General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How about it? [View all]I hate liars
(165 posts)Nance, I agree in principle that one should argue for a candidate based on their merits. But many (if not all) of us make voting choices based on trade-off assessments. In other words, we vote for the best available (or least objectionable) candidate.
That means we take the negatives into account as well as the positives.
For example, there are positives I could cite about the positions taken by politicians for whom I would never vote. Their negatives far outweigh the few positives. And I have voted in the past for very flawed candidates because they were the best available (not voting isn't the only logical outcome of viewing one's party as severely corrupted).
One of the reasons I like Bernie Sanders is that he holds so many positions that the Democratic party establishment would never back. For me, the contrast between Sanders' integrity and courage (positives) and a party establishment that does not, by and large, act in the interests of average Americans (negatives) only makes him a more attractive candidate.