I'm FAR more likely to vote for ...

[TahitiNut]

Poll question: I'm FAR more likely to vote for ...

After several years on DU, I've noticed that folks have strong tendencies to support and advocate candidates according to clearly distinguishable approaches to elected office. While there're some variances in these preferences that apparently correlate to whether the elected office is legislative or executive, the individual DUer's perspective seems to strongly associated with type.

Almost all of us live in areas that're both 'red' and 'blue' depending on whether we're talking about a local, state, or federal office. A few of us are unfortunate enough to live in a 'red' county, 'red' state, and 'red' nation. You have my sympathies. Please, however, choose the answer that's most compatible with your way of thinking and best represents your political context.

Here are the types, as I see them:

• Issue-oriented candidates - This candidate has clearly-stated positions on the issues that matter to me, including the Iraq War, terrorism, abortion/choice, gun control, employment, taxation, welfare, gay rights and entitlements, affirmative action, women's issues, religion in the public sector, drugs, health care, and foreign policy. This candidate is not afraid to take a position that only a minority of his/her consituents support and has rarely, if ever, changed his/her position on any issue important to me. This candidate is more likely to be a woman or minority because the perspective of being so is especially important.
• People-oriented candidates - This candidate has a finger on the pulse of his/her constituency and almost invariably takes positions that are consistent with the preferences of the majority. (S)He is a true representative, for better or worse, and doesn't bring a personal agenda or ideology to the office. Whether the issue is social, economic, or foreign policy, I'm confident that the majority preferences of his/her constituency will be properly represented. This candidate pays attention and keeps in contact.
• Process-oriented candidates - This candidate has a firm understanding of the American system of government and how to make it work in ways that are important to me. This candidate's political ideologies and philosophies are closest to my own in social, economic, and foreign policy matters. I'm not necessarily aware of the positions this candidate has taken on various issues, but I'm confident (s)he'll make the right choices in office. It almost never matters what gender, religion, or ethnicity this candidate has, since the process, principles, and values are what're important.
• Pragmatic candidates - This candidate has the greatest liklihood of being elected and getting something done. (S)He looks good on TV, has charisma and grace, and appeals to people. This candidate is most often a white male, because that's who he's going to be dealing with. (S)He knows how to get plentiful campaign contributions and it doesn't matter that much whether they're from business, labor, or social advocacy groups. While this candidate isn't completely consistent with what I'd prefer in an "ideal" world, (s)he's better than the alternative(s).

OK ... let's have at it. OK? (Please ... read and think about it.)

I sure hope this doesn't sink below the DU horizon like a falling meteoroid - as my threads too often do. Whatever. :shrug:

[AX10]

1. kick

[MercutioATC]

2. Issue-oriented in Ohio (officially a Red state)

[Rich Hunt]

3. blue state...

And "people-oriented".

[napi21]

4. Every candidate has some of all the traits you listed.

The pragmatic one is most likely to win! All candidates need to state their positions on issues, prove they care about the people of our country, and be knowlegable of how they system works, have values that compliment most people, and understand foreign relations. You have to make a decision on ONE! The pragmatic one will get the most supporters.

[welshTerrier2]

5. excellent poll ...

this is a great poll ... i was meaning to run one like this myself ... thanks for saving me the trouble ...

i also really like the division you made between red and blue states ... it will be interesting to see if that leads to different voting patterns ...

my only very minor quibble with one of your descriptions was the last line you added for issue-oriented candidates ... you added "This candidate is more likely to be a woman or minority because the perspective of being so is especially important." ...

at least for me, and i understand others may disagree, neither gender nor race should be a factor ... issues are issues ... the emphasis is on the message; not the messenger ... while i might feel good about voting for a woman or a minority candidate because they are so underrepresented, my primary focus would be on the issues the candidate fights for; not the candidates themselves ...

in the end, my view of much of the battling between what is called on DU the left and the center is, in reality, nothing of the sort ... the real battle is between those who are driven by issues and those who are driven by winning ... perhaps in the end, both seek the same ultimate goals but the methods, cultures and politics are radically different ... maybe this poll will help highlight this view ...

[TahitiNut]

12. (grin) Thanks! I guess only 37 people agreed enough to vote.

This is something I've thought about for quite some time, particularly according to the voter's perceived political context (red v. blue). Even after considering it for that time, it took me about an hour (the limit) to actually compose the post. That's an hour in my life I'll never get back. :eyes:

Regarding the demographics of the candidate: It belongs in the 'Issue-oriented' partly because it doesn't belong elsewhere. I failed to include the parallel view under "People-oriented" where the demographics of the candidate would tend to match the majority of his/her constituents. As always, the descriptions of each 'type' vary in the degree to which they'd apply to any particular candidate who'd best be characterized by that particular 'type.'

