- May 31, 2001
- 15,326
- 1
- 0
Say there are two candidates running for a position, be it local, state, or national.
One candidate flip-flopped or whatever you wish to call it and now stands on what you would consider to be your side of the issue. They may or may not flip-flop back to their original position if elected.
The other candidate stands against your position on the issue, but has never waffled. They have remained firm in their opposition throughout their career. By electing them, at least you know where they stand and have no illusions about their position.
I realize this is vague, and it may change based on the issue at hand, but there are too many other variables to make it more specific. This is assuming you are one of those people that votes for the individual that you think can do the job versus always voting the party line.
One candidate flip-flopped or whatever you wish to call it and now stands on what you would consider to be your side of the issue. They may or may not flip-flop back to their original position if elected.
The other candidate stands against your position on the issue, but has never waffled. They have remained firm in their opposition throughout their career. By electing them, at least you know where they stand and have no illusions about their position.
I realize this is vague, and it may change based on the issue at hand, but there are too many other variables to make it more specific. This is assuming you are one of those people that votes for the individual that you think can do the job versus always voting the party line.