List of issues that Democrats should agree on but don't because of this primary:

[Aloha Spirit]

Not that all Dems should agree all the time, just that it's freaky how people seem to coincidentally agree with the position that favors their candidate.
Please help me with this list.

For example:
Is mandatory health insurance for adults a good idea?
Should states be punished for breaking the primary calendar rules?
Was the 2005 Cheney energy bill a good idea?
Is the gas tax holiday a good idea?
Is three years in the Senate sufficient preparation for taking on the presidency?
Is there any circumstance under which Karl Rove should be taken at his word?
Is nuclear energy an important part of our country's solution to energy independence?
Is being called on first during a debate an advantage or disadvantage?
Should superdelegates go along with the will of the voters?


All I'm saying is, it's freaky how depending on one's preferred candidate, people (in general, not necessarily here) seem to consistently agree with the position that favors that candidate. If you had to answer all these questions before the primary season started, would you have answered the same way you feel now?

[derby378]

1. I'm against mandatory health insurance no matter which candidate wins

You want to sell me on universal healthcare? Make it about healthcare itself, not about health insurance. Mandatory health insurance still leaves us at the mercy of Blue Cross, Tenet, Humana, Aetna, etc. And while some of these insurers are okay, some of them have screwed over their customers big time.

[Aloha Spirit]

3. It's good to know at least one voter did not abandon their opinion for that of their candidate!

[Occam Bandage]

2. I haven't changed my position on any of that, and I'm aware that I conflict with

Obama on some issues (healthcare and trade, for instance), and with most DUers on others (necessity of nuclear power, for instance).

[Aloha Spirit]

4. See, that's because you're a critical thinker. I've definitely caught myself defending Obama's

positions when I would not normally agree with them, for example on the credit card interest rate bill.
I guess I'm more incredulous with the grocery list of Clinton ideas that seem counterproductive, yet people that should know better defend them tirelessly.
Again, not talking about DU people necessarily.

[TygrBright]

5. I'm not sure either candidate owns "blame" for disunity on these issues....

...nor do various individuals' positions on the issues reflect, relate to, or depend on the candidates' positions. For example:

Is mandatory health insurance for adults a good idea?
This is a large debate that is part of a still larger debate. For many of us (me included,) nothing is being ruled out YET, as long as it results in the complete transformation of the health care system. There are models that structure the payer system as "insurance" that bear absolutely no resemblance to the current system of greedy, profit-chasing corporate sharks. I wouldn't rule one of them out. But I'm inherently distrustful of the current system as well. The only certainty is that no matter what any candidate's current "system" may be, it will be radically transformed in many unexpected ways by the time any implementation happens.

Should states be punished for breaking the primary calendar rules?
When you're right, you're right. This one is square in the primary court. But how could it not be? And if the 'price' we pay for arguments about this includes unprecedented numbers of people participating in the primary process and getting involved in electoral politics and caring deeply about the democratic process well in advance of November, it's worth it.

Was the 2005 Cheney energy bill a good idea?
Seriously, does ANYBODY except Exxon/Mobil/Shell/etc. executives think it was? I don't think either Democratic candidate's supporters, asked this question, will say "oh, yeah, it was a GREAT idea!" I think this is what's called a 'straw man.' Could be wrong about that, though.

Is the gas tax holiday a good idea?
If I were an owner/operator of an over-the-road truck and scraping by on margins of pennies, being eroded away daily with rising gas prices, I might think it was. Also, if I didn't know diddly-squat about economics or the gasoline industry or the tax structure I might think it was. If I were too lazy to want to spend time thinking about it I might think it was. But it wouldn't have anything to do with which candidate advocated it, because whether and when it happens bears little or no relation to which candidate is eventually nominated and/or elected.

Is three years in the Senate sufficient preparation for taking on the presidency?
Sufficient preparation for which individual? For some individuals it might be, for some it might not be. Irrelevant without specification, therefore not a valid contention that general opinions on the issue are influenced by specific candidates. Once a candidate is specified, the question is no longer general.

Is there any circumstance under which Karl Rove should be taken at his word?
No.

Is nuclear energy an important part of our country's solution to energy independence?
Maybe, maybe not. My opinion doesn't have much to do with either candidate's position. I can see situations in which each starting position (and I allow as how whichever candidate is nominated and/or elected will experience evolution in their position on the issue as reality also evolves...) may be a valid jumping-off point for the formation of an energy policy vastly improving the status quo.

Is being called on first during a debate an advantage or disadvantage?
Depends on who the moderator is and what biases are being showcased today, doesn't it?

Should superdelegates go along with the will of the voters?
See above re: primary calendar rules.

In short, I'd be WORRIED if all Dems agreed on all these issues, no matter who the nominee was. Not agreeing on complex issues where there is almost certainly more than one viable, desirable outcome is one of the things that makes us DEMS.

helpfully,
Bright