I wouldn’t characterize this as disagreeing. I stated my preference, and at the same time acknowledged what turns out to be yours. I like BK Whoppers because I like tomatoes on my burger. You like McD’s Big Macs because you hate tomatoes on your burger. It is a matter of preference.
Politics is not as ideologically driven as you imagine. That large Democratic edge in registrations is largely driven by family & ethnic—not ideological—identifications. It has always been thus.
Hoodat wrote: “I wouldn’t characterize this as disagreeing. I stated my preference, and at the same time acknowledged what turns out to be yours. I like BK Whoppers because I like tomatoes on my burger. You like McD’s Big Macs because you hate tomatoes on your burger. It is a matter of preference.”
Perhaps on some level, but the essence of my disagreement is this: while I might prefer candidate A more than B, if A is not electable, then there is no reason to vote for him.
It’s like this, I’m trying to maximize A time B where A is probability of being elected and B is my preference for a candidates policies. Each candidate has an A and a B.
An hypothetical: suppose there are three candidates. You agree with A on 90% of the issues. You only agree with B on 75% of the issues. You find C unacceptable on all the issues. Now if it’s either A or B to oppose C, and if the polls indicate that A will surely lose to C but B may win against C, would you switch to B?