Who do I side with in 2020? (issues based)

Majes · May 15, 2019

83% John Kasich
74 % John Delaney
70% Donald Trump
64% Andrew Yang

Might just look into Delaney and Yang since Trump isn't an option.

interchange · May 15, 2019

DrunkenSano said:
Funny enough, none of the parties fit me either. Democratic 59%, Peace and Freedom (wtf?) 59%, Socialist 59%, Green 55%, Republican 49%. On the ideology map, I leaned towards left wing authoritarian (legalized equality).

I wonder if you did a lot of positions other than basic yes and no or asked for expanded questions in different categories. They prioritize the talking points for the election for various candidates, so mostly you'll get politicians taking broad stances, and I think the hot button questions may be poorly representative of the underlying political category.

Personally, some positions I take that end up being more socialist (healthcare, education, environment) are much more pragmatic as reflective of a critically broken system than my underlying principles of effective government would generally support. If I had carte blanche to recreate our systems from scratch, I'd pick different answers. But at this moment in time advocating for principle is advocating for the death of our nation and the world. Taking socialist control of these areas is the best current action IMO.

dank69 · May 15, 2019

Answered every single question and expanded every "other choices" list to choose the most accurate answer. I used one user submission and submitted one user submission of my own (for the minimum wage thing).
Link to results:
https://www.isidewith.com/profile/3787415124/ballot/custom=l:595821989

UNCjigga · May 15, 2019

dank69 said:
Answered every single question and expanded every "other choices" list to choose the most accurate answer. I used one user submission and submitted one user submission of my own (for the minimum wage thing).
Link to results:
https://www.isidewith.com/profile/3787415124/ballot/custom=l:595821989

View attachment 6350

Gabbard seems to be pretty high for a lot of folks...she doesn’t seem 100% trustworthy to me though. “Fool me once” with a Putin stooge...

dank69 · May 15, 2019

UNCjigga said:
Gabbard seems to be pretty high for a lot of folks...she doesn’t seem 100% trustworthy to me though. “Fool me once” with a Putin stooge...

When I first created the Warren vs Gabbard thread I looked into her positions since I knew nothing about her. There was very little info about her positions at that time. I have not looked since.

Oyeve · May 15, 2019

DrunkenSano · May 15, 2019

interchange said:
I wonder if you did a lot of positions other than basic yes and no or asked for expanded questions in different categories. They prioritize the talking points for the election for various candidates, so mostly you'll get politicians taking broad stances, and I think the hot button questions may be poorly representative of the underlying political category.

Personally, some positions I take that end up being more socialist (healthcare, education, environment) are much more pragmatic as reflective of a critically broken system than my underlying principles of effective government would generally support. If I had carte blanche to recreate our systems from scratch, I'd pick different answers. But at this moment in time advocating for principle is advocating for the death of our nation and the world. Taking socialist control of these areas is the best current action IMO.

Yes, I did end up answering a number of questions with expanded answers because yes or no just doesn't seem to fit as a general answer.

UNCjigga said:
Gabbard seems to be pretty high for a lot of folks...she doesn’t seem 100% trustworthy to me though. “Fool me once” with a Putin stooge...

That's the only issue I have with Gabbard. She has great talking points but just how trustworthy and solid is she. Bernie is far too left for me but one thing I know of him is that his stance has not changed for many, many years. He's consistent in what he stands for which a lot of candidates lack.

glenn1 · May 15, 2019

interchange said:
I wonder if you did a lot of positions other than basic yes and no or asked for expanded questions in different categories. They prioritize the talking points for the election for various candidates, so mostly you'll get politicians taking broad stances, and I think the hot button questions may be poorly representative of the underlying political category.

Most of the questions seem purposely designed to thwart anyone looking for a rational fix to the underlying problems rather than the band-aid solutions of partisans that further their class warfare or culture wars fixations. For example the (to me) obvious answer to immigration problem isn't among the choices listed (e.g. "build the wall," expand Muslim ban, completely open the borders, etc) but rather realistically adjust legal immigration quotas to better reflect demand, increasing immigration via legal channels and reducing the desire to be an undocumented immigrant. Likewise most of the questions and answers reflected grossly oversimplified to the point of ridiculous deus ex machina "fixes" that were more about values signalling than actually fixing anything. There were plenty of those in there reflecting the less realistic portions of the fringe wings of both major parties.

dank69 · May 15, 2019

glenn1 said:
Most of the questions seem purposely designed to thwart anyone looking for a rational fix to the underlying problems rather than the band-aid solutions of partisans that further their class warfare or culture wars fixations. For example the (to me) obvious answer to immigration problem isn't among the choices listed (e.g. "build the wall," expand Muslim ban, completely open the borders, etc) but rather realistically adjust legal immigration quotas to better reflect demand, increasing immigration via legal channels and reducing the desire to be an undocumented immigrant. Likewise most of the questions and answers reflected grossly oversimplified to the point of ridiculous deus ex machina "fixes" that were more about values signalling than actually fixing anything. There were plenty of those in there reflecting the less realistic portions of the fringe wings of both major parties.

