Do you ignore certain parts of platforms?

[KSig RC]

Having just read nittanyalum's interesting post about worry about Sarah Palin's ability to enact social change based on her very conservative, religion-based policy stances (specifically with regard to things like abortion and gay marriage), I realized something I found pretty interesting:

I don't pay attention to Republican or Democrat social policies on a "sweeping" level, because I assume they will never be enacted.

For instance, my personal feeling after fairly extensive study and analysis is that the Supreme Court would have to undergo significant change to even reconsider Roe v. Wade, not to mention overturn it. For that reason, I just don't pay attention to abortion stances, because I don't find them important (and the fact that I'm staunchly pro-choice may play a role in that, as a biasing agent). Many social policies seem like the hands-off status quo is quite sustainable, and that most politicians seem more interested in getting a sound bite than actually working toward a "fix" or a change. For that reason, I assume most social change promises are blowing smoke up our collective asses - there just hasn't been much traction on anything at a national level, although I do worry somewhat about the anti-gay marriage bans at a state level (even while I concede that is probably the "correct" way for it to be handled under the Constitution).

However, I find economic or foreign policy issues to be far easier for one party to force through. A classic example is the UIGEA legislation, which essentially attempted to choke off internet poker - while insanely stupid, the Republicans were able to attach it to a port security bill with the solid and nearly unanimous support of Democrats. I find that the "dominant" party (and also the President, even with an opposition Congress) can often make significant and strong changes on economic or foreign policy issues - see: the buildup to an awkward war in Iraq, Clinton's awkward balanced budget, or even Reaganomics. For this reason, I focus much more strongly on Obama's spending promises versus McCain's inconsistent history - this has an interesting side-effect of making me something of a limited-issue voter, should I choose to vote for either. This seems strange, since I feel fairly informed as a voter.

Am I alone in doing this?

With the seeming gridlock in Congress in recent years, do we really expect everything that is promised by either side? What do you worry about or focus on when it comes to political platforms?

[KSUViolet06]

I don't pay attention to either candidate's position on sime-sex marriage. I'm not gay, and I really don't see how allowing or not allowing them affects me in any way.

[OneTimeSBX]

you are not alone...

although i consider myself a democrat, i have crossed the lines a time or two. i totally agree that some of these issues will NEVER come up again after this election, the abortion example is a very good one... i try to mainly focus on what is said by the individual, compare it to their actions, and watch for any recanting later.

I was a 110% Hillary supporter. her stance on abortion, or prayer in schools, or anything along those lines didnt matter to me. i have my personal opinion and thats that. i went by her actions on what is happening now, and what will be done. nothing more, nothing less.

there just isnt enough time to save the world in 4 years lol! we all appreciate the gesture, but really, it cant all be done, it wont all be done, so stick to the basics. i guess the rule "Keep it simple, stupid" is what we ultimately need our ideal candidate/president to follow...

eta: Violet added another point that should be left alone...i dont give a rats a** about what they feel gay marriage/life partner/relationships should be. i have my opinion, and it shouldnt bother anyone that it doesnt personally impact. i worry about what EVERYONE is affected by: gas prices, taxes, terrorism, the war in Iraq, healthcare...that might be it lol!

[DGTess]

I can't imagine not considering a candidate's stance on issues in making a decision.

What you have to decide is what the relative priority is among his/her ability to make policy of his issues and the likelihood of it happening. Whether you can count on Congress to agree and push something through, or to disagree and block it.

I also look, for someone who's been in the Congress, at how many cosponsors s/he has been successful in getting. That says something about a candidate's willingness and ability to get others to work toward a goal--an essential part of leadership (and why Ron Paul's candidacy was doomed).

That's why I'm not supporting anyone this year. I'll vote, but neither is going to be able to do a quarter of what he's espousing.

[DaemonSeid]

Some things you have to pay attention to and some you don't because sometime I think that whatever is really important may never get done in 4 to 8 years...abortion however...we need to keep an eye on...if what is happening in Montana (and some other states) is any indication, it could give the Roe vs Wade ruling some legs to run on....

[SWTXBelle]

I don't know about ignoring - but certainly, I give some parts of a platform more attention.

One of my pet peeves is voters who will work themselves into a frenzy over the presidential candidate, but have no idea who their senators or congressman are, and put no thought or research into deciding for whom to vote. The bottom of the ticket may not be as glamourous, but it will probably have a greater impact on your life.