I don't pretend to be a political scientist or sociometrician, so my loose taxonomy isn't academically informed by such disciplines. Nor do I believe or wish to infer that such compartmentalization does proper honor to the complexity that is humanity. It's far more about how we see them than who they are, however -- so it's more about projection than any actuality.

There are LOTS of factors that contribute to the internecine (leftists v. centrists) skirmishes on DU -- not the least of which, I believe, is the inappropriate labeling of a person's own position on the political spectrum/compass/landscape. I.e., I'm not at all convinced that many who describe themselves as "moderates" are actually so "moderate." In many, it's more a posture of convenience ("Can't we all just get along?") than anything else. In others, even on DU, it's a matter of ignorance - not comprehending the depth and breadth of the ideological divide. For some, it's clearly more a matter of wanting the "win" rather than the actual elevation of a liberal ideology to any extent whatsoever. Few of us are at all willing to engage in the kind of (painful) self-examination that might yield an admission of being in such states.


It's too bad that DU is becoming more like "People Magazine" than "Harper's" or "The Nation." A morning dew is deeper than what's passing for discourse here these days. It was better, once upon a time. (sigh) :shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

13. "People Magazine"

oh, that just killed me ... i can't tell you how many times i've written that very phrase to describe certain types of DU threads ...

nice to find a kindred spirit ...

as for the number of responses to your poll, keeping it kicked with a lively sub-thread of replies always helps ... i have a current poll running about an attack on Iran and received about the same number of responses ...

[AlGore-08.com]

6. Another thing that this poll doesn't cover

Is the difference between candidates who have enough time in office (or a lower office) for you to judge whether they really "walk the walk" or whether they just "talk the talk".

I think this is an issue for all the types of candidates listed, although I'm not 100% certain about people oriented voters. To give a Republican example, when Smirk ran in 2000, he claimed he would be a uniter, not a divider. And if he could have delivered, that would have been one of the few positive things about his term in office - - sort of like Reagan (who had awful policies, but you had to admit the guy was popular). So, if we go back in time and imagine "people oriented" voters having a choice between a proven "uniter" like Reagan or an unproven "uniter" like Smirk in some post 1984 primary... would Smirk's lack of experience be seen as a negative?

[FrenchieCat]

7. I voted for all of the above/none of the above....cause I want it all

I voted for the issue-oriented, People-oriented, Process-oriented, Pragmatic candidate.

Includes his stance on the Iraq War, terrorism, abortion/choice, gun control, employment, taxation, welfare, gay rights and entitlements, affirmative action, women's issues, religion in the public sector, drugs, health care, and foreign policy.

This candidate is not afraid to take a position that only a minority of his/her consituents support and has rarely, if ever, changed his/her position on any issue important to me who's a People-oriented candidate.

This candidate has a finger on the pulse of his/her constituency and almost invariably takes positions that are consistent with the preferences of the majority. He is a true representative, for better or worse, and doesn't bring a personal agenda or ideology to the office.

Whether the issue is social, economic, or foreign policy, I'm confident that the majority preferences of his/her constituency will be properly represented. This candidate pays attention and keeps in contact.

He is smart as hell, and therefore this candidate has a firm understanding of the American system of government and how to make it work in ways that are important to me.

This candidate's political ideologies and philosophies are closest to my own in social, economic, and foreign policy matters. I'm confident he'll make the right choices in office.

And he is also a Pragmatic candidate who has the greatest likelyhood of being elected and getting something done.

He looks good on TV, has charisma and grace, and appeals to people.

[TahitiNut]

9. So, you only vote once every four years and only for President?

I see. :eyes: Gee, I guess this poll's not for you, then. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

11. Sorry....to act so fixated.....but it's because

Otherwise, I just vote for whatever Dem on the ticket. Here in the Northern California Bay Area, I ain't got to tear myself up each time there is an election cause primaries are non-existent...for the most part.

In my district, the same folks (incumbents) have it wrapped up long before the ballots are printed. I love them all, so "no Problem".

Arny is a Republican, i.e., he's got to go. Who will I pick as his replacement? Whomever fulfills all of the OP mentioned qualities to the best of their abilities.

So yes....it appears that where I am from, the Presidential elections are where we would have a real choice, if the primaries were moved up.....of course.

[Eloriel]

8. My candidate fits at least 2 of your categories. n/t

[TahitiNut]

10. REMEMBER! - We also vote in PRIMARIES, folks.

Please ... THINK about the question. THINK about all the times you vote (or SHOULD) and all the elected offices you think are important.

[MH1]

14. Other: Red area, equal parts Process and Issue

But I put process first because not understanding process is more of a deal-breaker; on issues I'll accept "close" or sometimes even "better than the alternative".

I would also make allowances for issue differences if they can be attributed to the person being a good representative of their constituency. I may not agree with the majority of the electorate the person represents - should they represent the minority (me) or the majority? That's where it becomes important for the person to have values I respect, and the ability to use process to move in the direction of those values, without making the majority feel unrepresented.

