Would You Vote For A Nominee Who Was Against You On Your Pet Issue?

[ruggerson]

But agreed with you on almost everything else?

[babylonsister]

1. Yes! nt

[...of J.Temperance]

2. Yes, because I'm not a one-issue voter

I'd vote for whoever our nominee was/is...hands down and 100%

On Edit: Spelling error.

[AtomicKitten]

15. me too.

[LittleClarkie]

3. It would be more about what I think about that person's character

I would follow an honest man almost anywhere.

[Oceansaway]

4. Touche !!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. I'm inclined to disagree

I'd sooner vote for a candidate for President who adopted positions I agree than for one who's character or abilities I considered superior.

The reason for this is that the effect a President has is largely a matter of their decisions, not their personal actions - they govern on too large a scale for anything except the laws they pass and the orders they give to make a difference. I'd rather have a bad person who'd make good decisions than a good person who'd make bad ones.

Here in the UK, Margaret Thatcher had abilities as a leader superior to every prime minister since Atlee, I would argue, and if not a model of integrity was at least more honest than many, and never pretended to be anything other than she was. These are stirling traits in a prime minister, but because her policies were far right wing she did more harm than any PM since Chamberlain. A great prime minister, but a very bad one (as opposed to, say, Callahan, who was a good prime minister, but very far indeed from great).

In the US, Ford was - as far as I know - largely honest, but anything but good. Kennedy was as corrupt as all get-out, but my understanding is that he left the country a better place than he found it, and might well have done still more had he not been shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Montauk6]

5. Probably, my pet issue is the economic injustice of corporate welfare.

If said nominee supported, say, welfare reform that ONLY targeted programs aiding the poor but nodded and winked to the moguls; I'd really have to examine where she/he stood on everything else.

[spindrifter]

6. If the nominee was against

dog parks -- which in our city some have been -- then I am going to find a better candidate.

[GrumpyGreg]

7. My pet doesn't have any issues---a very well grounded pet.

[benddem]

8. depends on what it is

gun control don't care, health care do care, women's rights do care veterans and military benefits do care.

[hlthe2b]

9. Never never vote for....

a non-pet person! :evilgrin:

[AtomicKitten]

16. I agree.

[incapsulated]

10. I don't have a "pet issue"

There are many issues I care deeply about.

If you are talking about the final democratic nominee for president, I'm voting for them, unless they are so incredibly repugnant, it literally wouldn't be much of a difference if a moderate republican got the GOP nomination.

[waiting for hope]

11. My pet issue

is believing that women have the right to choose what to do in the event of pregnancy, most Dems are in favor of that, if one were not, I wouldn't vote....btw, always have voted Democrat and have never run into this issue - let's hope the trend continues....

[Zynx]

12. Yes, but it might make me not vote for their nomination.

I don't have any pet issues besides universal healthcare.

[IndianaGreen]

13. There is nothing "pet" about the war in Iraq and our civil liberties

People died to defend our freedoms at home and to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. I am not about to piss away what so many shed their blood to defend.

The Constitution is worth fighting for!

[UrbScotty]

14. My poet issue: The environment

With the Dem Party, that's pretty unlikely soon, esp. on the Prez/VP ticket. But should that happen, we'll see.

[Kali]

17. I do it all the time

cattle rancher in the public lands west. I almost always vote Dem. Sometimes it goes against my way of life. But in general I am not looking for a pro-ranching candidate - I am looking for someone who represents the ideals of the Democratic party as I understand them - and that is to help those who need it, as opposed to helping those who already have it, which is what the other party seems to be about.

[ruggerson]

18. Whaddaya think of Schweitzer?

[Kali]

45. Is that the gov of Montana? Or Wyoming ,,,I forget - one o' them northern

states wasn't it?

My understanding is that he was more or less elected by the urban counties and that most of the real rural folks think he is a fake.

Honestly? I don't know much about him or the state politics up there (don't really know what I should fo my state, if I were to be truthful)

[katejones]

49. Schweitzer ran

on a very moderate ticket- I mean this IS Montana. So far his popularity is good- and even the republicans like him which is saying something. But he is such an unknown. Never been in politics, a business owner with shady dealings, and hadn't come into the scene until recently.

