Lots of Hillary supporters are trying to claim that Hillary is more "qualified" than Trump because she's been a first lady, a senator, a SOS and he has held no political office. So I ask this question. Do you vote for a candidate because of their qualifications, or do you vote for the agenda or laws you think the politician will implement and then try to convince others that your chosen candidate's "qualifications" are superior. In my view, if a candidate supports stuff I find anathema, their qualifications are not going to matter to me. Where qualifications DO matter to me is in a primary where several candidates have the same agendas. What say you?
I agree with you mostly.
Qualifications are not as important as agenda unless there is an inherent danger or an extreme negative.
I saw Bush's election in 2004 as different due to having attacked the wrong Country on purpose.
I saw McCain as different due to his hatred of Russia and desire to bring Georgia into NATO even while Russia occupied it with forces.
Today I see Trump as very different. If he did everything he said, we'd be at war on multiple fronts, using nuclear weapons, trade wars, race wars, law and order state, torture, bigger torture, bigger patriot acts. The only defense people have for him is to say "he didn't really mean it".
I can also see how lots thought Obama was the same type of threat or worse. They were wrong though, so that is great. With Obama it was made up stuff. With Trump it is Trump's own words and promises. Big difference there.
Romney, Bush 43 first term, Bill Clinton, and Bush 41 all came down to policy and agenda.
I believe that Hillary Clinton should be in this category. She has negatives but her negatives are trivial when compared to the others.
I guess it is simply all about policy and agenda until a candidate seems so bad that they must be voted against.
As a result of Bush 43, I went from an uninformed Republican to a politically obsessed Independent who votes against Conservative policies as a priority.