If you do disagree with a candidate or office holder on a issue, what makes you think you are right and the candidate or office holder is wrong? For instance, let’s say you disagree with the President Obama’s stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Are you an expert on international trade so that you know for certain that TPP is going to be bad for the country? Do you really understand all of agreement’s provisions and protections for local workers? Or are your beliefs based on what you have been told by others who maybe similarly ignorant of international trade agreements and their consequences. I am not arguing for TTP here; I am simply pointing out that our stances on issues are often based on hearsay and unfounded assumptions, not facts and well thought out conclusions.
I live in a county where most of the folks involved in local politics belong to another party. I have learned to keep many thoughts to myself, and to limit my comments. I am involved as a volunteer in many political activities, and while I do not agree on many things with those with whom I collaborate, there are some narrow matters in which we can work together. I have voted for candidates of another party locally, either because there is no one else running, and I agree with the candidate on a main issue in which I am concerned, or because I dislike the opposing candidate. This is not optimal, I know. Some of my preferred party colleagues call me untrue to my principles. I see it as being pragmatic. In this sense, local political behavior is a microcosm of national politics, I believe. This does not bode well for national organized parties, if this anecdotal example is generalized as we move forward. So, no, I do not expect a candidate to agree with me on every issue–in fact, I expect that this will not occur generally not even on a range of issues.