Would you vote for an economic leftist who is socially conservative?

[Selatius]

For fair trade but against abortion
For progressive taxation reform/repeal of Bush's tax cut but for faith-based initiatives
For the environment but against gay marriage and civil unions
For better Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security but against stem cell research
For increasing spending and reform of public education but also for allowing school prayer

That's basically some of the stances this hypothetical candidate would take. You get the picture here. Extrapolate to the rest of the issues.

Would you vote for this candidate if it was between him and some Republican who is both socially conservative as well economically rightwing? Suppose also this candidate took measures to avoid being excessively dependent on corporate contributions, while the Republican gladly took corporate cash.

How would you vote? Vote for him? Or vote for the other guy? Let's make it a little more interesting and put you in a swing state. (Yes, that means you are more liable to splinter the vote if you do go 3rd party like Nader or Perot)

[Dookus]

1. No

Never.

[Stop_the_War]

2. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know of no such person anyways.

[Selatius]

8. I am talking hypothetically, not actual experience n/t

[Zenlitened]

10. Hypothetical = pointless

In the case of "choose a candidate questions" like this.

[Zenlitened]

3. Nope.

Next question.

[donco6]

4. No.

But maybe I'm a little too close to the social issues.

[Fenris]

5. No

[NYCGirl]

6. This is the political equivalent of "Who'd win in a fight between Darth

Vader or Indiana jones?"

Do these kind of questions even advance discussion?

[Fenris]

9. Indiana Jones doesn't have the Jedi death-grip

Or a lightsaber. ;)

[NYCGirl]

15. LOL!

But he's damned good with that bullwhip. And he doesn't have to wear that stupid helmet.

:evilgrin:

[Selatius]

12. I think they do

Because it'll cause you to see how far you are willing to compromise on both economic issues and social issues and whether you are willing to sacrifice one for the other. It is an extreme case on one end of the spectrum, and the most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle as opposed to the extreme ends, but it does help to illuminate how far you'd go.

[Zenlitened]

20. But was is the value of this "illumination"?

It makes for... er, interesting... threads on a discussion board, but what is the practical value?

Any candidate who comes along is going to be evaluated fresh, or from square one. The sort of discussion you propose here won't have any bearing on that process, beyond some fond memories and a few choice phrases picked up in a past flame-war.

[Selatius]

24. I want to see how much give and take you have on the issues

especially with respect to social issues and economic issues. I never said yes or no answers. You can just as easily say yes but qualify it with conditions, or you can say no and also qualify it with certain conditions such as if he re-evaluated his position on abortion that you would then switch to yes for him.

[Zenlitened]

25. Again: And the point is?

Simply to satisfy your own curiosity? Have a blast.

[Selatius]

27. In short, yes, I want to see people's responses on it

I wanna see posts like #21 where people would say how they vote and what conditions and concerns they'd have with the candidate. I'm not looking for a flame war or people shouting at me in all caps but honest to God answers.

[thecorster]

33. dude, superman vs batman

its gotta be superman in a k.o.

[Warpy]

7. Stop coding these damned antiabortion posts

NO!!!

Our rights are NOT NEGOTIABLE!!

Got that?

[Selatius]

17. It is not antiabortion; it is a hypothetical scenario

I have NEVER advocated or supported a complete ban on abortion. DO NOT assume that I have or do.

[Warpy]

30. It's the fucking FIRST LINE

It's ANTIABORTION. NO!!!! OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE!!!!

Got it YET???? What's it gonna take?

[Selatius]

32. Again, reread post #17

Please stop shouting at me in caps. This is the second time I've asked you.

[benburch]

11. Far more likely to vote for the opposite!

Social issues come first.

[Selatius]

14. So does that mean you would not vote? Or vote third party?

[Warpy]

18. Third party

Those suckers think I'm gonna vote to return myself to slavery, they're out of their fucking minds.

STOP THESE ANTIABORTION POSTS!!!!

OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE!!!!

Got it YET????

[Selatius]

19. Reread post # 17, and I'd kindly ask you stop using caps on me

[benburch]

22. I'd vote third party if that was my only choice,

If we don't get a good candidate this time I am going to refuse to hold my nose and vote for a Republican Lite.

[BillZBubb]

13. Absolutely!

Half a loaf is better than going hungry. The only reason I would not in this hypothetical is if the candidate was so fanatical about his social conservatism as to try to force policy that way. For instance, if he would only appoint socially conservative judges or push hard for constitutional amendments banning abortion/gay marriage/stem cell research or for forcing school prayer.

