Hmm. After a challenge like that, I wasn't going to *not* respond... although if the arguments are based on emotional response (as in the Newsweek article) for yourself and others, then lists of issues and policies aren't terribly relevant. Different playing field, so to speak. (Although I wish I'd known that before I stayed up for most of the night. ;)
I don't trust emotional appeals, myself, and look for candidates whose positions I most agree with. In that context, checklists and weighting makes sense, even recognizing that no candidate once elected ever manages to enact more than a fraction of their policy goals.
It appears to me that you've actually validated my original comment, and you've helped show how our motivations for supporting candidates are in fact worlds apart, despite being fairly close on the political spectrum otherwise. Rational vs. emotional...
Just remember how well faith/hope-based politics interacted with the cold, real world over the past few years, on the right.
Re: Part 3 and wrap-up
I don't trust emotional appeals, myself, and look for candidates whose positions I most agree with. In that context, checklists and weighting makes sense, even recognizing that no candidate once elected ever manages to enact more than a fraction of their policy goals.
It appears to me that you've actually validated my original comment, and you've helped show how our motivations for supporting candidates are in fact worlds apart, despite being fairly close on the political spectrum otherwise. Rational vs. emotional...
Just remember how well faith/hope-based politics interacted with the cold, real world over the past few years, on the right.