Good diary and good discussion. Promoted by Albert
Electability
Single issue voters
Pragmatism
ABB
Straight Dem ticket
Who I’d want to have a beer with
The above are all things we’ve heard countless times as various candidates are discussed. Its made me think about how I choose who to support in a given election. Sometimes, especially in primaries, its not an exact science. But I have the feeling we all have particular things we look for that are not always stated.
I know I’ll never see a candidate that agrees with me on everything. The closest I ever came was Paul Wellstone, but even he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. So if I only focus on issues, I’ll have to compromise something.
So, what are the key ingredients that make up that decision? I think they are different for me in the primaries than they are in a general election. For example, I supported Dean in the last presidential election through to our state caucus. Just that day, he pulled out of the race and I supported Edwards. Then in the general election, I had to vote for Kerry. But I couldn’t find it in myself to send money or work for him other than on election day. My heart just wasn’t in it. So I sent money to senate candidates in other states where I thought the stakes were high.
All I know is that I am sick to death of hearing about “electability” – especially in the primaries. We just had a Green candidate ALMOST beat out a DINO in a three way primary race for Mayor in St. Paul. I didn’t vote for her because I didn’t think she had a chance of winning and there was another Dem candidate that seemed better than the DINO. The real Dem won in a landslide, so I could’ve voted for the Green candidate if I wasn’t so worried about electability.
So, especially as we begin gauging candidates for the 08 presidential election, I wonder what criteria you are going to use. Do you have a single issue, or a set of important issues that a candidate needs to agree with? Or is it more elusive than that? I think it will be time pretty soon to put our time and money behind someone. Once the Dem candidate is chosen, I fear we’ll have to live with the results (I haven’t decided yet what I’ll do if it is Hillary).
I’d put a poll here, but I don’t like how limiting the options would be. I’d rather hear your more nuanced thoughts.
One rule: look for the “D”. –Arminius, a yellow dog
What about in the primaries though?
Sorry, I read your post too quickly. I suppose in the primaries it would be different things at different times. But in general, I always favor the candidate who seems to be more of a peacenik (i.e., more anti-war). That’s why I quixotically favored Kucinich in the 2004 national primaries.
pond! First refinish and now you? Is that why all the bitches are here too? I just crack myself up but what else is there to do in the Alabama Bible Belt.
One of the more nuanced things I look for is getting a sense of a candidate’s authenticity. This is why so many Dems leave me cold. They can’t give a straight answer to a simple question.
When it comes to issues, one of my concerns is that we don’t always know what kinds of situations will present themselves to the candidate in the future. For example, who knew in the 2004 election that the structure and personnel of FEMA would become such an important issue? What I do know is that I want a president who chooses people for important positions because of their skill, commitment and expertise. Not because of their allegiance and loyalty.
Good diary and recommended I needed something like this ro refocus myself and get serious about making my own informed choices. (Well, as informed a choice as one CAN make when all we get to go on is PR spin.)
As to local candidates, in the nature of my life I spend a lot of time out in the community (being a community-level reporter can do that for you) so I tend to like the people I’ve seen out IN the community, pitching in, being involved with what’s going on. (Appearing at the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary-type functions doesn’t count – I want hands-on help-the-entire-community WORK.) At that level I’m not particularly partisan, but for some reason the people I see actually in the trenches getting their hands dirty tend to be D’s with a handful of G’s. Go figger.
At the higher levels, I look at the various Not-R’s and do a little bit of record checking, see who’s actually been out DOING, rather than talking about doing as though it would be a good idea if only… and then IF there remains more than one option (very rare) I’ll look at who’s got the better chance of actually getting the job. (Usually that’s “none of the above” since, in Texas, people actually WORKING usually get blown out in the elections by people with lots of bucks and lots of connections… the last great feudal state in the Western World, right here.)
I have some advantage living in a blue state. In major elections I can vote a Socialist/Green ticket because the D’s will beat the R’s anyway.
Except in ’04. I was so terrified of Bush Again that I voted for Kerry. Thought he as going to win. Threw up for days when he didn’t.
Primaries are much more difficult. Almost all candidates are too far to the right for me, but nobody I want can win.
While Republicans are MUCH worse than Democrats, both parties are in the pocket of big business and wedded to economic and military imperialism. (I see a huge, white cake topped by a groom in full battle dress with a bride on each arm.) We’re on the road to hell either way, but the Republicans are speeding, with the Christian Right riding in the backseat; I vote Democratic knowing I’m taking the same road a bit more slowly, and in better company.
My choices at election time are often make with a heavy heart and a big dose of cynicism.
I live in a Blue State too. But mine is sooo Red that at times it really scares me. Being pragmatic, I do not have the luxury of voting for a Green Candidate, or some other Third Party Person, cause they never win, and ALWAYS take away votes from the DEM.