I have no problem with someone being socially conservative as long as they realize that's a personal viewpoint and not to be shoved down everyone else's throat.

[biscotti]

16. Absolutely Not !!! n/t

[Finder]

21. Depends on the other candidate...

also being against abortion and wanting to make it illegal are two different things. Being against gay marriage and amending the Constitution regarding it are two different things. It is more important what a candidate intends to do on an issue rather than how they feel personally about an issue.

[leesa]

23. No.

[supernova]

26. Wound depend on the candidates priorities

if he was more interested in pursuing and enacting his economic justice platform and didn't want to emphasize the socially conservative aspects of his personality I might live with him or her as an in between candidate.

I certainly don't want to hear hertalking about prayer in schools and banning gay marriage. She can that shit to herself.

[ruggerson]

28. Nope

[realFedUp]

29. No..n/t

[DBoon]

31. Not in CA

But a socially conservative candidate couldn't win in this state anyway.

Depends on how socially conservative the candidate truly is. Are they a dedicated anti-choice ideologue? Or is that more of a personal opinion, and would this candidate make tactical compromises to their position?

Would the candidate advocate repealing current protections, or would they support the status quo?

If the candidate is truly economically progressive and would not effectively (as opposed to rhetorically) change the status quo on social issues, and IF a socially liberal candidate was show to be otherwise unelectable, I would probably support this person.

On Edit: I also find it very hard to believe that a viable political candidate would hold the views you describe. I doubt such a person exists. I doubt that in our current political climate they would ever exist. The closest might have been Dennis Kucinich, but while Dennis at one point said he was personally opposed to abortion, he never ever would support the whole range of socially conservative positions you outlined.

I think there are really good reasons why social liberals tend to be economic liberals and vice versa.

[stray cat]

34. Absolutely! It beats a radical republican if that was the choice.

[Darranar]

35. No. n/t

[xpat]

36. Listen closely to Bernie Sanders

He is not quite proposing something this extreme, but he suggests strongly that pocket book issues are uniters and "morals" issues are dividers. If you want to put together a majority to fix our pocketbooks, you might have to go easy on "moral" issues.

I'd rather win on the pocketbook than be pure, so I'd probably vote for this hypothetical candidate. I'd be conflicted, but then I was conflicted about Johnson, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. (Have I left anybody out?)

[UdoKier]

37. Probably. With some exceptions

I would NEVER vote for an economic right-winger, liberal on social issues person, because bottom line, I'm more concerned that poor kids get to eat and read than I am about access to abortions or same-sex marriage.

I would vote for a left-winger who is against abortion or gay marriage, because those are just my priorities. The exception would be a candidate who wanted to cross the church-state line, as you mentioned with the prayer in schools or faith-based initiatives. They are absolutely unacceptable. ZERO tolerance for religion in government. Allowing religion to dictate policy opens the door to all kinds of oppression against gays, women, hell, just about everyone.


But if it keeps the kids fed, I might vote for say, a pro-lifer like Kucinich. There is always another day to achieve full equal rights under the law for same-sex couples. I guess I take the long view, because I'm pretty young, but I'm old enough to remember when gay bars were a shady, scary secret on the wrong side of town, and NOBODY was out.

Gay rights have made immense strides over the last 20 years, but in that same 20 years, the social safety net, the labor movement, all of the things that helped make life a bit more bearable for poor and working people have been destroyed, so that has GOT to be the priority for me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. In some states, that may be the only way to win

But let me explain. I believe that the extreme bigotry of today's Republican party appeals to people who are angry and frustrated with their lives but too ignorant to understand that they should be angry at their masters in the military-industrial complex and their political enablers.

What the Republicans are doing with their anti-choice, anti-gay, flag-waving, pseudo-Christian rhetoric is classic scapegoating. They're the ideological heirs of the feudal lords who shrieked, "The Jews are sacrificing Christian babies!" or "The witches are causing the plague!" whenever the peasants started complaining.

I'm convinced that if the U.S. economy could be put on a more populist basis, the Republicanite forms of bigotry would lose their appeal except among the hardcore haters. Happy, secure people are less likely to hate than unhappy, insecure people.

I would support a candidate who held those behaviorally conservative views as long as s/he did not make them the main points of his/her platform and pushed hard for the economically liberal views.

If you say that it's okay to be economically conservative (pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-goodies for rich people) as long as you're behaviorally liberal, then doesn't that really make you a Libertarian, not a Democrat?