There were at least a few questions addressing legal immigration.

interchange · May 15, 2019

glenn1 said:
Most of the questions seem purposely designed to thwart anyone looking for a rational fix to the underlying problems rather than the band-aid solutions of partisans that further their class warfare or culture wars fixations. For example the (to me) obvious answer to immigration problem isn't among the choices listed (e.g. "build the wall," expand Muslim ban, completely open the borders, etc) but rather realistically adjust legal immigration quotas to better reflect demand, increasing immigration via legal channels and reducing the desire to be an undocumented immigrant. Likewise most of the questions and answers reflected grossly oversimplified to the point of ridiculous deus ex machina "fixes" that were more about values signalling than actually fixing anything. There were plenty of those in there reflecting the less realistic portions of the fringe wings of both major parties.

I think this is not their fault. I think this is them grabbing position statements from the current candidates for President. It's our politicians' fault for lacking substance. Or our fault for responding to dramatic solutions and being uninformed about the real problems. Or there's no point in deciding who's fault it is. It's the way it is. If you think it should be different, my vote is to make it a point to communicate clearly your own position instead of getting caught up in party rhetoric.

woolfe9998 · May 15, 2019

Mine are mostly in line with the candidates I prefer:

Klobuchar, Booker: 95%
Buttigieg: 93%
Gillibrand, Harris: 93%
Gabbard, Warren: 92%
Beto, Biden, Sanders, Castro: 91%
Yang: 89%
Delaney: 86%
Johnson: 72%
Kasich: 64%
Trump: 29%

Currently my top 2 are Buttigieg and Klobuchar. But I have only examined a few of their policy stances. I favor them based on intelligence, competence and honesty. So it works out well that this test suggests I also align with them well on policy.

FYI, my middle tier is Warren, Sanders and Biden.

Lower tier is Booker, Beto, Gabbard and Harris. I have very little opinion about Yang or Castro.

For now. I'm waiting for the debates.

K1052 · May 15, 2019

99% Harris
98% Warren
98% O'Rourke

lots of mid-90s

87% Biden

several random GOPs and libertarians

18% Trump

When it comes down to it I'm going to vote for any of the Dem candidates who might plausibly get the nomination. If I have to vote Biden I'll be annoyed but if he picks a more progressive VP I can live with it.

Ajay · May 15, 2019

woolfe9998 · May 15, 2019

K1052 said:
. If I have to vote Biden I'll be annoyed but if he picks a more progressive VP I can live with it.

Biden is a tough call for me. I very much dislike the fact that he currently refuses to define his stances on healthcare, climate change, and college debt, claiming he doesn't have the time to do it right now. Clearly he's hoping his personality, charm and greater national profile will give him a steamrolling lead before he introduces a bunch of middle of the road policies which will alienate much of the base. On climate change, some things have leaked out. Basically he wants to rejoin the Paris Accord and re-institute Obama's cafe standards. So all he wants to do is undo Trump's undoing of Obama's climate policies. This isn't in the universe of what is needed on what is in my opinion the most critical issue of all.

But then there's the issue of electability which I have to admit he's possibly the most electable of the bunch. And we must get Trump out. That's what makes him such a tough call.

He's already discussed with Stacey Abrams making her his running mate. She hasn't said what she told him, meaning she's at least considering it. She would be an outstanding choice for him.

vi edit · May 15, 2019

woolfe9998 said:
Biden is a tough call for me. I very much dislike the fact that he currently refuses to define his stances on healthcare, climate change, and college debt, claiming he doesn't have the time to do it right now. Clearly he's hoping his personality, charm and greater national profile will give him a steamrolling lead before he introduces a bunch of middle of the road policies which will alienate much of the base. On climate change, some things have leaked out. Basically he wants to rejoin the Paris Accord and re-institute Obama's cafe standards. So all he wants to do is undo Trump's undoing of Obama's climate policies. This isn't in the universe of what is needed on what is in my opinion the most critical issue of all.

