Elect-ability vs. Issues. On what basis do you decide your vote?

[bee]

Poll question: Elect-ability vs. Issues. On what basis do you decide your vote?

Ive seen quite a few very thought provoking conversations on this subject entwined in other threads and have been curious as to the general consensus here at DU...

edited to add choice #8 (hadnt thought of that one!) Sorry for the late add.

Finish this sentence:

In general, I vote based on:

[Helga Scow Stern]

1. Our votes haven't mattered since 2000.

[bee]

2. maybe next time we'll beat the spread.

Its our only hope until voting is reformed.

[LizMoonstar]

3. hey! #4 craps on us solid blue Nader voters!

mt first election was 2000, and, being an Illinois resident, I felt free to vote third-party. Interestingly enough, my ex, who at the time leaned red (but old pre-Reagan red), also voted Nader. Go figure.

[bee]

4. sorry. I sure didnt mean to crap on anyone!

I just wanted to give options that reflect the variety of views Ive seen here on DU....

[welshTerrier2]

5. i will only vote for progressives ...

first choice: progressive Democrats

if no progressive Democrats are running, second choice ...

second choice: progressive from third parties

i will never again vote for a Democrat who supports more occupation in Iraq ...

[bee]

7. excellent point. I have added that option to the poll. :-)

[FreedomAngel82]

6. I mostly vote

on the person. I really research this person I'm going to vote for and if there are other people I go with the person who I know can get the job done. I don't have to agree 100% with the person I'm voting for but I also make sure the person is a listener and would listen to my concerns at least and don't just send a copy and paste response.

[jobycom]

8. You left off ability to do the job in the first place

I always choose in the primaries based on who I agree with the most, but that is tempered with whether I think the candidate could do the job if elected. To avoid stepping on anyone's favorite candidates, I'll use Perot as an example. Perot was a smart businessman, but he had no experience with government, and the leadership experience he had was of the type where he told someone to do something, and they did it. That is a bad qualification for president. Bush is another good example-- there are Republicans who support him because of his ideology, but don't quite accept that he's just bad at the job.

In 92 I was waffling between Clinton and Harkin, and went with Clinton after watching the two in a debate. I frankly liked Harkin better, but Clinton seemed better able to make decisions, and more aware of what it took to be president. So I went with Clinton.

That played a big role in my choice in 2004 as well. No name calling, but the candidates I agreed with the most seemed the least qualified to become president. I don't want to finally get one of my guys in office and have him or her fail completely, so I go with who can do the job.

Electability is on down the list a bit. I'm aware of it, but basically, I assume if they can convince me they can do the job, they can convince most other people, too.

[bee]

11. you're correct. I definitely should have added: ability

too late now though unfortunately (I just tried). But I agree. A candidate must have the qualifications to get the job done in order to be effective. absolutely.

[genius]

9. Electability is a lie. Nixon was unelectable. Reagan was unelectable.

Carter was unelectable. Clinton was unelectable.

[renie408]

19. Why?

I think I get Carter and Nixon, but why were Reagon and Clinton considered unelectable?

[Jai4WKC08]

10. When I first read the question...

I assumed you meant in the primaries. But option #3 has me a little confused. Perhaps because of my own biases.

In a general presidential election, I'll vote the Democrat every time. Until a third party or independent comes along that has some reasonable chance of winning, voting for him or her is a wasted vote. And with an electoral college system, that comes down the proverbial snowball in hell.

Of course, outside the presidential election, there could sometimes be a chance of a third-party candidate winning, and in the case of a Congressional election, if I were fairly certain that person would caucus with the Democrats, I might consider voting for him or her. Not likely to happen where I live, but I'll grant the possibility.

But for the primaries, I think both electability and issues are important. I'm not gonna vote for someone who takes the opposite or a significantly different position on the issue(s) that are most important to me, but I'm not going to ignore electability either. It does no good to have the "perfect" nominee on issues if he or she can't beat the Repub opposition.

But I would also add in a third factor. The personal attributes of the candidate. Integrity, intelligence, experience, values, and probably most of all, courage: physical, moral, and intellectual. Because politics is tough, and governing honestly and transparently even tougher.