[Donna Zen]

15. A 3 part process

The first thing I look at in a candidate is their position on the issues. If the issues don't fit, then I don't go any further. I will not sell my soul.

The next thing I look for is electability. Often in primaries (local and national) there may be more than one candidate who is okay on the issues. If the personality/charisma enter into the mix, it is probably here.

Finally, I look at the person's ability to govern. While this may seem more subjective, there are aspects of their personality, and history that give one a reasonable sense of how much that person can accomplish of their stated goals; how likely they are to "sell out."

In the general election the party is the determining factor. I agree with WT2, I never vote based on race or gender. But as you can see, many of the categories that you've cited actually, at least for me, overlap.

[KoKo]

16. Your post caused my head to split and my brains started to fall out....

and the wracking pain has been beyond endurance trying to figure out where I stood in your poll.

But after all that...holding my brains "in hand" I voted for "Issue Oriented." But it was a hard task...trying to figure out which.

:-( (Please...no snarky comments..trying to do my best here.)

[TahitiNut]

18. Well, I didn't say it'd be easy. ;-)

In (virtually) total seriousness, I rarely bother to ask substantive questions that I myself find 'easy' to answer. I very often (as I've aged, like a fine whine) find that the self-examination I go through in pondering the question (ponderously, of course) is worth far more than the answer. Sometimes, 'answers' are booby prizes. Sadly, some don't even go after the booby prize, unwilling to engage in the contemplation which itself might yield more riches, often opting instead to find fault with the question and walk dismissively away toward the nearest mental cotton candy stand.

Hmmm. After wondering whether I should revise my fine whine above, I think I'll let it be, bottle it, and click on 'Post message.'
:evilgrin:

[KoKo]

19. lol's....that cotton candy stand sounds pretty good

for those who could use a brain break in these trying times....

Got it....:D

[cobaindrain]

17. blue state.....

blue county and town for that matter...though not overwhelmingly blue

people oriented

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Issue, process, people, pragmatism.. in that order

[TahitiNut]

21. 58 votes -- this poll is open on the West Coast!

(and everywhere else, too) :silly:

[unkachuck]

22. kick n/t

[wiley]

23. Process

When they are pragmatic and people-oriented as well, they are usually okay on the issues as well. I don't agree that an issue oriented candidate is more likely to be a woman or minority, however.


:kick:

[TahitiNut]

24. Kique. (Thanks for the recommendations, guys!)

:kick:

[PittLib]

25. Other ...

People-oriented seems the most ideal to me - as it actually reflects a democracy, however it seems virtually impossible to measure. How does one know where the "majority" stands on each issue, or is it merely the most vocal (with political apathy as it is) ... I have a hard time believing that you could assess a candidate in these terms. (Not that I couldn't be wrong).

Issue-oriented works as well, but it isn't just the issues - it's how someone puts their positions together, how each issue relates to another ... the consistency, underlying ideology and goals. A candidate might represent 80% of my ideals - but differs in a few ... let's say he's anti-abortion and pro death penalty. I'd have a hard time with that, as it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps he could justify it - but to me it suggests a "less-than" scenario which sends up some warning flags. I would like the candidate to explain the reasoning that led to their position on each issue, so I see that they understand the issue ... instead of simply toeing the party line. Some candidates seem very dodgy about certain issues of late, and I can't trust that - I want to know exactly where they stand.

I'm not sure I understand process-oriented. Well, maybe ... I think it might be close to what I described above in "underlying ideology", or based on fundamental values? That perhaps specifics aren't as important as the big picture or overall goal? If this is indeed the case - I am certainly, in large part, process-oriented. I tend to expedite my selection by seeking out self-proclaimed progressives ... and researching how well they represent that label. I prioritize social issues and then move on to economic issues (which I have less of a grasp on). But the candidates character is also important ...

Pragmatic - no way. This one pisses me off. It is in the vein that gets people like Arnold and Bush ("I'd like to have a beer with him")elected. It is total crap. This worked for Clinton as well, and while I admire him and believe him to have some substance underneath the charm, he is the type of politician I'd be least likely to vote for. Too polished, too quick ... too much. I don't want a movie star, or a Barbie/Ken doll, or a game show host. And when someone says "charismatic" I always think "That's how they described Hitler". Sincere and passionate are preferable. Someone who choose politics to incite change, not so much one who decided at age ten that they wanted to be president and played the game, using each office as a stepping stone to the next. I want a human being, and while I'm not a fan of true scandal, I expect them to have faults... like me. Somehow, based on your phrasing - I don't think you give this one much credit either.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here. I can't define myself in one of these groups ... but it is interesting to see them broken down in ways I haven't considered.

On edit: I'll agree with GreenPartyVoter...

in order: issue, process, people, pragmatism

You suggested tendency and I read absolute. My mistake.

[Massacure]

26. I would vote for an issue oriented candidate in a red area of a blue state

Or at least I will in 2006. Wasn't old enough in 2004.