Why Do We Judge Candidates on Policy Stances? (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

Hate to be serious here but I've just realized that the primary way in which we supposedly determine who we want to vote for (specific stances on issues and promises of policy direction) are precisely the last thing we truly can tell about a candidate. Most of these people have no actual clue regarding the issues they are taking hardline stances on. I mean do we really believe most of these candidates could truly, actually get into the White House and just magically make their desired policy happen?

I have a theory - every time a new president is sworn in, the next day someone takes him to a room, points to a file cabinet in the corner, and says 'Mr. President, therein lies all the actual deals, bargains, closed door agreements, bribes, coups and other sorts of binding actions your predecessors have enacted around the globe. We must act in accordance with the history of a vast majority of these. The public knows little to nothing about any of this. Most of your campaign promises are impossible based solely on the history of action contained in this cabinet.'

I mean, you ever wonder why every D governs as a moderate R or visa versa? Because they don't actually know what the #### they are talking about till they get in.

Now I have no real solution to offer. But 'Trump would do ____' or 'Hillary's stance on ______ is right!' is utterly meaningless. I'm convinced that the actual governance of the US is basically predetermined from some precedent with which we are completely unfamiliar

 

[timschochet]

I think you're correct to a certain degree. It is true that when you hear a candidate make promises about certain issues, you have to weigh the possibility of them actually getting the issues pushed through the legislature. For example, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and even Donald Trump all have a grab bag of ideas they are floating, and given the split in Congress, it's easy to predict that not much of what any of them want to happen actually will happen.

On the other hand, their ideas are also indicative of what they won't accept, which is also important. For example, if you want Obamacare to continue or be expanded, then vote for Hillary or Bernie because they're certain to veto any attempt by the GOP to get rid of it. On the other hand, if any of the Republican candidates win, you can expect Obamacare will be repealed in part or full. If you're against the Iran deal that Obama made, a Republican win is sure to derail it- they're all unified about that. A win for Hillary is likely to result in it's extension (and an extension of Obama's foreign policy). And so forth.

And perhaps most important of all, the Supreme Court selections are made by the President without too much opposition from Congress- most times, the President will get his or her way. So it's always a good thing to choose the President IMO based on the type of SC justice you want.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

"Why Do We Judge Candidates on Policy Stances?"

I'm not convinced we do. Trump was dominating the polls before he ever articulated a policy position, and Obama took office primarily on lofty rhetoric rather than solid policy plans.

 

[mr roboto]

"Why Do We Judge Candidates on Policy Stances?"

I'm not convinced we do. Trump was dominating the polls before he ever articulated a policy position, and Obama took office primarily on lofty rhetoric rather than solid policy plans.

But Obama explicitly claimed he'd bring Hope and Change (while not very specific he claimed he'd bring a new era). He wasn't really able to deliver on that to his supporters' satisfaction. Why? Cause see my first post. Each president doesn't start with a blank slate or anywhere near that. He starts with a narrowly defined set of options for just about everything.

 

[fdas2]

You could've just titled this "Tim, please post here"

 

[rockaction]

I think there have been articles over the past year regarding a strikingly similar thesis, and it's one I don't think is too far off.

 

[mr roboto]

You could've just titled this "Tim, please post here"

good point

 

[lod01]

You could've just titled this "Tim, please post here"

Great post.