vote for either of them over the designated Republican?

Should we withhold our votes from such candidates? Would that be preferable?

They just have to not be warmongering corporate tools.

i voted 3rd party once and you see where that got us so I will vote dem. it would take a real asshole dem for me to refuse to vote for one. I'd rather stick a pencil in my eye than vote GOP. I just don't see it happening however my bottom line is roe. I will not vote for someone who would try to get roe overturned. Then I would vote 3rd

i wouldnt expect someone to represent only me. there are others where i live, city, state, congressional district, who would also be represented by that person. unless my interests and needs coincided perfectly with those of everyone else in that place, 100% would not be possible.
and it isnt, and i'm a grown up, and i recognize that.

I would be surprised to find any two people who agree 100% anywhere, even outside of politics.

so it will be lesser of two (or in my British case, more than two) evils, with a strong dash of 'tactical voting' against whoever is the most evil of the candidates.

And to re fuse to vote otherwise amounts to deciding to withdraw from society.

Some people prefer complaining.

I'll leave to others to disagree.

end of the fire extinguisher before I ram it into the nearest convenient orifice" vs. "lube is Commie"

usually when leading questions like that are asked I pull my perspective outwards and ask, "what horror is about to be bluewashed? what policy would bring 30M into the streets under President McCain but is being passed now to prevent a response?"

Like this morning I was arguing with myself on breakfast, should I have the biscuits and gravy or cottage cheese and fruit. I went for the cottage cheese and fruit and now regret it.

Of course, that has never happened. I am not 100% sure, but I believe the only litmus test I have is on civil rights. Maybe that is why so many dems have held on that issue. They know they can be neo-liberal of many issues but that is one that wont be tolerated.

So why would I expect to agree with a politician 100%? I live in Kentucky, and I'm voting for Grimes.

unions, education, Social Security and other issues. I don't want someone who will fight for a minimum wage. I want someone who will fight for a living wage. I don't want someone who doesn't want religion in the classroom. I want someone who doesn't want religion in the classroom and who fights to restore funding to pre-Reagan era funding and supports teachers unions. I don't want someone who doesn't want Social Security privatized. I want someone who doesn't want Social Security privatized, doesn't want chained CPI, and who will fight for real increases in cost of living increases for Social Security. I don't want someone who wants to bring troops home. I want someone who will bring troops home and give them the financial support at the VA they need. Democrats have been compromising for far too long, and I just can't support it anymore.

I will vote for the candidate that agrees with me on the most issues and actually has a chance of winning.

I'm a realist. The only person who will agree with me 100% of the time is me, and the choice between supporting a Democratic candidate that I mostly agree with and can actually win, is far better that letting a Republican win due to apathy and political inertia. Sometimes the only choice you realistically have is the lesser of two evils.