But then there's the issue of electability which I have to admit he's possibly the most electable of the bunch. And we must get Trump out. That's what makes him such a tough call.

He's already discussed with Stacey Abrams making her his running mate. She hasn't said what she told him, meaning she's at least considering it. She would be an outstanding choice for him.

Same as both of you guys. If I have to, I'll vote for Biden. I guess. It's better than the last 4 years of batshit insanity we've suffered through. It pains me that I have to put "Will they beat Trump?" at the top of the "quality" check box.

K1052 · May 15, 2019

woolfe9998 said:
Biden is a tough call for me. I very much dislike the fact that he currently refuses to define his stances on healthcare, climate change, and college debt, claiming he doesn't have the time to do it right now. Clearly he's hoping his personality, charm and greater national profile will give him a steamrolling lead before he introduces a bunch of middle of the road policies which will alienate much of the base. On climate change, some things have leaked out. Basically he wants to rejoin the Paris Accord and re-institute Obama's cafe standards. So all he wants to do is undo Trump's undoing of Obama's climate policies. This isn't in the universe of what is needed on what is in my opinion the most critical issue of all.

But then there's the issue of electability which I have to admit he's possibly the most electable of the bunch. And we must get Trump out. That's what makes him such a tough call.

He's already discussed with Stacey Abrams making her his running mate. She hasn't said what she told him, meaning she's at least considering it. She would be an outstanding choice for him.

The problems I have with Biden are several but somewhat tempered by a few things:

1) His polling against Trump is positive. Especially in the rust belt so far.
2) If he can propel the Democrats to a super high turnout that is very very good for candidates down ballot
3) He'd be under pressure to pick a more progressive VP (possibility Abrams as you note)
4) He will have to wheel and deal with the Dem caucus in the House which will desire more progressive legislation

On climate specifically I think he's more centrist than I'd prefer but again could be pulled somewhat left once in office. Also he is a big proponent of public transit which is a plus in my book.

Regardless, getting Trump and Co out of office is of paramount importance.

glenn1 · May 15, 2019

woolfe9998 said:
He's already discussed with Stacey Abrams making her his running mate. She hasn't said what she told him, meaning she's at least considering it. She would be an outstanding choice for him.

It's not like I've closely followed her although I did see a bit of her SOTU response and wasn't blown away, so I'm struggling to see the big draw in a failed candidate who brings little to the ticket that one of the candidates who isn't already running couldn't bring. I don't think she'd be a Sarah Palin type drag on the ticket but she's not adding much either.

fskimospy · May 15, 2019

woolfe9998 said:
Biden is a tough call for me. I very much dislike the fact that he currently refuses to define his stances on healthcare, climate change, and college debt, claiming he doesn't have the time to do it right now. Clearly he's hoping his personality, charm and greater national profile will give him a steamrolling lead before he introduces a bunch of middle of the road policies which will alienate much of the base. On climate change, some things have leaked out. Basically he wants to rejoin the Paris Accord and re-institute Obama's cafe standards. So all he wants to do is undo Trump's undoing of Obama's climate policies. This isn't in the universe of what is needed on what is in my opinion the most critical issue of all.

But then there's the issue of electability which I have to admit he's possibly the most electable of the bunch. And we must get Trump out. That's what makes him such a tough call.

He's already discussed with Stacey Abrams making her his running mate. She hasn't said what she told him, meaning she's at least considering it. She would be an outstanding choice for him.

I hope and pray that the base realizes that basically the only things the next president is going to be able to do are undo Trump's executive actions and/or do more executive actions like the last six years of Obama.

Unless the Democrats retake the Senate (possible, but not particularly likely) AND decide to abolish the filibuster entirely (another stretch) the Senate will block any and all progressive legislation. I would bet a great deal of money on this.

K1052 · May 15, 2019

fskimospy said:
I hope and pray that the base realizes that basically the only things the next president is going to be able to do are undo Trump's executive actions and/or do more executive actions like the last six years of Obama.

Unless the Democrats retake the Senate (possible, but not particularly likely) AND decide to abolish the filibuster entirely (another stretch) the Senate will block any and all progressive legislation. I would bet a great deal of money on this.

Agree with Senate Republicans to fund the military at 200% of current for 4 years, sign passed legislation, then unilaterally reprogram said extra military money to liberal priorities after declaring various emergencies.

fskimospy · May 15, 2019

K1052 said:
Agree with Senate Republicans to fund the military at 200% of current for 4 years, sign passed legislation, then unilaterally reprogram said extra military money to liberal priorities after declaring various emergencies.

haha, nice.

woolfe9998 · May 15, 2019

fskimospy said:
I hope and pray that the base realizes that basically the only things the next president is going to be able to do are undo Trump's executive actions and/or do more executive actions like the last six years of Obama.

