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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 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.

While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.

So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.

So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.

Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.

That being said - I choose a party platform based on how well I identify with it as a whole. I have a degree in Economics and spent a good bit of time in college and afterwards studying historical econ. I am not a believer in a pure capitalism system. I realize this sounds preposterous, but I am a bit of a fiscally conservative socialist. It's much harder to explain than I have time to type this morning - but it's based on historical precedent partially here and partially in other countries. Since republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in years, and I am a social liberal, I have no reason not to align myself with the democratic party.

An absolutely fascinating book for anyone who is interested in why some people identify with one party over another is Moral Politics by George Lakoff. It's not without flaws, but it's a great read.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.

Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.

I'm a SCOTUS junkie as well (law school has only increased my SCOTUS nerdness), and I would slightly disagree with some of your post. I don't want to derail the thread, however, so if you have any thoughts, or want to discuss it more, feel free to PM me. I'm always up for discussing SCOTUS issues.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.

So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.

And this is my hope/expectation with the judicial appointments that I'd like to see. And really, it's what I think would be the best resolution to the abortion issue and one that would probably reflect the views of most Americans. There seem to be relatively few people at both ends of the abortion rights spectrum: from all abortions legal at any time to no abortions legal at any time for any reason, and yet, the issue is almost always discussed in these terms.

ETA: Interestingly, this was linked on Instapundit today and seemed topical. It's about abortion not being as much of a political issue: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/09/i...ncreasing.html

So, I suppose I ignore any promises to ban all abortions but I hope for appointments more likely to restrict it in some cases.

Basically, I ignore most of both parties' platforms. Up until W and the Republican congress during his administration, I regarded the Republicans as less likely to assume that domestic government bloat and intervention were the answers to every issue. (Obviously, I had to be willing to ignore drug policy during my whole life and a few other social issues to maintain this delusion.)

Now, I'm looking at judicial appointments and whether I think a candidate recognizes that military strength (and resolve?) is probably the most important aspect of foreign policy. ETA: I'm interested in American economic strength as well but both parties have strengths and weaknesses on that, I think.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie . . . .

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm a SCOTUS junkie as well (law school has only increased my SCOTUS nerdness) . . . .

When you refer to it as SCOTUS, especially in a non-legal forum, the junkie part may be a tad bit redundant. Just sayin'

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

When you refer to it as SCOTUS, especially in a non-legal forum, the junkie part may be a tad bit redundant. Just sayin'

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...