The thing about electability is, there’s no such thing. It’s a fiction created and sold by media windbags and political manipulators. Electablility is determined on election day, and not by the bullshit that precedes it. So the question becomes, is there any reason to vote the way the manipulators try to scare us into? I think not. As recent elections dramatically show, even the backing of the “concensus” builders does not lead to electoral victory.
That’s the easy part. The rest is a lot more subjective. I guess what it comes down to for me would be somebody I’d like to have a few beers with and who sees how much better this country could be if it broke a few of its superstitious beliefs ranging from organized religion to the infallibility of capitalism American-style. Plus somebody who can communicate real ideas in a populist way. Somebody who can build new coalitions out of the political junkyard both parties now inhabit.
Which, among the current names for 08, pretty much leaves me with Feingold and maybe, if I can believe in reincarnation, the new Al Gore. Right now here in Illinois the congressional choices are easy: the incumbents.
So the question becomes, is there any reason to vote the way the manipulators try to scare us into? I think not.
I really appreciate your comments about electability. During the primaries to the 2004 election, so many of my friends seemed stuck and immobilized trying to figure out who was electable so they could support them. And these were pretty liberal democrats. I wanted to scream it made me so angry. When they all began to tilt towards Kerry (because of the manipulators you mentioned), it was all crafted as a way to have someone with a solid military record who couldn’t be criticized the way Clinton was. Fat lot of good that did them!!
My hope is that we learned our lesson with Kerry. But when the same manipulators keep pushing Hillary – I just see the same old same old.
The electability myth is at its worst when it’s about defensive mode. All these intelligent seeming folks desperately looking for the snake oil that will protect their party’s candidate from attack by the other side. When we buy into this fantasy (and Kerry is a good example), we bypass candidates who are strong enough and bold enough to give and take the punches. We end up with somebody whose ovrriding obsession is to not offend anybody. And we lose.
I think this will be the result yet again if the electability con artists manage to Dems into nominating Hillary.
Dave, I wish I could give you 100 fours for that comment. You have captured exactly what’s been driving me crazy over the last few years. I really long for candidates who will stand up and tell the truth – damn the so-called electability consequences. I wish we could all just accept that no matter who the candidate is – they will be pilloried. There will be no stopping that. So we might as well have someone who can stand up and take it.
Not to get in your face at all, BUT why did you make ELECTABILITY one of your criteria then??? 😉
Because I was asking folks what their criteria are and so many people seem to make that their primary criteria.
I have to run to a meeting, but I look forward to coming back to all of your words of wisdom later.
Just one final thought: sometimes I envision a time when the “conventional wisdom” has the Repbulicans trying to pick a presidential candidate who they think can win in North. Then we’ll know the tables have been turned.
I’m going to be an issue voter. As I shared with you on a different thread Nancy, my question and answer to Wes Clark yesterday has me searching the field for the face of PEACE. General Clarks answer to me yesterday had a bit of that chucking under the chin in it that is the military signal to suck it up and cowboy up but three years of this and no end in sight is bordering on military family meltdown and military family insanity! We have soldiers in now who have had over 700 total days in a combat zone and we have no end in sight for them? Are you kidding me? I know Clark has commanded troops in tight spots, I know he has supported military families in some very very tight spots…..but he is kidding himself if he thinks that we can keep this up and all continue to do our duty. I would have to be a numbed out antidepressant chewing Merlot for breakfast sipping lunatic to live through what appears to be the General Clark Iraq Plan. In 2004 I could have moved forward with a Clark plan……time was on our side then but not now. It can’t be done and the system that is our military will not make it through this…..the only thing left is a draft and God help us if the powers that be got their hands on a steady stream of fresh meat for this Iraq fiasco. I have no idea when Iraq would ever be finished then or how many of our children they would kill finishing it.
Tracy, it was the short interchange we had on the thread about John Edwards that got me thinking about this. And I really hear both you and Arminius about the “peace” issue. Its hard to focus on a lot of other things when our government is so attached to the killing machine right now. But as soon as I say that, I think about the people along the southeastern and gulf coast as hurricane season builds. How many more might die in the next few months because the federal government can’t seem to focus on getting the job done at home either. Not to mention the building momentum against civil rights and the health care crisis. Eventually, I just have to hope that there are candidates out there who share most of my values and have some integrity in how they will tackle all of this.
I look for authenticity, someone who tells me where they stand on the issues, and does so as clearly as possible. ALL the issues.
I have also decided that I will only vote for someone who is committed to human rights for ALL Americans. NO weaseling on women’s health or gay rights. Some, of course, will deride this as being “single issue” driven, but a country where some of us are fully free ISN’T a free country. I will vote third party before I support someone like Casey.
Luckily I’m represented by liberals now, unlike when I was in NYC, when I was confronted by the likes of Schumer and Hillary.
