Hillary Clinton's Voting Record

[gmb92]

15. Ratings

that I like about the political compass is that the ratings are based on actions, not words.

According to your link:

"They have been evaluated through scrutiny of public statements, manifestos, interviews and, crucially, voting records."

which is similar to ontheissues.org, using first voting records (actions) and public statements. The key difference, as we noted before, is ontheissues is US-based while politicalcompass is in relation to world leaders, past and present. I think both have merit and limitations.

Frankly, I'd rather have someone who will stick to their guns; that "nothing" that they get done is huge when it means we didn't LOSE any ground, while doing "what is politically possible" often means moving the nation in the wrong direction, which further weakens us.

I don't think rolling back Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (belated or not), passing energy efficiency standards on multiple fronts, having the EPA take action on emissions, passing health care reform that expands Medicaid, is very progressively financed, and provides health insurance to tens of millions of people, passing a large stimulus bill that is mostly progressive and took us out of the Great Recession, has moved us in the wrong direction. Insisting on single payer, 80% tax rates on the top income brackets, etc. would end up with nothing done. Nothing done renders the nation more right-wing than it would be otherwise. If a stubborn progressive leader insisted on those things the end result is an administration that ends up being more right-wing in comparison to a more pragmatic one. That is a wasted opportunity, and one I don't think a Bernie Sanders would squander. Moving the compass to the left can't be done by simply electing a leader with a strong progressive voting record (Senator Obama) but requires persistent voting in every election, local, state, and national, and both in primaries and general elections.

I think that being honest about where a candidate really stands is the ethical thing to do, and I think that people who cast their votes shouldn't be propagandized into thinking a candidate is something different than he or she really is.

I agree with that, which is why I posted the ontheissues links, which shows key voting records on every major issue, which I think shows the big picture, good and bad. Candidates should be evaluated based on a complete record, not a selective reading, which non-voters often do to justify their inaction.

The only way one can really justify not voting is to truly believe there are no significant differences between candidates, and I don't think that's justified when comparing a Hillary Clinton to a Paul Ryan, for example.