Issues

[commonsense]

The 2016 Presidential Election in the States brought, perhaps undue, attention to character. This was certainly not the sole factor that motivated voters. However, some would say that the election boiled down to the Lout v the Liar; the one whose personal history may have indicated that he would lack respectfulness v the one whose history may have suggested she lacked truthfulness. As stated, character was not the only motivator, however issues and policies may not have received appropriate focus.

Supposing that issues and policies were the only factors considered by voters, any election might turn out differently. Let's now assume, for the sake of argument, that US Presidents were elected every 2 years. This is not to assume that the current President has departed from office by any means or for any reason. The assumption is only that there would be an election for American President on 11/6/2018. There are still only 2 major parties strong enough to nominate a candidate, the Republicans and the Democrats, and each party has its moderates and its extremists.

Remember, this assumed election would be taking place in November, 2018. Consider the political landscape as it is now, not as it was in 2016. For this election, what would the issues be? Which issues would be most prominent among them? Each side has a position; what would it be for each? Which side would you take? Why?

[Lacewing]

Consider the political landscape as it is now, not as it was in 2016. For this election, what would the issues be? Which issues would be most prominent among them? Each side has a position; what would it be for each? Which side would you take? Why?

It it difficult to tell what either side actually offers because both will say anything in their quest to win against the other. It's disgusting and so disheartening. Once elected, many seem to focus on inside game play, and doing inside favors, which don't serve Americans at all. I think the two parties are too thick in their games, and too extreme, to be of much use. They're focused more on battling each other than on a country of people with very wide-ranging needs and desires. Why should one or the other control everything?

I would gladly vote for someone regardless of party, if they could demonstrate integrity and balance and awareness above the diseased and extreme state that so many have fallen into. There is no reason we should have to lean extreme on any issues -- doing so just seems to be part of the over-the-top game play we've lost ourselves in.

[Walker]

There is only one issue for Democrats.

Trump.

Easily verified. Turn on the TV news and listen.

[Greta]

No. The environment and especially climate change. Trump is an appalling environmental vandal - the pointy edge of Republican/right wing environmental irresponsibility.

Also trying to coax billionaires into contributing even a little bit of tax to help everyone out would be a worthy aim for a Democratic government. Given the power differential these days between corporations and governments, I suspect that governments might try the approach of pleading and flattery rather than demanding payments - appeal to their better natures, at least those billionaires who have them.

[commonsense]

Healthcare will be the foremost issue on the minds of American voters of any ilk.

Even for those who may cloak the issue in other matters, such as the impact of healthcare on the economy or the impact of healthcare on a family's financial well-being, it will be the cost of the single item that has the greatest effect on the pocketbook that will be at the core of any political debate. Surely, there will be candidates who will try to turn the discussion in another direction, but the one issue that will overtake all others in the minds of the voters and on the lips of the pundits will be healthcare.

Healthcare costs rise exponentially from year to year and fiscal quarter to fiscal quarter. How much money a voter has on hand is always going to depend on the cost of healthcare insurance as well as the amount of co-pay expenses incurred. Medical bills are the number one cause of home forfeiture in the US.

Access to care is not the same as receiving necessary healthcare services. A patient may enter the healthcare portal only to find that the indicated treatment or test is not covered by their insurance plan. Or there may be coverage but an inadequate supply of healthcare professionals. This shortage or gap, between individuals in need of healthcare and individuals able to deliver healthcare services, is perpetuated by the medical organizations that place limits on the number of students allowed to begin their medical studies.

The US may be the only civilized country in the world that does not have a system of free healthcare for everyone. Free, at least for the individual patient or family, but funded by mandatory taxpayer contributions. If this is so, the primary benefit may be that the healthy share the cost with those who consume healthcare services. By the same sentiment, the primary fault may be the healthy paying for the benefit of the sick.

[Skip]

- Climate change
- Climate-change associated emergency relief
- Climate-change related human migration
- Climate-change caused damage control and infrastructure repair
- Health care
- Gun violence
- Tribal violence
- International relations with special attention to all the ongoing military entanglements
- Environmental cleanup after fossil fuel disasters
- Civil service and administrative staffing (i.e. competent help)
- How the fuck to climb out of this economic/cultural/social/diplomatic sinkhole

[Walker]

It looks like there might be some other factors to consider.

One biggie is the control of information, and controlling perception by how facts are presented to voters.
This, and an indoctrinated world view*, can control the thoughts of voters.

When thoughts are controlled, then what folks think is true could simply be an implanted thought, invisible as such, made invisible by the certainty that it could never happen to "me."

- Belief is another name for the implant.
- Expressed beliefs gathers the tribe of like-believers.

Who controls, qualifies, and makes available the information?

Here’s two jawdroppers.

- One is a leaked video of the supplier, easily discoverable with a bit of searching, which reveals that a heavy political bias is affecting the unbiased mathematics of the the algorithm.

- The other is recent resignations within the supplier, which are easily discoverable by anyone who cares, over citizen-surveillance (linking phone numbers to searches) being developed for sale to China.

- Add a third jaw-dropper, should it ever occur: an inquiry into how the belief implanted into voters to affect the results, gets as vigorously defended by voters, as self-concept gets defended.

* For example, most US universities now require a freshperson, (if that's the current term de jour) to undergo an indoctrination course in acceptable world-view and behavior, which changes the principle of university into the principle of corporate drone.

[Walker]

Polls consistently show that in relation to other issues, voters could give a hoot in hell about the fabricated, intricately inferred connection between the weather and politics.

For example, President Trump actually did not cause Hurricane Florence, and will not be the cause of future hurricanes.

Activists and politicians want the climate in a hundred years from now to be an issue, when actually it’s not an issue for the voters, at least according to polls. (Polls about who's going to win an election have been wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean that other polls are inaccurate.)

I wonder why Global Warming is an issue for politicians?

What is the motivating force for a politician to make Global Warming an issue, since polls show it’s not much of an issue for voters?

Do the politicians think that voters don’t know what’s good for them?

[henry quirk]

Yeah, that may be the number 1 issue (as evidenced by the almost complete lack of real reporting and analysis on the subject by fellow travellers).

[FlashDangerpants]

I wonder why Global Warming is an issue for politicians?

It's mostly only committed Republican voters such as yourself who think of it as a non-issue.

A majority of registered voters (54%) think global warming should be a high or very high priority for the president and Congress, including a majority of Democrats (78%) and Independents (58%), but fewer Republicans (25%).

[commonsense]

Granted, global warming is a vital issue for all of us, but when voters go into the voting booths, do you really think a candidate's position on global warming will inform the majority of voters which way to vote? If so, do you think global warming is priority #1 for everyone or just for certain segments of society? And will politicians make global warming the centerpiece of their campaigns anyway?

[Skip]

Granted, global warming is a vital issue for all of us, but when voters go into the voting booths, do you really think a candidate's position on global warming will inform the majority of voters which way to vote?

As soon as the majority figure out that they can't get insurance or state-sponsored help and relief when their house washed away, blown away or burnt down.

If so, do you think global warming is priority #1 for everyone or just for certain segments of society?

Just those segments with no electricity or transportation for months on end.
And only if somebody shows them the connection.

And will politicians make global warming the centerpiece of their campaigns anyway?

Only the sane ones. A vanishing minority.

I took the question as meaning what are the issues, not what's perceived as the issues.