[KSigkid]

I don't pay attention at all to abortion, for the reasons KSigRC outlined. Despite what is going on in the states, I think there's almost no chance that Roe or Casey (i.e. the case everyone forgets about) are overturned, or at least in a substantial enough manner to make abortion illegal everywhere. I just don't think you'll ever have a majority of the court who will be so eager to overturn that precedent. You'd need a very conservative justice who doesn't care about precedent, and I don't think that's happening anytime soon. I think it's a hot button issue that gets people's attention, but I don't think anything is changing.

I do pay attention to the spending programs that are proposed, as well as the promises regarding taxation.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I can't imagine not considering a candidate's stance on issues in making a decision.

What you have to decide is what the relative priority is among his/her ability to make policy of his issues and the likelihood of it happening. Whether you can count on Congress to agree and push something through, or to disagree and block it.

To be honest, I was using "ignore" in the thread title as shorthand for this exact notion - feel free to use this definition going forward.

[OneTimeSBX]

Originally Posted by DGTess

What you have to decide is what the relative priority is among his/her ability to make policy of his issues and the likelihood of it happening. Whether you can count on Congress to agree and push something through, or to disagree and block it.

that is true, too. who knows? they may actually do some of the things we cant possibly imagine they will have time/ability to do. while i do have an opinion on abortion, it wont sway me in the direction of one candidate. there are more pressing issues at hand to me.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Having just read nittanyalum's interesting post about worry about Sarah Palin's ability to enact social change based on her very conservative, religion-based policy stances (specifically with regard to things like abortion and gay marriage

Just to clarify, I didn't express worry about SP's ability to enact anything (nor have I ever mentioned gay marriage in any posts), I brought back my concerns about her extremist views as a reflection on the top of the ticket and the decision-making that must have gone into bringing her on as the VP nominee.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

I think social change is much harder to push. It is something we are all more qualified to have an opinion on, and thus there is a lot more convincing to do. With that said, I vote based more so on social issues then economy or foreign affairs. I am HARDLY an economist, and foreign affairs have way too many complex factors for someone other than a staunch analyst to decide. However, I have faith in my freedoms, and that is something I am proud of. It bothers me all to hell to see someone stand behind a gun rack with a billion shotguns and preach about family values, a spin term for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage propaganda. I'm not a girl, nor gay, nor have a gun... but Its MY Body, MY bedroom, and MY gunrack and I should do what I want with it... AND HELL its MY lungs and MY brain, I should smoke pot if I want to!!!!!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

I think social change is much harder to push. It is something we are all more qualified to have an opinion on, and thus there is a lot more convincing to do. With that said, I vote based more so on social issues then economy or foreign affairs. I am HARDLY an economist, and foreign affairs have way too many complex factors for someone other than a staunch analyst to decide. However, I have faith in my freedoms, and that is something I am proud of. It bothers me all to hell to see someone stand behind a gun rack with a billion shotguns and preach about family values, a spin term for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage propaganda. I'm not a girl, nor gay, nor have a gun... but Its MY Body, MY bedroom, and MY gunrack and I should do what I want with it... AND HELL its MY lungs and MY brain, I should smoke pot if I want to!!!!!

So you're voting Libertarian, right?

[33girl]

Well, after Obama's saying he's going to give even more $$ to charter schools, it looks like I'm going to have to.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Well, after Obama's saying he's going to give even more $$ to charter schools, it looks like I'm going to have to.

More details? Because, here, the charter schools simply get the appropriation for each individual student that the state would be giving to the school that kid went to. There is no more funding than public schools get. Additionally, some of them are really phenomenal. There is an Automotive Academy associated with Ford, an Early College for Health care associated with the health system I work for, University Prep geared for college bound students and even foreign language immersion schools. Then again, some of them are awful and simply hold the kids who get expelled from the other public schools..

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

More details? Because, here, the charter schools simply get the appropriation for each individual student that the state would be giving to the school that kid went to. There is no more funding than public schools get. Additionally, some of them are really phenomenal. There is an Automotive Academy associated with Ford, an Early College for Health care associated with the health system I work for, University Prep geared for college bound students and even foreign language immersion schools. Then again, some of them are awful and simply hold the kids who get expelled from the other public schools..

Presumably, when he says he'll "give more money" that means either:

a.) Schools will get more money than they do now (so, more than the "normal" school would get), or
b.) He'll push for more charter schools, period, to increase the total amount going to charter schools.

Given that you yourself noted the extreme hit-or-miss nature of charter programs (in addition to the fact that there are disagreements over the scope and nature of what should be a "charter" program), either of these solutions seem like a band-aid rather than an actual solution to many (likely including myself and 33).