Mostly voted for in places like Bozeman, Kalispell and Missoula. But overall won by a large margins.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Depends

I would have to say that it depends on the issue and how they present their position. For instance, I wouldn't care about somebody who is "Pro-Life" as long as they're not actively supporting an overturn of Roe Vs. Wade or onerous legislation that makes it more difficult for women to choose abortion. Likewise, with gun control, I wouldn't really care if they were card-carrying members of the NRA and rabid opponents of gun control even though I despise the NRA and support heavy gun control. Basically, my primary concern increasingly is whether or not Dem candidates are going to stake out some REAL differences in terms of civil rights, economics, foreign policy with Bush/GOP and are going to actually support other Dems and FIGHT for the people and groups that helped elect them and not simply try to "appease" Bush/GOP and/or feel like they have to take certain positions trying to attract votes from bigots and other people who would NEVER consider voting for a Dem in the first place. The fundies, bigots, etc. have their own party and it is the Republican party. The GOP didn't play "patty cake" with Clinton and the Dems back in the 90's and they were (unfortunately) rewarded for it but that should give Dems a clue about what we need to do to regain some balance of national power. We have plenty of people on our side who would actually vote for Dem candidates if they would fight for their concerns and stake out REAL differences on issues of importance to MOST Americans.

[babylonsister]

20. I long for someone who agrees with me on most every issue,

even if there's one topic we don't agree on. Bring him or her on!

[jackpan1260]

21. Yes.

[welshTerrier2]

22. i disagree with the premise of this question!!

Would You Vote For A Nominee Who Was Against You On Your Pet Issue?

i would guess that the author of the OP would answer a definitive "Yes" to this question ... the question, however, is filled with bias ...

if a nominee disagreed with a policy position i held, i would not consider them as being "against me" ... that makes it sound like my policy position is "selfish" and that i take their disagreement with me personally ... the OP question takes this a step further by referring to an issue i consider critically important as a "pet" issue ... there's nothing pet-like about the issues of life and death that i care very deeply about ... the OP makes it sound like my concerns are little more than a "puppy love" attraction ...

refusing to vote for a nominee on issues i consider most critical does not derive from some sort of petty, egotistical "if i can't have MY way i won't vote for you" ... it derives from an objective assessment of what i believe is in the country's best interest ... could i be wrong? of course i could be ... am i an egotistical purist who refuses to compromise? hardly !!

i'm willing to look for common ground with any nominee ... and yes, depending on the issue, i might reject a nominee based on their position on just a single issue ... in fact, there are probably several issues that could lead to that ...

instead of raising issues about whether people would refuse to support a Democratic nominee if they strongly disagreed with that nominee on critical issues, it would seem to be more productive to ask whether the Party and its nominees are doing all they possibly can to include the views of as many potential supporters as possible ... if voters don't feel represented on critical issues, there is always a risk they won't support the Party or its nominees ...

and, since you asked, i will not be voting for, working for or spending money for any Democrat who has been supporting this damned war ... i will be voting for all progressive Democrats and, where none is running, probably for candidates from other parties or possibly even a write-in of a progressive Democrat who is not running ...

[ruggerson]

23. Actually I would vote YES resoundingly

[welshTerrier2]

24. sorry ... read my edit ...

i misread the question ... your "yes" is what i expected ... sorry for the confusion ...

i hope you respond to the rest of my post ...

[ruggerson]

26. The one issue that directly affects me and my family

is the issue of marriage. I can't get legally married to my very long time partner, thus we are denied about 400 rights and privileges from the federal government, which heterosexual couples enjoy.

I will enthusiastically vote for a Democratic candidate who takes the middle ground and supports civil unions, but not marriage rights. I will vote for such a candidate OVER a Green party candidate who may actually support full marriage rights. Why? Because The Dem has a chance of winning and will appoint Supreme Court Justices and issue executive orders that will further move the country in the direction I wish it to go. While a Republican president will continue the current administration's policy of advocating gay and lesbian "Jim Crow" laws wherever they can pass them.

Equally importantly, we will be far better served with a Democratic Pres on almost any issue you can name. Iraq, foreign policy, tax fairness, economic growth, working man/woman protections, the environment, healthcare, corporate regulation, etc.

So, I will put aside my "pet" issue, which directly affects my life on a daily basis, to vote for the man/woman who will better serve the nation as a whole. And ANY of our pack generally bandied about as possible candidates for '08 - Warner, Feingold, Bayh, Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Clinton would be FAR better than any of the Republicans being bandied about.

