What are your heuristics for deciding on a primary candidate?

[jpgray]

Post your own below, or comment on mine if you like. I'd like to see where DU is coming from. Here are mine:

To my mind the major problems with our political system need to be fixed before true progressives have a chance. As I am interested in electing true progressives, it is necessary to get as many people into office as is possible who are the likeliest to make those changes. What are the problems?:

1. Private financing of campaigns

--So long as this exists, forget progressive policies or platforms being competitive. As we've seen over and over again, money raised is directly tied to the concept of "electability" and also media exposure in our system. Since progressive policies aren't exactly going to endear a candidate to any major money or influence centers in this country but rather will alienate them, progressive candidates are at an inherent disadvantage, and often a fatal one. Moreover, the most ambitious and talented pols will not take on progressive stances, regardless of what they themselves believe, because they cannot be competitive without money. Individuals cannot compete with corporations or lobbyist groups for funding campaigns, therefore pro-corporate platforms have ascendancy.

2. Media ownership regulation

--So long as media consolidation exists on a vast monopolistic scale, and media groups are tied to corporate conglomerates with many fingers in other industries, it is foolish to assume those conglomerates will not use their media arm to maximize profits throughout the organization. They will dilute and destroy any efforts to harm profits on as many fronts as is possible, and will coddle or protect politicians that provide favorable policies to maximize their profits. With this system, again, the rights and needs of the individual will take a backseat to the needs of corporate power, and therefore any trust-busting or pro-labor or otherwise progressive candidate will be at an inherent disadvantage as far as media coverage. This becomes obvious when you watch any political coverage from the major media groups--image and marketing rule all. Trivial PR nonsense such as the "would you have a beer with x?" trump policy. An easy example is the 2000 Gore Bush debate wherein Bush baldly lied about his own tax plan when faced with Gore's correct criticisms, and went so far as to say -Gore- was the one exaggerating. The major story of the debate did not become this obvious and deeply troubling lie from Bush, but rather clips of Gore sighing or rolling his eyes as distributed by the RNC. Not exactly something that would happen by accident, no?

3. Great candidates who never reach the office do not make a significant impact on policy.

--Unfortunately, the system only responds to those in office. If significant groups of voters get disgusted with the system and make protest votes, politicians write them off and chase after those who will still vote for a major party candidate. As protest votes don't yet have the critical mass to elect anyone, many see them as an essential abdication of one's voice in affecting policy, and reluctantly vote for the major party candidate they most agree with. The effect of this is that one needs to find hints in a major candidate that he or she will change the atmosphere by responding in some way to the above two problems. Those who directly attack those problems are isolated and destroyed every single time, so in a way it's a shell game. Try to parse the "ho hum, I won't rock the boat" language proffered by -every- establishment candidate, and find the ones most likely to make at least -some- difference. Over a period of time, each small positive change can make a big difference. And as the atmosphere improves, so too will the quality of candidates.

Thoughts?

[bridgit]

1. "heuristics"? Please, Mr. Gray, I will find a candidate willing to speak...

from without condescension worthy of consideration.

[Elidor]

2. I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, but for now it all boils down to one simple equation

Stop the fascists.

I could go on about many topics: the Fairness Doctrine; the sad state of education in the U.S. and how it plays into the hands of the GOP; the Mighty Wurlitzer and the pathetic stuff that passes for journalism and news; the legalized form of bribery that is our Congress; the CIA's meddling in foreign elections, in direct contravention to any real belief in democracy; on and on ad nauseam. But at this point, it's all irrelevant except for this:

Stop the fascists. We have to hold them back. We have to dig a fire line beyond which they cannot cross. We need a sufficient majority on the Supreme Court that when presidential signing statements someday come up in a case before that court, they can be declared illegal or merely perfunctory and non-binding. Until the signing statements are invalidated, our democracy is ripe pickings for the next neocon who comes along. We need it re-affirmed and written in stone: the president in NEVER above the law.