A candidate might take all the right positions while campaigning, may even have a voting record of taking the right positions but be from a "safe" state where he knows re-election is assured. How can I know he won't sell them out for political expediency or personal gain? And the best intentions in the world mean nothing if the elected official isn't up to the job. I don't want policy made by appointed cronies because the guy I voted for doesn't know enough, or isn't smart enough, to figure out what it all means.

And mostly I want leaders who will speak the truth, and do what they think is right (even when it's not exactly what I think is right... but see above--I don't want them too far removed from me on the most important stuff) even if there's political or personal risk involved.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want them to be stupid about it. Or take unnecessary risk. That electability thing again, I guess. And being savvy enough to make the system work, see the big picture, make compromises on small things to accomplish more important things when needed. So figure in a certain amoung of pragmatism too. I don't find that contradictory, just part of the reality of the way the world works and government functions. If the leader has integrity, intelligence, and courage, it will work itself out.

[FrenchieCat]

12. I agree with your statement here.....

as many voters vote FOR the candidate as much as they vote for issues....which I presume actually ends up measuring what electability truly is.

Electability means that one will vote for someone based on the fact that he/she can win.

But the real question is what does it take to be considered as a possible winner? IMO, the answer to that specific question becomes much more complex because many various factors come into play, some of which I have listed:

The physical persona, appeal and charisma of the candidate

The message, how it is articulated and what it truly means, and how it is received by the electorate

The Candidate's specific credentials or qualifications

The type and number of voters the candidate can appeal to successfully, i.e., the effective breadth and depth of acceptance the candidate can generate for cross section as well as the base

The past voting trends of the public and how that effects a candidate's chance, i.e., what part of the country a candidate comes from, what persona the public perceives of the candidate, etc...

The candidate's personal life and the story it tells

The candidate's public service history and what it tells about the candidate

The current and recent past events that shapes the electorate's priorities of issues at the time of the election, i.e., are we at war? How is the economy doing? Are voters afraid for their own safety?

A candidates possible past votes, if they are applicable

The candidates stance on the issues

A candidates effectiveness in media appearances


So my point is that a candidate stance on the issues ends up playing directly on his/her electability....but is only one of many factors...so that one is not mutually exclusive of the other.

So I have to say that electibility does matter a great deal......but my priority issues have to be addressed in a satisfactorily manner in order for a candidate to earn my vote.

Being good on the issues is just not enough....obviously.

[bee]

18. sorry for the confusion.

Initially, I did intend to refer to primaries... then tossed that other option in there because I thought I might be important for some to make that differentiation. In retrospect, I see that I left out some very important responses that would have been necessary to accurately respond to my question given that the question itself is so vague.

I think the thing that prompted me to start the thread was the many posts Ive seen that say we should give the nod to whomever the sheeple will be most likely to vote for, which is what I intended with "electability". Like as FrenchieCat mentioned with the current Hillary push.

So I guess in the interest of trying to simplify...

A good follow-up question for everyone would be:

If the chosen one in a presidential race is a Dem whos values conflict with your own, do you vote for them anyway?

[Totally Committed]

13. Humbly Offered....

"Electability" is in the eye of the beholder.

Unfortunately, most Dems allow their choice to be made by the press (pushing one candidate over another for reasons of their own or for the highest bidder...), other Dems (in the lemming-effect...), and by the DNC election committee (using talking heads and "experts" to "annoint" the choice they have already chosen amongst themselves to convince the voters it was really THEIR choice all along...)

I solidly backed the candidate I felt was most electable in the Primaries. My Party leaders had other ideas, and the electorate went along with their choice. I'm sure most of those who voted for Kerry believed his "electability", too.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

14. I add that...but, but, but....

"I'm sure most of those who voted for Kerry believed his "electability", too. "

I personally don't even know if many voters knew what "electability" truly meant in the first place. That's why honest analysis are worth it's weight in gold, and why most in the media fall short of ever providing any....witness the current Hillary push.

