After all, voting "the lessor of two evils" is also voting "the better of available choices."

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."

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.

...that candidate wouldn't be working alone. I would expect to have to lobby that candidate along with everyone else.

mostly we disagree about gambling.

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.

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.

But I don't expect to see eye to eye with them on every issue, no.

...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?

So I put it on my blog:

Do you expect a candidate or office holder to agree with you on every issue?

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.

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?

I attribute no malicious intent to him. I think he's wrong. Why he backs it so strongly is a mystery to me.

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.

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?

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.

I do enjoy your 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.

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.

...my hot items.

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.

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.

I think I will follow her lead until such time she flip-flops on it.

... as to what our most important issues are, much less how to deal with them. Kind of proves my original point.

Anyone who does is unrealistic, to say the least.

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.

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.

"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.

do you see a correlation?

.... not the broke looking unicorns without sparkling tails / sarcasm <--- cause this is needed around here