search
top

US Election: Candidate Support by Issue

I’ve just come across this fascinating poll released last week by the Pew Research Center which shows voters’ views on major issues vs which candidate they’re supporting. Rather than commenting on it for now, I’ll just leave it for you to absorb, and we can discuss it in the comments.

2016 Candidate support by Issue

9 Responses to “US Election: Candidate Support by Issue”

  1. Ken says:

    Pretty much what you’d expect, I think.

    • I’m quite shocked by how wide the divide is between the two parties. I don’t think the difference would be anywhere near as great here.

      • Ken says:

        This isn’t about the two parties, but about groups of voters, which extend rather far beyond the parties. The parties themselves will be closer on many of these, as we know that Congress doesn’t generally implement what opinion polls on issues show the public wants. The only one that surprises me a bit is the one on free trade. Given that most free trade agreements are crafted to benefit corporations rather than people, I’m surprised that Dem voters are so in favour.

  2. nicky says:

    I’m flabbergasted at the low support for ‘universal’ health care among the republican candidates.
    Do they seriously think that because of their private insurance they won’t contract TB while standing at the counter? No HIV if their pool of poorer partners (directly or indirectly) is rife with the virus? They won’t contract HPV because they have been immunised, and don’t have to pay for the cervical cancers? Have they thought about basically any communicable disease?
    Maybe if the question were framed differently, more in terms of public health, the answer might have been slightly different. At least I’d hope so.

    • I think they’ve been told for years that they have the best healthcare system in the world their whole lives, and they believe it. (A bit like religion.) Along with the myth of American Exceptionalism, it makes a majority resistant to change and unable to look to others countries and see that in some areas they could learn some stuff. The quality of primary and secondary school education is another one.

      I’ve been thinking about writing a post about the advantages of a single-payer healthcare system for months, but haven’t got around to it yet. It’s better for business and the economy as well if they move to single-payer. There are probably major efforts by lobbyists to stop it though, because there are people who would lose a lot of money, especially in the insurance industry.

      • Ken says:

        No, this is an ideological thing. They don’t care that another country may do something better if the way that’s achieved shows their cult of individualism to be a myth. They believe the poor deserve their position in society like some sort of divine justice, so transferring wealth is wrong by definition. That others have shown it creates a more healthy and prosperous society is irrelevant.

        • j.a.m. says:

          “Transfer” is a transparent euphemism for “steal”. There’s nothing healthy about the political class stealing your hard-earned bread. There’s nothing healthy about misappropriating the power of the state to usurp the role of families, churches, or individual genius. Americans fled to this country to escape that kind of oppression. Live free or die.

          With all respect, Americans also don’t need to be lectured by people who cling to a feudal hereditary monarchy, an institution we overthrew a few centuries back. I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising that those who think they need a queen also think they need a nanny.

          • The Pilgrims left England because the English weren’t puritanical enough. They wanted to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of society. I guess not much has changed.

            The Founding Fathers were mostly deists and atheists. They wanted a secular state run by government, not religion, and it was a good vision.

            We don’t have a feudal monarchy, we have a constitutional monarchy, and as a result our government is much more cooperative and effective than yours. 80% is considered a low turnout because people feel like their votes count. If you had any idea how our government worked, you’d know that it’s one of the best set up in the world – though it could do with a few tweaks I’m sure Ken would agree. I think I’ve referred you to this before: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6831777/new-zealand-electoral-system-constitution-mixed-member-unicameral I think we’re in a pretty good position to comment on what a good political system would look like.

            As for taxes being theft, that’s an anarchist’s position. It always makes me laugh (and I’ve talking hysteria, not comedy) that in the US so many conservatives are anti-government when it comes to things they don’t like, but when it comes to things like a woman’s control over her own body, they want to be right inside her womb.

        • Which makes it even worse Ken. 🙁

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top