[Selteri]

39. You just described George W. Bush as a candidate. NT

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Huh?

G.W. Bush is not an economic populist by any stretch of the imagination.

[tinonedown]

40. Repuke light?

I don't think so.

[jonnyblitz]

41. I vote for the DEM over the republican no matter how badly

the DEM sucks. I never vote 3rd party.

[freestyle]

42. For President, No. For House or Senate, Maybe.

Justice should not be a part-time pursuit. I might be able to stomach such a candidate if they would end up helping create a legislative majority where their reactionary social views would not gain traction. I could not put them in charge of anything.

[noiretextatique]

43. no...social conservatism is as regressive as the economic variety

and we have regressed enough. i could vote for someone who would not allow her regressive personal beliefs to determine her public policy positions. your hypothetical candidate doesn't seem too meet that standard.
why would i vote for someone who considers me a second-class citizen? for the good of the party?! the party is the people...all of us.

[Iterate]

44. Not a chance

and not because of any issue, but because that persons thinking skills and character would be so screwed up to come with that combination -I'd be very leery.

I should say though that I've argued socially progressive and fiscally conservative (or simply fiscally responsible) as a winning strategy for the past 30 years. I hope it's not too late for that.

[noiretextatique]

46. i hope not either

a chicken in every pot, live and let live, and mind your own morals...what could be better :7

[w4rma]

45. Not that extreme. (nt)

[papau]

47. Interesting - but are you describing the ave Dem or trying to suggest a

a conflict within the party?

Folks worry about fella's vote on issues - not on his personal beliefs.

Most Dems are for fair trade but "against" abortion in the sense that they do not want to encourage abortion - it is voting to stop choice that is the issue.

Most Dems are for progressive taxation reform/repeal of Bush's tax cut but for faith-based initiatives - why does the sponsoring org matter? - but the issue is using gov monies to push religion.

Most Dems are for the environment but against gay marriage and civil unions - but the issue is gay rights. Gay couples that have the same rights - in all things Federal - as married straight couples - is the issue. And civil unions seem the fastest way to get there - but it is a rights issue - and not a wedding registry issue.


Most Dems are For better Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security but against stem cell research if that means forming viable embryos so as to "harvest" stem cells. Using fertilization treatment leftovers is not a problem to most. The gov should respect life as it does it's research - and not allow a corporation type assembly line treatment of steam cell production via embryos.

Most Dems are for for increasing spending and reform of public education. But while against allowing school prayer, a moment of quiet time / meditation is not seen as evil.

[MissWaverly]

48. No

can not vote with my pocketbook when the rights of others are at stake, America is supposed to be a country with liberty and justice for all, that means that you can't select out any group to be persecuted and I feel banning gay marriage or gay civil unions falls into that category. I don't think that the government has the right to tell you how to live.

[JerseygirlCT]

50. No!

Couldn't do it. I'd find a third party candidate. I won't choose evil just to choose, however pretty the dress. And anyone inclined to make me a second-class citizen w/out control of my own body and medical choices, is pretty close to evil, IMHO.

Choice, gay rights? Deal breakers.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

51. Sounds like a Zogby poll.

If you throw in a question or two about what network news I prefer it's perfect.

I respectfully abstain.

[applegrove]

52. No

[Walt Starr]

53. Nope, I could go for a fiscal conservative but socialy liberal

but never the other way around. Never.

[Riding this Donkey]

60. I'm with you Walt on that one, neither a good idea, but socially

conservative no!

[idlisambar]

54. yes

not my ideal but I could vote for the candidate. The liberal social position is not under as much threat. On economic issues liberals have been losing consistently for the last 30 years.

[Ms. Clio]

55. Deja vu all over again--didn't we just have this flame war a few days ago?

[kodi]

56. that package is as likely as a pig with butterfly wings

any underlying value system that preaches either position is at odds with one that preaches the other.

[SmokingJacket]

57. How could such a person exist?

Unless someone fused him together from parts in a lab -- there's no consistent worldview here.

I wouldn't vote for Frankenstein, no.

[wadestock]

58. Acid tests for voting....

I vote for ANYONE...who has the guts to say tax breaks for the rich aren't required...especially after 25 years of propelling money to the top.

I vote for ANYONE...who has the guts to say that this war is a piece of shit....because it is helping to bankrupt this country and solidify the middle class as the long term payers of debt for the rich.

I vote for ANYONE...who has the guts to say that being a democrat is something to be proud of and that so called liberals are interested in the preservation of America...not the exploitation of America.

[RobertKennedyjr]

59. no