[welshTerrier2]

27. i have no issue with that ...

first, just for the record, i am a very strong supporter of 100% equal rights for gays ... my real solution, btw, is to eliminate state-sanctioned "marriages" and make all legally recognized partnerships "civil unions" ... i don't think governments should be in the "marriage" business at all ...

i think there's a very positive, albeit painfully slow, evolution towards equal rights for gays ... i'm confident that, in time, all Democratic candidates will support this position ... if this were my most critical issue, i might be willing to make the same compromise you're talking about ...

but, and it's really not worth hijacking your thread and getting into a whole debate about Iraq here, i believe the Party has turned its back on the left especially on the issue of Iraq ... i also have very deep concerns about "corporatism" and i worry that the Party may be too dependent on "the bad guys" ... this second issue is less black and white for me than the war ... i will not "just go along" anymore ... it's as simple as that ...

i worked hard last year to help Democrats get elected ... i sent money i didn't have ... i hated Kerry's position on Iraq but went along with the ABB movement ... i argued many times on DU that, even as an ABB'er, we had to do all we could to get rid of bush ... our lukewarm feelings about Kerry should not in any way temper the effort we made ... that was last year; i will never, never do that again ...

the Democratic Party is badly in need of reform ... if the only choices we're going to get as realistic nominees (for President) are the current crop of war supporters, and that's how i see all of them (Bayh, Biden, Clark, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Warner), i will not just go along ... i'd like to see the US pull its troops out of Iraq before this weekend ... am i flexible on this point? yes, i am ... i would like to have a "date certain" for troop withdrawal with no contingencies ... am i flexible on this point? yes, i am ... i would compromise to a hybrid that provides for a phased withdrawal based on the achievement of benchmarks AS LONG AS there is also a date certain after which all US troops will be removed from Iraq ... the current plans that are based on contingencies are "open ended" if the contingencies aren't met - that is not a place i am willing to compromise ...

i'll re-emphasize that, instead of blaming (i'm not saying you're doing this) those who refuse to vote for Democrats under certain conditions, perhaps it would be more effective to evaluate how the Party itself is, or is not, communicating with its constituents ... perhaps instead of hyping the "big tent", we should ensure that we are reaching out to as many voters as possible ...

the Party cannot "demand" loyalty; they have to earn it ... arguments from those who complain about people who will not vote for the eventual nominee are NOT going to change anyone's mind ... this would NOT be a decision i would make lightly ... i've been calling for "Town Meetings" where the public, especially registered Democrats, could meet with and exchange ideas with elected Democrats on a regular basis ... my two Democratic Senators have been virtually invisible ... well, invisible unless you want to attend one of their expensive fundraisers ... a Party that loses touch with its own constituents is a Party at risk ... it's time we stopped chastising people for being disloyal and time we started improving how our Party communicates with the public and addresses their concerns ... to me, the emphasis of threads like these seems misplaced ...

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. if I only voted for a candidate who I agreed with on what I think to be

the most important issues, that would leave me Congressman Dingell, Congressman Kucinich and about dozen others.

So, I guess I better compromise.

[barb162]

28. yeah, you take what you can get

[election_2004]

29. Depends on their exact stance.....

My top issue ("pet issue" is such a loaded term) would be same-sex marriage (in favor of it).

Obviously most politicians (let alone those running for president) aren't going to publicly support same-sex marriage. I don't like it, but I understand why. So they don't have to agree with me 100% on this issue.

However, a candidate must be willing to support some basic form of spousal privileges for same-sex couples (e.g. civil unions) in order for me to even CONSIDER giving them my vote. It's a matter of human decency.

[Pushed To The Left]

30. In a general election, yes.

My rule of thumb is to vote for the most progressive candidate with a chance of winning.

[The Judged]

31. No, if that issue is total support of the PNAC agenda, for example.

[thecai]

32. No...

....if they do not oppose and/or expose corruption and injustice they do not receive my vote.

[distantearlywarning]

33. My pet issue is the separation of church and state

Since this affects many of the other issues that a nominee might potentially agree or disagree with me about, I would say that I probably couldn't vote for him or her if they disagreed with me on my "pet" issue.

[mmonk]

34. NO

My pet issue right now is the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. There are no "pet issues" - the very concept is flawed

Other's "pet issues" are usually just the issue where they have the most at stake, materially.

Your question is flawed from the outset.

[benEzra]

48. Precisely!!

There are no "pet issues" - the very concept is flawed

Other's "pet issues" are usually just the issue where they have the most at stake, materially.

Your question is flawed from the outset.

Well put.

