How many elected politicians do you think have vastly different private views?

[Nichlemn]

I wonder if there's say, a Democrat Representative with a very liberal voting record whose sincere views are actually that of a very conservative Republican (or vice versa), but they adopted a diametrically opposed policy platform simply because it is the only way for them to be elected in their home region. If they've covered up their tracks from the beginning, it'd be hard to pin down exactly who they are, but do you think any exist?

Rand Paul strikes me as someone whose views are probably much like his father's privately, but he's adopted views that are more mainstream Republican for electability reasons. Not quite the diametrically opposed politician I'm thinking of, though.

I also wonder what Barack Obama's private views are. If he had the power to convince everybody to agree with him, what does he do differently as President?

[DC Al Fine]

It's probably quite common. Even a maverick politician will, they don't care too much about. Its not worth losing a primary over an issue that's unimportant, so they toe that party line so as to not rock the boat.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Oh, I'm sure there are a number of Republicans who know that the sh**t they're spewing is ridiculous but own it anyway. I mean, if you make it to Washington, you can't be completely dumb, so it doesn't make sense that they'd take on completely dumb positions unless it's worth something. Ted Cruz comes to mind.

[JerryArkansas]

I bet you more than half of republicans in the house and Senate support gay marriage, abortion, but won't say so because it will kill many of them politically.  It also works in reverse.  I bet at least 20 democrat's who say they support abortion and gay marriage don't.

[Miles]

Probably pols like Bobby Jindal, Tom Cotton, and David Vitter; all have Ivy League educations, so I doubt they actually believe some of the stuff they say just to pander to the religious/far right.

[IceSpear]

Probably a lot more than we think. Likely more common on the Republican side though. As Miles said, many of them are highly educated, and you tend not to see many highly educated people denying scientific fact unless they're trying to get elected as a Republican.

[Sol]

Kyrsten Sinema, Barack Obama. Probably both are substantially to the left of their elected positions.

[H. Ross Peron]

Obama probably supports single-payer personally.

[TNF]

My guess is that Obama is actually to the right of how he governs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hardy any. It's difficult to maintain that sort of facade for long without cracking. A different phenomenon is, however, extremely common and is so at all levels of political life: politicians who do not really believe in anything, but who are quite happy to spout out relevant partisan talking points to get ahead.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Hardy any. It's difficult to maintain that sort of facade for long without cracking. A different phenomenon is, however, extremely common and is so at all levels of political life: politicians who do not really believe in anything, but who are quite happy to spout out relevant partisan talking points to get ahead.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, yes. Apart from actual entryists. Apart from them.

[morgieb]

I suspect most pollies are to the left of how they act, they just play more conservative as that is the way the wind is seen to blow.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Pubbies are actually at least socially liberal (well the more educated ones), they just play up their social conservatism to suck up to the base.

[Nichlemn]

I suspect most pollies are to the left of how they act, they just play more conservative as that is the way the wind is seen to blow.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Pubbies are actually at least socially liberal (well the more educated ones), they just play up their social conservatism to suck up to the base.

On a similar note, I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of populist Democrats are actually more "market-orientated" (not necessarily right-wing or libertarian, but like economist-wonkish) than they present themselves. The first example that springs to mind is when Hillary Clinton supported a "gas tax holiday" back in 2008 when basically zero economists did. I suspect she privately didn't support it, but her advisers told her that it polled well.

[RR1997]

My guess is that Obama is actually to the right of how he governs.

??

Could you please explain?

[freepcrusher]

well from my own experience, I can tell you that if I got elected to an office as a republican, I would vote the CFG line on issues where it was never going to pass but vote for liberal legislation if it had a chance of passing. But since my occasional liberal vote would be obscured by voting the hard right line, no one would notice.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

well from my own experience, I can tell you that if I got elected to an office as a republican, I would vote the CFG line on issues where it was never going to pass but vote for liberal legislation if it had a chance of passing. But since my occasional liberal vote would be obscured by voting the hard right line, no one would notice.

It would be pretty easy to spot that on ProgressivePunch.org by comparing the lifetime crucial vote score to the lifetime overall score. Dave Brat has an interesting score of crucial 60%, overall 14%, but he's only been in office a month.

While every Democrat had a lifetime score above 60%, 17 House Democrats had a crucial score below 50%, which means that on votes that actually matter, they were closer to the Republican party than the Democratic party. Meanwhile, no Republican other than Brat had above 33% crucial. So aside from maybe Brat, if anyone is being trolled, it's the Democratic party

[Indy Texas]

I'll bet most politicians are more nuanced in their views on social/cultural issues than their campaigns allow them to be.

There are probably a lot of House Republicans who are having an internal monologue of, "Ugh, do these rubes really believe global warming isn't real and evolution is a myth and care that much about The Gays getting married?" and some Democrats who think to themselves, "If you can't afford to pay ten dollars for a birth control prescription copay, maybe you should spend a little more time working and less time laying on your back."

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Probably a significant number, and more than we think:

Among Democrats:

There are probably a number of democrats who say they are pro-choice, but are actually pro-life. There are also probably some who have a greater desire to change parts of ObamaCare (either making it more liberal or more conservative) then they let on.
There are definitely a few who changed position on SSM due to "what my party/society wants me to think" or "I have to do this to get reelected." but still hold very/somewhat anti-ssm private views.

Among Republicans:

There are probably a number of SSM opponents who actually think "Well, maybe gay marriage wouldn't be so bad....", but don't dare say it.
There would also be those who believe in human-caused climate change more than they let on, and some of the 'immigration hardliners' probably only hold that position to get past Tea Party primary challengers, and don't hold it in private.

[Del Tachi]

If elected as a Republican politician, my views on both social and economic issues would be significantly to the left of what I could get away with in Mississippi and I'd be willing to play that down as much as possible.