How Important is a Candidate's stand on the issues in evaluating him or her to you?

[bryant69]

Poll question: How Important is a Candidate's stand on the issues in evaluating him or her to you?

When you look at a candidate, how important is it to you that he or she have the right position on the issues of the day.

I will note, parenthetically, that there is certainly a case to be made that character is more important than positions on the issues - the President may never or only infrequently face certain issues, but his character will determine his actions during his Presidency, every day.

Bryant

This is Poll #2

[baldguy]

1. As opposed to what? How he treats his dog?

Blondi was a dog that was treated well.

[bryant69]

2. As opposed to character or electibility or likability or natural talent

Those sorts of things.

I know a lot of people who share my stance on the issues that I wouldn't necessarily want running the country.

Bryant

[baldguy]

3. A lot of people voted for Bush because they saw him as a nice guy they could have a beer with.

We can see how well that turned out.

[bryant69]

7. That is the counter example, I'll admit n/t

[King Coal]

13. Your frame of reference may be questionable. Macaroni and all.

[bryant69]

17. I'm done putting up with you - I've alerted the Mods and will continue to do so

every time you respond to one of my posts/responses with a response designed strictly to slander me for being a Mormon.

This is the last time I will respond to one of your pathetic responses - at least here. I'll be hitting that alert button though.

[King Coal]

20. Why are you threatening me?

[never_get_over_it]

18. Within reason I don't give a rat's ass about a person's

character - or likability as long as he/she votes "correctly" on the issues of concern to me

for example - Ted Kennedy and the whole Chappaquidick thing - first of all I don't know what happened - but I do at least believe their was drinking involved which probably led to the accident BUT this incident would NEVER keep me from voting for him - BUT as I said within reason - IF I believed he killed her because she was pregnant or whatever ridiculous theory some folks had - I would not vote for him....

Conversely - Hillary Clinton - a woman - I have wanted a woman to be President all my life - BUT her lack of leadership over the past 6 years, her untrustworthness, her corporate ties, her standing for nothing but election - will not allow me to vote for her....

How a candidate leads and votes on issues important to me is the MOST and nearly the ONLY reason I support them....

[bryant69]

19. OK but saying that Clintons lack of leadership and her untrustworthiness

aren't those character issues? I mean if you lined up what she says her position on the issues are, they might not be that far off what your position is - but her unwillingness to really fight for those positions, isn't that her real problem?

Bryant

[King Coal]

21. That is exactly my point. Why are you the only one allowed to express it?

[bryant69]

22. If you want to talk about Senator Clinton that's fine

But it seems like you want to talk about something else.

Anyway Clinton has her strengths and weaknesses; and I'd say her weaknesses have more to do with her character than with her position on the issues.

Bryant

[King Coal]

24. You know, you must consider the possibility that you think too much.

Your mind can play all kinds of tricks on you, if you don't take care of it. If you trick your mind, it may respond in kind. Be kind to your mind. Treat it with respect, and it will counter with greater performance than you have ever dreamed. Trust it.

[bryant69]

26. How does this advice relate to Senator Clinton, on whom we largely agree

Although you obviously feel more strongly about it than I do (I can acknowledge that as a Candidate Clinton does have some strengths, and as a President, she would certainly be better than Bush and might be better than Bill Clinton).

Bryant

[never_get_over_it]

23. Actually it occurred to me after I posted

that my trouble with Hillary is both character and positions on the issues - but in her case it is probably more character - when I hear her she often sounds very good - but I don't trust her and her IWR vote and her excuses for it make me sick and then add that she voted for LIEberman Kyl Iran thing oh my god

but generally speaking you could have the most honest most trustworthy most likable person in the world and if he/she were wrong on the issues I wouldn't vote for him or her

[Stuckinthebush]

4. Oops!

"...in evaluating him to you?"

Perhaps "him or her" would be a better choice than "him" with this season's candidates.

[bryant69]

8. I abologize for my error.

[MH1]

5. Equally as important as"stand" is ability to effect positive change on those issues. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

6. It's All That Matters

I don't want to elect a philosopher king. I want a policy wonk that knows what they're doing, understands how society works and its needs and wants.

The Professor

[bryant69]

9. Isn't being a policy wonk a bit of a personality trait? I agree though. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

15. POV, I Suppose

I'm using the term in the sense that it's someone who is tuned into, interested in, and aware of the workings of policies that are being implemented.

So, we're probably using the same word but with a different spin. I meant to imply no personality element of it. I do suppose that a person with that sort of interest in a detailed understanding of issues requires a certain type of personality. But, i think it's more than one type. ENFP's and ESTJ's, for instance, could both be policy wonks.
The Professor

[porphyrian]

10. I have certain issues that are deal breakers, but they aren't necessarily issues du jour.

So, I'm not sure how to vote in this one.

[bryant69]

11. I hadn't thought about that - Necessary but not sufficient conditions

Not sure how to set up the poll to take care of that.

Bryant

[porphyrian]

16. Most pollsters use "Other," then basically disregard that data unless...

...a significant trend emerges or a lack of useful data comes from the primary questions.

[Coexist]

12. This "pull" is bullshit? - you might want to correct that one!

[slackmaster]

14. I have certain issues that are deal-breakers, and several I care very much about

I would never support a candidate who has bought into the notion that evolution is "just one theory", and that some particular religion's creation myth should be given equal voice in public schools.

I would never support a candidate who supports a federal ban on elective abortions.

I do not support candidates who are not broadly supportive of maintaining a clean and healthy environment.

Those three rule everyone on the Republican ticket from the get-go.

I avoid supporting candidates who want to restrict individual civil liberties. That's a tough one for me, because (taking right now as an example) there is not one prominent candidate who truly supports all of the freedoms I value.

[H2O Man]

25. Does neatness count? n/t

[LSdemocrat]

27. For me, record in office is far more important than claimed current positions

Current claimed positions are just words without any chance of current implementation, whereas a candidate's record is a better indicator of how they approach situations.

[mvd]

28. Very important

I also want someone who I think can win, but I do think Kucinich can win if given the chance and the party's backing. Certain issues, like Iraq, global warming, and health care, are extremely important to me. Others, like abolishing the death penalty and increasing taxes, aren't quite as important, but I don't think I'd be able to say that I'd be open to executions just to get elected. Issues like immigration and line-item veto would come last when I evaluate a candidate.