Sometimes a perfect storm of a candidate come around your area and lives close by and stands for everything you stand for so there is no choice, you just go work for that person for two months at all hours of the night, going to events in town and taking the 2 hour leg of the drive back from out of town with her/him. That’s what I did here in PA with Chuck Pennacchio’s run for the Dem nod for US Senate. But sadly, I doubt that’ll ever happen again or at least anytime soon.
When I decide to back a candiate, I don’t give a rat’s ass about electability. “Electability” has ruined politics hand in hand with money. If you can’t raise the money these days, you don’t get paid any attention. It’s hard running a campaign with little in the bank, but those who are really in it for change stick it out.
I look at the issues. Nowadays, the first things that have to be there for me to support a candidate is a pro-choice stance and a pro-withdrawal stance. If those two aren’t on the table, I don’t volunteer my time, I don’t donate my money, I don’t tell my friends, I don’t write about them, I don’t vote for them.
After those two biggies, I go down the list [in no specific order] embryonic stem cells, anti-war, universal healthcare, gun control, living wage, reducing outside energy dependence, education for all…
You don’t have to be a nice guy for me to vote for you, but hey, it doesn’t hurt. You don’t have to light up a room, but don’t put me to sleep within five minutes. And having a D after your name doesn’t say much in my book either.
I agree with you strongly here, Albert. Will you be able to vote for Bob Casey come November, or will you just leave that line blank??
I say I will leave it blank, but come that day, I will feel some pressure to vote democratic for takeover reasons even though I think a Santorum win will help Progressives more in the long run. Casey will be an absolute disaster, and with Harry Reid and Casey in the Senate together, I think I would not sense much difference between Dems and Repubs anymore on manhy critical issues!
He’s pro-war and anti-withdrawal. He’s anti-choice. He’s for pharmacists denying drugs based on their religion. That’s a shaky Catholic foundation right there. I will not be pulling the lever for him at this point.
I won’t leave it blank though. I’ve been told by voting activists that it’s better to just write someone in that leave spaces blank. Because when you leave spaces blank, it looks like mistakes and lead to potential voter inaccuracies. Maybe I’ll write in myself to not leave it blank. Maybe I’ll write in Chuck. Don’t leave it blank.
Straight Dems voter all my life. They tick me off at times, but until something comes along that is more progressive AND ELECTABLE, I am not throwing away my vote on any third party candidate. As for the GOP, never met one I’d like to have a beer with, so I can’t even imagine voting for one!
But in the pre-primary and primary season, how do you choose between democrats? I’m really interested in how people will “size up” the potential 2008 presidential candidates over the next 6 months or so. We all know that if they are going to run serious races, they’ll have to be going at it hard this time next year. So, as people are lining up behind particular canidates, how are you making that decision?
I’m trying to figure that out for myself as well.
I’ve always voted Dem. Well, I switched to repub and voted for Mad Jack McCain in the MA repub primary just to make a statement in the face of the FratBoy juggernaut.
Fuck, I even sent him $25, for my first ever political contribution. As this photo shows, I did it because he got me drunk….
But that was then, and this is now.
I’m finally developing my “list” of key issues that must be fulfilled before the candidate earns my vote. The list will likely be pretty narrow and specific (the only item on the list so far is the need to constructively address the critical shortage of nurses and nurse educators), and will also include an essential item or two about war (I’m against it, FWIW).
But you pose an interesting, and troubling question. It also raises the matter of compromise and bargaining – would I sacrifice key item #1 if the candidate otherwise works well for me, or is the only realistic alternative to an even worse person with a worse position?
I dunno.
Perhaps the best way to look at it, though, is to note first and foremost that the candidate has to earn my vote, not take it for granted.
I also plan to talk to a lot of people with the hope of having some influence in prodding or directing their own opinions, and I read the blogs.
I got a call from one of the local dems a couple hours ago, again, demanding that I vote for the DINO against a wingnut congresscritter or send them money. You see, I am really screwed in this district–choices are wingnuts or DINO’s.
And, I will tell you the same thing that I told the caller: what I look for in a candidate is one who strongly advocates a single payer health care system, disability rights, and increasing the SSD/I amount that I receive, so I can actually afford to live on it–right now I receive $620.00 per month–don’t ask me how I get by but somehow I do.
If a candidate wants my vote, speak up on issues that are important to me. Or is it my patriotic duty to drop dead and balance the budget so the losers that are in office can continue to receive the big bucks and platinum bcbs?
As to my vote, it was all across the board, depending on the candidate who best acted on my concerns. For the mid-terms, it will be Green or Socialist. In one election, I wrote in my own name.
Now that I think of it, I will probably do that again. Should probably get a few others to do so. Actually, that is a good idea–one way to make sure that my vote gets counted!!
