Don't forget those that vote both sides of an issue!
Example;
  • Congress passed a measure to build a fence on the southern border, I believe by a large margin.
  • Yet when it came time to vote the funds to build the fence it failed!

What are the chances that those that voted for the fence and against the money used those votes to gain support from differing groups of people?

Quote Originally Posted by Canyon View Post
Hard to argue. Incumbents rig it for themselves of course. Amending their remarks to sound better than they did on the debate floor, voting present, so they do not have to earn their pay and make a decision (or not be identified by a voting history for what they are), like they were elected to. Managing to sound as conservative, and reasonable as possible on the re-election trail, pretending that they are trustworthy. If we are fooled, its our own fault.

The only thing that matters to me about an incumbent, or someone with past political office running for another, is his history, not his speeches and promises. Even if he changes positions, to get my vote, he has to show me why (I do allow people to grow and change. but if they want my vote, then they can tell me why.), and have time before the election to actually attempt to implement his new view (example: if you go from pro choice to pro life, propose or vote for something pro life). Any thing less than that and I suspect its one of those flip-flops often used to get a vote, prior to the inevitable flop-flip back after the election.