To answer the OP, I think I'd have to say that it depends on what the consequences are. Economic policies...don't sway me a whole lot one way or the other; I care, but it's not a vote-breaker. Free speech, the "Patriot" Act...I care more about. The gun issue, I care a lot about, because my wife and I own guns that the prohibitionist lobby wants to ban...so if they get their way then the folks with machine guns will be at my door, no thanks. Health care policy, hits me directly because my 6-y.o. son is a cardiac kid. Social Security--I care, but I'm 35, so who knows what it will look like in 30 years, so I'm a bit apathetic on that one. Etc.

To put it another way, some issues are merely abstract for any given voter, and some issues are concrete because they affect them directly. One's circumstances will play a big role in determining which issues are abstract and which are concrete.

[freestyle]

36. I've drawn the line at supporters of second class citizenship for GLBT's

I could not vote for someone who supports writing me and mine out of a state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is an automatic disqualifier. The Patriot Act renewal and the war are close seconds, but not automatic disqualification. I still might vote for such a person in the general election.

[election_2004]

39. I'll second that!

Support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is an automatic disqualifier.

Same for me.

A candidate doesn't have to be "pure" on gay marriage in order to get my vote, but he/she must be reasonable.

[MrBenchley]

37. I have many times...

It happens....when I get named Emperor I'll take care of it (snicker)

[enough already]

38. No way

[maxsolomon]

40. Every Politician is against my pet issue/issues

its political suicide to be for
1. cutting the military down to a third of its present size
2. legalizing all drugs
3. taxing gasoline to pay for mass transit infrastructure & sustainable energy research.
4. buying clean water treatment systems for every village in every third world country.
5. providing birth control for every person on the planet.

[wiley]

41. Yes

[Sparkly]

42. In the general election, or a primary?

Whether his/her opponent had the same position on the issue would also be a major factor.

[Bucky]

43. Sure, but then my pet issue is revealing the truth about Area 51

I doubt "they" would allow a candidate with my pet issue to live too long. They've got them pods everywhere, man.

[Uncle Joe]

44. I believe the environment trumps all issues,

we could have our version of a virtual utopia with everything addressed including peace on Earth and goodwill toward everybody, but if we do not address our collision course with the environment such as global warming, and all life as we know dies out, what good is it?

This is not to take anything away from the import of avoiding World War III, however if everybody nuked everybody else, the result would be an unlivable environment.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

46. Absolutely yes (nt)

[Crunchy Frog]

47. It would depend on what the pet issue was.

When the issue is preemptive military aggression against other countries that pose no threat, that's kind of non-negotiable for me.

[greendog]

50. My pet issue is...

...democracy.

[Zhade]

51. Depends.

If the "pet issue" (nice biased framing, btw) involved, say, support for the Bill of Rights, I couldn't support those who disagree with me on that.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. My pet issue is constitutional rights and civil liberties

encompassing free speech, reproductive rights, personal self-determination, and the separation of church and state, to name a few.

And that 'pet issue' is not negotiable with me.

[guidod]

53. Depends on what the pet

issue is.

[rockymountaindem]

54. Yes

n/t

[radio4progressives]

55. What's a "Pet issue" ?

"Pet Issues" is a Republican Talking Point.

Issues I'm most concerned with relate specifically to socio-economic justice and equality, but even those are secondary to civil liberties which I place above all others.

So which one of these do you consider a "pet" issue?

And by the way, why do you employ Republican Talking Point euphamisms, such at "Pet Issues" here on the DU?

[JudyM]

56. I would vote for the best overall, on all my important issues. n/t

[LWolf]

57. I have a bunch of "pets."

As a teacher, would I vote for someone who supported NCLB?

As a woman, would I support someone who tried to overturn Roe v Wade?

As a non-christian, would I support someone who tried to claim America as a "christian nation?"

As a dove, would I support a hawk?

As the middle-aged single daughter of a mom on social security, with no one to look to for support in my own old age, would I support someone who tried to privatize or minimize SS?

As a believer in fair trade, would I support a NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO supporter?

As a proponent of single-payer, not-for-profit, universal health care, would I support someone who works for health insurance and pharmaceutical companies?

I see all those, and some other issues, as directly affecting me, and my fellow citizens. Would I vote for a nominee who was against me?

Probably not.

[AntiCoup2K4]

59. Not a chance in Hell

Because my "pet issue" is removing these corporatist neocon swine from the government once and for all. And I can't possibly vote for anyone who is against me on that.

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Pet issues are for pussies. Edwards 2008! cause he can win!