I’m lucky right now to have two Dem Senators and a Governor. Unfortunately in my congressional district, and my county, things are very GOP. I’m working hard to support our Dem candidate for Congress, that some of the folks here labeled a “Centrist” after looking at a one page Bio. Generally on the local scene, we have a hard time filling the slate for county positions. Our problem is finding credible Dems who are willing to run. So I read about all these decisions that some of you need to make at primary time and think, if only they knew how good they have it! To me, any Dem who makes it on the ballot is a good Dem. When I get in a position to be choosy, I’ll know where to come to ask for advice. 😉
I’ll need a party with at least a dozen Elvis impersonators, a chocolate fountain big enough to drown Karl Rove’s fatter brother, and a jumbo shrimp cocktail the size of my head. Oh, and a couple gallons of REALLY good Scotch.
Naw, to hell with that–I’m not so cheaply bought. I want to be flown first-glass to…um…an “exclusive” resort in Oahu in the dead of winter for a “conference” with the candidate (which will mostly be held on the golf course) and receive an “appreciation gift” of…well, let’s just say that diamonds are a blogger’s best friend, but cash can buy diamonds, too.
Then and only then will I discover that this candidate is the very BEST PERSON to lead America and throw the full support of my blog behind him.
But you know, my blog isn’t all that important, so I guess I’ll have to save up for that Oahu holiday on my own.
Funny you should ask this – I was thinking along the same lines myself. It depends a bit on the job. For a Mayor, some of the requirements are different than for a President.
For President, my view is that there are a couple of things I am looking for in a candidate. The first one of course is that the candidate’s core values are compatible with my own. Beyond that however I would argue that instead of insisting on specific statements about policies, I would argue that instead we look for someone who is competent, has good decision making skills, can work under pressure, can delegate well, can admit mistakes and finally has an ability to deliver the goods.
You may notice that there aren’t any issues in my list. Essentially in choosing a President, we are delegating responsibility to someone to run the country, so with these skills and a compatible set of core values, I am far less concerned about specifics of single issues. With the right leadership skills, and compatible core values, I can just trust that they will somehow figure out how to deliver the goods.
Ericy, you’ve done a great job of capturing some of the more “nuanced” concerns that I have. As I said before, who knew in 2004 that how FEMA was structured and who was in charge would rise to the top as a primary concern. We need a leader who can choose people wisely, delegate well and handle the unforseen issues that are likely to arise in any four year period these days.
And as for the different skills for different positions, I remember when a wonderfully progressive state legislator here ran for Mayor. I had a hard time supporting him in that position because I knew he couldn’t manage his way out of a paper bag. He was right on all of the issues and a great legislator – but would have been lousy as a mayor.
whether elected or appointed, and appear philosphically liberal, then I vote for them if they pass my litmus test. They must be “the buck stops here” candidates. No excuses, no euphemisms, no political correctness in terms of what’s politic in either their communications or actions.
If they’re newbies, then I vote for the liberal Independent or most liberal other major party candidate. I tend to vote for women at as many opportunities as I can because no political caucus, organization, or machine is organized to push women candidates, and I think we need more women in office representing 50% of the voters. I analyze my preference for women candidates this way: Males have the informal cache of the good ol’ boys network and often the well-oiled party machine backing them. Most minority candidates have well-organized minority interests groups supporting them. Women too often have too little party support, and aren’t a recognized minority, except by demographic in elected office.
Someone once said;
“Compromise is like casino gambling. Sometimes it’s beneficial, but the more you engage in it the more you’re likely to wind up losing everything.”
Voting based on anything other than principle is like that for me. I would have voted for a dead dog if I thought it would prevent Bush the Imbecile from ascending the throne, but if you wind up almost always casting your vote as a vote against the other guy rather than an affirmative vote for someone, then you usually wind up losing out altogether in the end.
I refuse to simply vote against candidate X – that’s just not enough of a reason for me.
I decide on values, integrity, passion, and character. Then I look at how they interact with people. Then I use my intuition. And I’ve never been wrong.
Just recently I found out that a congressional candidate I really like owns a Newf, the most noble, dignified, and people-oriented breed of dog you’ll ever find. And that a candidate for governor I was supporting was a big Harry Potter fan and even discussed Harry Potter with his call time handler during breaks in call time. He wished he had an invisibility cloak during the campaign!
And that one hectic day one the campaign trail he sat down for dinner with his family at a restaurant before the next event and said to his family as his wife raised a concern about them being late, just sit back, relax, and enjoy yourselves. We’ll get there and everything will be fine. And it was.
Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments – loads of wisdom as usual. I’m especially interested in all of the nuance and intuition that people have described here. Its validating for me because they are things that are not often stated as a reason to support a candidate, but have always been part of my process.
I’m off to a family reunion in the Colorado Rockies today and won’t have internet access for a while. So I’ll see ya’ll later (I’m getting geared up for some time with the Texas relatives).