[Totally Committed]

16. I couldn't agree more.

Thanks for that caveat to my post, Frenchie. What you say about the media is so true. That's why the "current Hillary push" should be taken with a huge grain of salt. They are trying to make us believe the fat lady has already sung. I believe she's still backstage warming up, and if we find her before she's able to reach the stage, it will be our duty to bind and gag her and throw her into a closet, and let a REALLY electable candidate be nominated.

If it were up to the CORPORATELY OWNED AND OPERATED MEDIA our candidate would already be "nominated" for us, and it would be *surprise, surprise* the CORPORATELY SUPPORTED REPRESENTATIVE of the DLC -- THE CORPORATIST ARM of the DNC who would be chosen. Anyone else tired of the symmetry of this little dance by now? I know I am.

TC

[bee]

15. so many good points in this thread.

The question certainly, is much more complex in nature than the options Ive given as responses. It seemed simpler (in theory) when I thought to pose it and by generalizing it... I probably made it more difficult.

Myself, I voted for Dean in the primaries... even though his "yeeeaaahhhh!" made him unelectable according to the MSM. Personally, I loved him for it... I wanted him to be pres... and I thought he could beat *. Im still amazed at how quickly the tide turned for Dean. What the media portrayed as a loose cannon, I saw as enthusiasm. silly me. sigh~ Electability is definitely subjective. Youre right on about that TC!

[Totally Committed]

17. bee, I supported Wes Clark in the primaries,

Like you about Dean, I loved Wes, thought he could beat Bush, and still remember the day he left the race as one of the saddest I can remember.

The tide turned so quickly for both our candidates because the DNC had already chosen who was "electable" against Bush, and it wasn't either of them. We see how well that worked out, and are now living with the consequences.

It is up to us to make sure next time, there is a real nomination process and that all voters get to choose the candidate, not just the ones in the first few states to hold their primary elections.

TC

[bee]

20. Ill admit it. In 2004 I was still part sheeple.

Its been a slow transformation since 2000 - and not until * launched his full-on attack on peace, civil rights, the economy, etc... did I really wake up. Now I realize that I didnt really know jack about any of the candidates... Wes included. And for some reason, I remember thinking he was uber-religious and pro-war... even to the point that I was pissed off that my downstairs neighbor had a Clark sign in his window. Yes, someone's propaganda worked on me - and in a big way. Dean on the other hand... gave my next-door state healthcare... I loved his human qualities, and the way he conducted his campaign. Still love Dean. Though now he is unelectable. I think. ;-)

Which brings me to the next thing. Living in NH, Im one of the lucky ones who gets to chose between ALL the candidates. But I completely agree with you its just not fair. If I didnt get to vote until after Dean dropped out... Id have been pissed. It broke my heart to see him go. Primary reform.... is anyone working on that?

[Totally Committed]

21. I live in Mass., and I just said F*CK IT, and wrote in Wes's name...

even though he'd pulled out of the race by then. I had worked long and hard, and gave the legal $limit$ to his campaign. Nothing was going to stop me from voting for him. And, by gawd, I did.

I believe Dean has already said he's working on moving a few of the Primaries back so a lot more of us can vote before a nominee is "annointed". But, I'm not sure that will happen.

TC

[bee]

23. wow. what a blow it must have been for you after all that...

to have him drop out. Its sad for me to know that I was so influence by negative campaigning that the impression I had formed of Wes was entirely inaccurate. But thats what happens to people isnt it...

But on a lighter note, I think Wes is in a great position to win in '08 should he decide to run again, for many reasons. And as a matter of fact, I think he could have won in '04 too.

[LoZoccolo]

22. #1, electability.

My politics operates in the real world and has real effects on real people other than myself. My vote is not for coffee-shop conversation.

[bee]

24. electability based on sheeple appeal factor?

just for clarification...

[LoZoccolo]

25. On polls.

During the 2004 primary in about January or February, the polls which matched the candidates up against Bush* had some of them losing and some winning against Bush*, for instance. And all of them differed from Bush*, maybe not in every way, and maybe not in my favorite ways, but in ways that were relevant to some people somewhere who I felt it was important not to let down.