If the candidate with whom you share the least ideologically expresses an earnest desire to "reach across the aisle", would this fact alone cause you to change your vote and support them?
I suspect they are lying.
"Reaching across the aisle" is a thing people say to get elected. Everyone knows that money is government and that no politician actually does what we think they do
No - they would probably be lying since politicians are as accurate as weathermen these days
It would be wrong for a representative to change his position based solely on how he's being treated by an opponent. Such shallow representation robs the constituency of thoughtful representation.
They say that to try and get independents.
That's usually the first lie they tell. Look how many democrats are claiming to be able to work with republicans when they've voted with their own party nearly 100% of the time.
they have to be willing to reach a common ground with the opposite party, and prove it. time and time again. and go all out for their constituents. keep most of their promises. they'll get my vote
Talk is cheap
If they Do some sustained actions and then I'll believe them
Any one in politics is a liar! No!
Expressing the desire gets my attention, but no points. Actually doing it, compromising and putting the people the government exists to serve ahead of ideology makes points. Do it consistently and often, and you get my vote AND my support.
So, to be clear, a candidate who least shares your views, but has demonstrated a pattern of compromising with the side with which you would normally agree is more attractive to you than supporting a candidate who more shares your views and sticks to
A candidate who represents the best interests of all of us and not a particular ideology is likely to share many of my views, but even if not, I would support them. I don't see governance as black and white or red and blue, I see it as mostly grey.
I call BS.
Unfortunately experience has already shown 99% of these to be false promises, or at least not in their power (takes at least one on the other side.)
Very true. But if the promise were kept, would you vote for someone with whom you don't agree as much as the other because he/she will compromise positions to get legislation passed? Or would you rather "your guy" stick to their guns and fight for
what you mutually believe in?
No. But the person I do agree with more, who wants compromise, will get my Primary vote.
It all about the Primaries. If you don't vote in those, you're not making a difference.
He needs to have proved that somewhere...words alone won't cut it.
Assume this candidate is believable...he/she will follow through with their promise. Is a candidate that will compromise with the "other side" an attractive quality? Would you desire that in your candidate or cause you to vote for an opponent who
possesses that quality?
I want a candidate that puts the country & Constitution ahead of their party. If that means breaking ranks with their party to do the 'right' thing-they have my support.
Would they have your vote, though? If you tend to side with Democrats on most issues, would you vote for a Republican who has a strong record of compromising with Democrats vs a Democrat who stands by your shared principle beliefs? Or are you saying
that you support Republicans who compromise, as in you like for your political "opponent" to give ground so that your side gets at least some of what you want?
Personally, I'm independent & vote for who I think is the best candidate regardless of party. This person would have my vote and campaign donation.
Maybe I shouldn't have brought specific parties into the discussion. Does your view of the best candidate factor in the compromise factor? Do you want your candidate to compromise? I'm trying to get a feel for whether someone would abandon support
for a candidate who better "matches" your ideology (whatever that is) for someone who does not believe in the same things you do, but has demonstrated a willingness to compromise with your ideological stance in an effort to get legislation passed.
Case by case basis.
Of course not. It's a ploy to acquire votes. He will soon go back to business as usual.
I look at their record. That meandering more than hollow words.
Stalemate is good.
Absolutely! I would rather them do nothing at all than do the wrong things.
Damn straight! A gridlocked congress is liberty's best friend nowadays.
No but if they had a history of compromising, it might.
No this idea about reaching across the isle is just a gimmick to catch swing voters. I vote on opinions and record. Few actually reach across the isle and if they do it's rarely on critical issues which would me change my opinion.
Even if you assume it's not a gimmick, does it work? Are voters interested in electing representatives who will look to compromise rather than stand on the positions that you either support or oppose? Who are swing voters, anyway? Thanks for voting!
It probably helps getting votes from the people who are not fully committed to that candidate. They can be comfortable he/she will work with the other side so they will get a little of both sides. At least that's what I think their rationale is.
Didn't Pres. Obama promise to reach across the aisle?
But that was before he realized he had a pen and a phone.
No, he's lying.