From what I can tell, most people I talk to don't delve so deeply into how candidates actually vote, but rely on press statements of the issues, and at best the candidates' websites. More people don't seem interested in actually doing investigation beyond what the tv tells them. This frustrates me a great deal, because I do what you just did -- actually go look at voting records. I want to know what they say, yes, but even more than that I want to know how they've acted. I think that speaks more toward what their true positions are than what CNN (or heaven forbid Faux News) is reporting.
Tomorrow's our caucus here. I -hope- that all we're going to talk about is presidential stuff since I haven't been able to find out any info on anything else that might be on the local agenda. :(
Heh, first time you've heard that? I can't claim credit... no idea who started it.
I should add that I don't scrutinize candidates who have too many stances that I don't like on issues that I care about. If it's just one, I'll still look at them, but it rarely turns out that there's only one dealbreaker...
I have Four Big Issues, which Mr. Zog and I rehashed at length during the last election cycle. I tend to see where the candidates fall on those issues. All of the remaining candidates, both sides, have substantial deviations from my given big issues
( ... )
Re: Track record... yeah. One can look up Obama's record in the Illinois Senate, of course, but that doesn't really help me with one of my own big issues, which is foreign policy
( ... )
If things bounce badly, and I'm left with a choice between, say, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, I'll just stay home. Or maybe write in "None of the Above."
Secondary issues can pull my attention every once in a while. Like John McCain and campaign finance reform. Usually in a negative fashion. I have some very tough choices to make in a John McCain/Hillary Clinton race.
I've been trying to get more information myself. I do like the debates. They are contrived, but at least they allow a candidate to speak for him/herself. That's how I went from supporting Richardson (based on resume) to being part of the Clinton/Obama/Edwards camp. I read through the Clinton/Obama debate transcript this morning to get a better sense of their positions, and I've also gone to each of their websites.
I probably do a lot more searching than most folks. I also have done more in this primary because the choice seems to fall to a few details rather than easy split issues such as the separation of church and state or abortion rights.
Some time ago, I wrote a rather irritable post on my "real blog" about just this issue. It describes, in an ideal world where I'm not lazy, how I would select a candidate.
The upshot is, I don't want to have to research and make an informed decision about zillions of issues that come before Congress. I don't have the time, or the energy. It is why my taxes pay the salaries of elected representatives to do these things on my behalf. So the trick is to figure out which of the candidates best fits my definition of "sensible".
So how is it you decide between people who on the surface seem to be well-reasoned in their position on issues, if you don't take into account whether or not you agree with their actual positions?
The debates are a good way. When I watch, I listen for reasoning, more than actual decision. Granted, it is sometimes hard to extract the reasoning from the soundbites. Also, I am not a perfect philosopher -- I'd probably have been forced to poison myself long ago if I were -- so if I agree with the candidate's decision, I will probably be well-disposed toward their reasoning. But there are a lot of issues I don't have an answer to (e.g. what the hell we should now do about Iraq), and these are the ones I prefer to hear them talk about
( ... )
For me, it's very simple (and I'm not registered in either major party, so the primaries are irrelevant to me personally):
Obama can beat anyone the Republicans nominate. Clinton can't.
The Republicans are going to nominate a candidate who I find deeply repugnant -- this is true whether it's McCain or Romney. All I care about is that they lose.
So I'm, against all my political beliefs, an Obama supporter.
(It also helps that he is the most amazing public speaker in American politics I've heard since Reagan. In fact, I think he's better than Reagan. It would be nice to find our President inspirational again.)
Comments 16
Tomorrow's our caucus here. I -hope- that all we're going to talk about is presidential stuff since I haven't been able to find out any info on anything else that might be on the local agenda. :(
Reply
It frustrates me, too.
Reply
I should add that I don't scrutinize candidates who have too many stances that I don't like on issues that I care about. If it's just one, I'll still look at them, but it rarely turns out that there's only one dealbreaker...
Reply
Reply
Reply
If things bounce badly, and I'm left with a choice between, say, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, I'll just stay home. Or maybe write in "None of the Above."
Secondary issues can pull my attention every once in a while. Like John McCain and campaign finance reform. Usually in a negative fashion. I have some very tough choices to make in a John McCain/Hillary Clinton race.
Reply
Reply
I probably do a lot more searching than most folks. I also have done more in this primary because the choice seems to fall to a few details rather than easy split issues such as the separation of church and state or abortion rights.
Reply
The upshot is, I don't want to have to research and make an informed decision about zillions of issues that come before Congress. I don't have the time, or the energy. It is why my taxes pay the salaries of elected representatives to do these things on my behalf. So the trick is to figure out which of the candidates best fits my definition of "sensible".
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Obama can beat anyone the Republicans nominate.
Clinton can't.
The Republicans are going to nominate a candidate who I find deeply repugnant -- this is true whether it's McCain or Romney. All I care about is that they lose.
So I'm, against all my political beliefs, an Obama supporter.
(It also helps that he is the most amazing public speaker in American politics I've heard since Reagan. In fact, I think he's better than Reagan. It would be nice to find our President inspirational again.)
Reply
Leave a comment