Unless the Democrats retake the Senate (possible, but not particularly likely) AND decide to abolish the filibuster entirely (another stretch) the Senate will block any and all progressive legislation. I would bet a great deal of money on this.

They have a better chance of retaking the Senate in 2022, which is the mid point of the term. So far as nuking the filibuster, my guess is no, not if Schumer is majority leader. Some things can be done with taxes without the super-majority, but in the long run, a super majority is what we'll need. The problem with a middle of the road approach on climate change is that becomes the dem's starting point stance on the issue, versus the repugs "do nothing" stance. We need a POTUS who will not only do everything in his power as executive on the issue, but will make the case to the American people that aggressive legislation is needed. We need a stronger majority favoring aggressive action than we have now, so that sooner rather than later the repugs will have to moderate their stance or it will cost them politically. Biden wanting nothing more than to go back to Obama era policy is not the way to do that.

I'll certainly support Biden in the general election and possibly even in the primary on electability alone, but he's about the 10th best person in that field to actually be POTUS.

fskimospy · May 15, 2019

woolfe9998 said:
They have a better chance of retaking the Senate in 2022, which is the mid point of the term. So far as nuking the filibuster, my guess is no, not if Schumer is majority leader. Some things can be done with taxes without the super-majority, but in the long run, a super majority is what we'll need. The problem with a middle of the road approach on climate change is that becomes the dem's starting point stance on the issue, versus the repugs "do nothing" stance. We need a POTUS who will not only do everything in his power as executive on the issue, but will make the case to the American people that aggressive legislation is needed. We need a stronger majority favoring aggressive action than we have now, so that sooner rather than later the repugs will have to moderate their stance or it will cost them politically. Biden wanting nothing more than to go back to Obama era policy is not the way to do that.

I think the answer is to eliminate the filibuster. Even if you get that 60 seat supermajority somehow you're going to do it by the skin of your teeth and then Joe Manchin is the guy you're going to be depending on to pass a carbon tax or whatever. Remember what Joe Liberman's horrible ass did to the ACA?

I'll certainly support Biden in the general election and possibly even in the primary on electability alone, but he's about the 10th best person in that field to actually be POTUS.

I mean I will unhesitatingly support anyone the Democrats nominate at this point because there is no one in the field who would be a quarter as bad as Trump is now.

woolfe9998 · May 15, 2019

glenn1 said:
It's not like I've closely followed her although I did see a bit of her SOTU response and wasn't blown away, so I'm struggling to see the big draw in a failed candidate who brings little to the ticket that one of the candidates who isn't already running couldn't bring. I don't think she'd be a Sarah Palin type drag on the ticket but she's not adding much either.

Just saw her speak at the American University graduation commencement this past weekend (my nephew was graduating), and was impressed. If we're comparing apples-to-apples on demographics, I like her better than Kamala Harris. In addition to the black and female demographics she brings in for Biden, she adds intellectual firepower. Biden isn't Trump dumb, but he's not the smartest dem candidate by a longshot.

Victorian Gray · May 15, 2019

fleshconsumed said:
Is this what this forum becoming? Just another extension of facebook asking which Hogwarts House are you?

And Mayor Pete shouldn't be on that list at all, he hasn't released any of his plans whatsoever.

His plan seems to be "run for president".

woolfe9998 · May 15, 2019

fskimospy said:
I think the answer is to eliminate the filibuster. Even if you get that 60 seat supermajority somehow you're going to do it by the skin of your teeth and then Joe Manchin is the guy you're going to be depending on to pass a carbon tax or whatever. Remember what Joe Liberman's horrible ass did to the ACA?

I mean I will unhesitatingly support anyone the Democrats nominate at this point because there is no one in the field who would be a quarter as bad as Trump is now.

Yes, I've come around to agreeing with nuking the fillibuster. However, it might not be possible in a reasonable time frame. The only other possible answer is to take the case on these issues to the American public, in both a smarter and more forceful manner than we've done in the past. The POTUS it the best person to lead that effort.

You just posted a link to an article where Warren is getting cheered by a bunch of MAGA hat wearing Trump voters in WVA. This suggests to me that people are persuadable on issues. Truthfully I'm not that hopeful on it but it's our only real option.

Who do I side with in 2020? (issues based)

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer