How NOT to Pick A Candidate

[burning bush]

Ok, lets start with the fact that I have no posts to speak of, and therefore I am a potential miscreant/freeper/interloper/naive newbie.

I'll counter that by trying to stay out of the candidate bashing (other than Candidate Bush - possibly Lieberman), creating flame bait threads (hope this isn't one), etc.

I'll think before I post, and eventually tuck 1000+ posts under my belt. Time is my friend, but for now, I'll take the criticisms with a little grain of good old sodium chloride.

Ok, on to the read meat.

I came here leaning towards three candidates:
Dean, Clark, and Edwards.

I see these three as either sufficiently outside of the establishment to shake up the status quo, initiate some change, and get rid of Bush (Dean, Clark, and Edwards - in that order), or sufficiently charismatic to use their established positions to ride the status quo--and get rid of Bush (Edwards, Clark, and Dean - in that order).

In the short time I have been here, I have found myself more and more firmly rooting for Dean, some what to my surprise.

The reason I am surprised is because my moves towards Dean seem to be coming from some strange sort of sympathy! I have not learned anything new about Dean, his organization, or his positions, but as I read the posts of many of those who oppose him, I seem to find myself saying things that run the gamut from "Well, that's not 100% accurate" to "Well, that was 110% MANURE" (uhm, I edited out the first synonym for manure to sneak this under the Opening Post radar-use your imagination ;) ).

I have nothing against Dean, but I don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate just because some of his most vocal opponents are weasels.

I still like Clark and Edwards as well, though I started to move from Edwards over his general repsonse to Dean's confederate flag comment.

Is this anyway to pick a candidate? Someone convince me why I should focus on one of my three favorites (or yours), without badmouthing one of my three favorites (or your least favorites).

thanks :)

[jpgray]

1. If I understand you, that is not a good way to decide

Just because there are people on a message board that will post false or misleading information about a candidate, that doesn't in and of itself make that candidate "better". I understand the "sympathy" part, though. Imagine what Lieberman supporters must go through here.

:)

I think the best way to decide on a candidate (for the primaries) is to follow the one that speaks your mind on the issues, and has the record to back it up. I would say that, to varying degrees, all the candidates are seasoned politicos (Army is political) except Edwards, the one most likely to shake things up is Kucinich, and the best to get rid of Bush would probably be Dean or Kerry (with a better campaign). My three favorites of the crowd, for various reason, are Kucinich, Kerry, and Dean. Just my .02 for you, but there it is.

[burning bush]

7. You read me correct

Just because there are people on a message board that will post false or misleading information about a candidate, that doesn't in and of itself make that candidate "better".

And that's where I find myself right now. I lean Dean because of my anti-weasel factor.

I may go Dean anyway, or I may not. I wonder if the weasels know they have this effect on people, or am I alone?

Thanks for your .02 :)

[mitchum]

10. nice try

[slinkerwink]

11. have you heard what happened on meet the press?

When Dean got attacked bad on meet the press, and the pundits labeled his performance there as bad----his supporters rallied for him and gave him $90,000, more than on an usual Sunday. The fact is that Dean still has that underdog factor even though the pundits now say he's the frontrunner. Americans tend to root for the underdog to win ;-)

[burning bush]

13. I'm one of those types!

I love to root for the underdog.

I also love to watch a great comeback, witness a complete turnaround, see someone swim against the flow and stand against the tide.

I'm a lost in a matrix of great American cliches!

[slinkerwink]

16. then watch Hardball Monday!

:hi: Dean will be questioned rather hard by Tweety---I don't think that Matthews will go easy on Dean.

[bearfartinthewoods]

29. ok....the real underdog is DK..so are you rooting for him?

under dog status is absolutely NO reason to support a candidate.

period.

[burning bush]

33. Underdogs

get my attention, but not necessarily my vote, thus the original post "How NOT to pick a candidate." Emphasis on NOT.

As far as DK is concerned, I admit it. I have an irrational bias against him, though I can't pinpoint the reason why (therefore, I admit it to be irrational). Maybe he reminds me of someone that I disliked in my past, I have no idea. I can't get past it.

I was surprised to find that I agree with so many of his positions. In my case, DK is an example of the good message, bad messenger.

[slinkerwink]

2. I support Dean because....

1)He was elected five times, which means he was governor of Vermont for 11 years, and did an amazing job for health care in Vermont, and left Vermont with a 10 million surplus when he left Vermont, and all the other states were in red.

2)Dean knows how to deal with the legislature which will help him when he's President. I trust him because he's had a good track record with disability rights in VT, by funding VR, which disabled Americans like me rely on.

3)Dean doesn't take any gruff, and he's got fire, plus the thousands of supporters he has that are willing to fight for him in the general election if he gets nominated.

4)Dean's fundraising will help him in the primaries AND the general election, setting him up as the best candidate to beat Bush.

5)Watch Dean on Hardball on Monday and get back to me on what you think. ;-)

[JailBush]

3. Kucinich is currently my favorite candidate, Dean 2nd. Clark?

Check out his record on Vietnam and Gulf War II, along with some of the statements he made on September 11. I don't trust that guy.

[Wonk]

4. Suggestion: re-word your post so as not to include profanity

or else the thread will be locked, re: GD rules. The profanity rule only applies to posts that start threads in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

[burning bush]

9. YIKES! thank you!

Was it the bullshit thing? ok, its gone. WHEW!

:)

[RevolutionStartsNow]

5. Your top 3 are good choices

They are my top 3 also.

One thing you learn around here is not to base your opinion of the candidate on the behavior of their DU supporters. It's hard sometimes to separate it -- when a particular candidate's people are behaving like jerks, it temporarily makes me think less of the candidate, but then I remember that this is just DU, not the real world. :)

[Jerseycoa]

6. Stick Around

You will see weasels of all stripes. I don't badmouth any candidate and most people don't. But then I have a rule that if somebody disturbs me twelve times in a row, I click on my Ignore button. Ah, peace. I have to go to sleep now, but I will catch up with you tomorrow. :hi:

[Kanary]

8. Welcome to D.U., burning bush!

~~friendly wave~~

Kanary

[wtmusic]

12. Yeah, welcome!!

stop by anytime, waste an hour or seven!!!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[burning bush]

14. Thanks for the Welcomes!

It's nice being here in this little corner of America's political underground. Think I'll stick around.

[poskonig]

15. Things you can do.

First of all, welcome to Democratic Underground!

Examining the issues is a first with me. While it not necessary to vote for the candidate who is the most "pure" on the issues, if a candidate is frequently wrong on the issues, it makes little sense to vote for them.

Secondly, be honest about what personal characteristics of the candidates you like. Chances are, if you like something about a candidate, a significant amount of others may like it too.

Lastly, look at electability versus the other candidates. This usually is a synonym for organization and cash, but it can also refer to an intuitive apprehension of how the candidate will perform against Bush.

I loosely supported Kerry during 2002, came on board the Dean campaign in March 2003, had doubts about my support during the Confederate flag debate and (re)considered Clark and Kerry, and have settled back with Dean since.

Why do I support Dean? His issues are close to mine -- he tends to be a fiscal moderate who is liberal on social issues who exercises sound judgment on foreign policy matters. I like his blunt, no-bullshit immediate style. In addition to his fundraising and endless supply of volunteers, Dean will make the 2004 election a bloodbath, which I believe will work in our favor and remove some of the Bush mystique once the campaign heats up.

[burning bush]

23. My Priorities in 2004

I appreciate your comments and you solid good sense!

Here are my political priorities:

1) Remove Bush from office. Nothing else compares, no other issue is as imperative.

2) Enable and encourage the 50% or so who don't vote, to vote! In 1998, only about 35% of eligible voters cast a ballot. In 2000, it was only 51%. Sorry, but that is pathetic. :( India has a better overall voter turnout than America, and in India, it's often life threatening to stand in line at the polls. How can people be patriotic if they do not vote?

3) Promote the concept that the Dem party is the party of the left, which embraces the far left, as well as the center. If we try to seat ourselves in the center, we end up trying to placate the far right by marginalizing the far left, giving us Democrats that smell like Republicans on one side and Green party rebellions on the other.

My take on my favorites, scoring them on a 1-3 scale (3=Best) on Style (warmth, presence, appearance, electability, & other fuzzies) and Substance (positions, organization, money, etc).

Edwards -
Satisfies my desire to see a southern candidate. Young, smart, and fresh. Says all the right things, hits all the right notes, but reminds me of a classical musician trying to improvise jazz. Technical profficient without the soul. Probably why his campaign hasn't soared as it should have.
STYLE: 2.5
SUBSTANCE: 1
OVERALL: 1.75

Clark -
Again with the southern issue, but Clarks greatest asset is his greatest potential fault - he is an unknown quantity. Clark is the outsiders outsider, his resume is witheringly formidable, he reeks of "winner" and "golden boy." Unfortunately, he has never been elected to anything, & has no governing experience. Those who say that the military is all politics miss the point that it may be political, but it aint a Democracy! A general does not govern, he commands. Also, I am concerned that his positions are based on theory, not practice. Clark has little money, little organization, and a late start.
STYLE: 3
SUBSTANCE: 1
OVERALL: 2

Dean-
Deans problem is his style. He's short, squinty, and has a creaky smile. He governed a tiny state, and seems easily irritated. Fortunately, he also comes across as a bit of a squared jaw, straight talking, street savy, tough guy. How he does that, I don't know! But it is appealing. Deans awesome strength, and I think everyone, including some of his proponents, miss this, is that Dean is re-writing the rules as he goes along, and is changing the Dem party, and if he wins, the way we elect the President. Dean is pulling in eligibles who have never voted, embracing the far left socially, and appeasing the center fiscally. His views on war, economics, health care and education are bright, ahead of the pack, and pragmatic. Most importantly, Dean is restoring our Democracy, by returning the power to the people. Gore talked about populism, Dean is the new populism. If Dean gets the nomination, and does not pull a Perot and come unglued, it will not be a question of whether HE can beat Bush, but whether WE can beat Bush.
STYLE:2
SUBSTANCE:3
OVERALL:2.5

I'm waiting for a perfect three overall. I believe its easier to improve style than substance, so Dean has an edge. Clark may have substance of which I am unaware, and that could dramatically improve his position for me.

If I were to see a Dean/Clark ticket (and that would not surprise me, after Reagan and Bush were able to get together in 1980 - remember voodoo economics?) I would say that Bush is toast. A Clark/Dean ticket isn't the same - it would not be as easy to transfer Deans organization to Clark's candidacy as it would be to add Clark's style and resume to Dean's. Dean/Clark would run Dean's 8 years, and set up 4 more for Clark, where we would be likely to see a Clark/Clinton campaign.

IMO, 2004 will not be a campaign of issues, as much as a grassroots war for Democracy. Democracy is the issue. We can not fight this like we have fought ANY other political battle, or we will lose.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. You are doing a good job

And you are taking this all seriously with an open mind which is always to be commended. I personally think Clark has the substnace part in Spades, but that is my opinion. You are willing to dig and read so you will reach your own.

I will say about Clark supporters, most do not go out of their way to knock Dean, I certainly don't. I agree with your top three though not with your current order. The thing is, some of those who attack Clark border on viscious, I mean that literally. Calling him a war criminal, blood thirsty General War Monger, and worst of all, a Republican! Those are fighting words around here lol, and they often result in a fight. Couple that with media attention deficit disorder (Clark is still being asked to defend himself around the slurs and "gotcha journalism moments" from the first week of his campaign, the media has trouble talking about anything else with Clark, unless it is someone trying to pin cult deaths at Waco on him), and Clark supporters can get testy. I'll leave it at that because I don't want to slip into the very thing both of us would rather see less of.

[burning bush]

34. Substance

I hear you about Clrak and substance, the man is a Rhodes Scholar, after all. I defined substance as not just his positions, but his organizations and money.

I place an extremely high level of importance on any candidaites perceived ability to stop Bush.

Clark came in late, had a bit of trouble defining himself, and from what I have gathered, is not leading in any state. I saw one poll where Clark was ahead in SC, then another just afterwards where he was running in 4th place, just after Dean.

His best organizational strength is the fact that he is riding a draft, and obviously has some type of a grass root following.

I like Clark. I think he has a great future in the party. I just don't know that this is his year for the top spot. He hasn't convinced me yet, but then, neither has anyone else.

[spooky3]

42. Welcome, BB, and I hope you won't think me rude

if I make a few comments that may appear to be critical of your views, since you asked.

I like 2 of the three you like (and have donated to their campaigns and to one other), and would support the third candidate you like if he is the eventual nominee. However, the "why" is different. Your reactions appear to be highly emotional. I think you may be the Typical American Voter, and that frustrates me tremendously! While there is nothing wrong with emotion, you ought to ALSO have a candidate with whom you intellectually agree on most positions. Here is an example. You give Edwards a poor grade on substance. I don't get this at all. If you would go to Edwards' website (since that is easier than tracking down his writings or audiotapes, you will see a LOT of substance. You will likely see some things you disagree with because when a candidate is clear about his positions, it's likely that some of us will disagree with at least one of those positions. (I for one differ with him on his earlier positions on the war in Iraq, though I don't disagree with what he now says must happen for him to support more funding for it). Edwards articulates his positions clearly, which gives people a chance to slam him. More importantly, he has some excellent ideas and I agree with his values and philosophies on economics, tax reform, and social issues (for the most part). As for reacting to the unknown or unplanned, he is smart and appears to be high in integrity, two qualities I see as absolutely essential in a President.

Why not check it out and see if his substance stands up to your scrutiny?

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp

[burning bush]

46. OK, I Should NOT have used the word "Substance"

It has caused a lot of confusion.

I was tring to establish a separation between tangibles and intangibles. I defined "Substance" in that post as more than just positions. I included money and organization, two areas were I believe Edwards is relatively weak (Same with Clark).

If you read my post again, I believe I mentioned that Edwards says "all the right things." I've read up on many of his positions, and I like some of what Edwards says, and I like aspects of his image, but he's not the whole package. Nor is Clark.

Nor is Dean.

I think you misread me when you say I'm basing my choices on emotion.

In fact, I base my choices on logic AND emotion.

Leave emotion out of the equation, and you're making a mistake, IMO.

Thanks for your response, though! I agree we should not get too emotional, but (again) I add that we should not forget emotion.

[Kanary]

17. Did you ever take that online "test"

which is supposed to match up your own issues with that of candidates?

Can be interesting. Might give you some clues.

Good luck!

Kanary

[Kathleen04]

18. This one?

Here's a link: http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/?o=0 :)

[Kanary]

19. That's the one. Also

there was one that placed different people from history along a grid according to "left" and "right" values, and showed where you would place. I was clear over by the Dalai Lama, and the only candidate anywhere close was Dennis Kucinich. Didn't surprise me. ^_^

Thanks for finding the link!!

Kanary

[Kathleen04]

20. You're welcome..

and I think this is the other one you're talking about: www.politicalcompass.org :)

[JohnKleeb]

21. Ive taken that and I am as far left in the UK as I am here in the US

[burning bush]

24. Just Took it, check this out!

My top 4 (not including my theoritically perfect candidate):

1. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (72%)
2. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (68%)
3. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (61%)
4. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (61%)

My bottom 4:

11. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (32%)
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (30%)
13. Bush, President George W. - Republican (23%)
14. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (21%)

The surprises for me were Mosely-Braun just above Bush, and Kucinich as #2!

I don't like Kucinich. I don't dislike him, but he holds not attraction as a candidate. Now excuse me while I go find out about Howard Phillips, and why he sucks more than Bush!

[JohnKleeb]

25. You do not wanna find out about Howard Phillips dude

These guys are nuts, the constiution party, hell Phillips in the 80's went to South Africa to support aparteid. Scumbag. I dont think that thing selector is accurate honestly. On Kucinich hes my candiate and I dont know your views personally, maybe if you learn more about him and his vision you may like him more :D, but good luck in your search for a candiate.

[burning bush]

26. Yep, read for 2 or 3 minutes, that was all I needed!

Pretty extreme views. The Constitution party sounds like Born Again, Bible-Belt Libertarians.

What a combo. Like putting Chinese mustard on pistachio ice cream.

ygahuhghack!

[JohnKleeb]

27. nutty eh

I remember reading on em and puking,

[Lisa0825]

43. The nice thing about the Constitution Party is....

that most of the hate Bush too! Most of us actually have some common ground with them, because they (at least the ones I know personally) are against the Patriot Act, against this war, against huge decifits, and feel that the current repubneocons are tampering with our Constitutional rights. They really HATE what Bush is doing. I am more likely to be able to be friends with someone of the Constitution Party than a modern day version of the Republicans.

They are also waiting anxiously to see if Judge Roy Moore will consent to run against Bush for their party. They don't care if it results in Republicans losing votes, because they want to reform the Republican party, which many of them defected from.

Long Live the Constitution Party! They could just be a Democrat's best friend, and Bush's worst enemy!

[Kanary]

38. I'm not at all surprised

to find that your second choice, according to that online thingie, is Dennis Kucinich. When looking just at his ideas and positions, most can relate strongly to him.

Do me a favor, and give it a bit of a chance... just read some of his position papers. You might be surprised.

Glad you found it of use.... it's interesting.

Kanary

[burning bush]

39. OK, I promiss!

I'll look at DK again, and bury my bias for awhile :)

[burning bush]

40. dupe (nt)

[spooky3]

44. Interesting! As many here have said the site needs to be

updated to provide the best matches. But it is helpful even though incomplete.

[fabius]

22. I'm for Dean but you need to think it through...

...don't go for a candidate just because you don't like the people criticizing him.

They all have websites, most with a lot of speeches, issues, initiatives. etc. Look 'em over. :)

[Adjoran]

28. Welcome, and I agree with many of your points

I'm also undecided. My top criterion is also picking a candidate who can win the general election.

I could find a candidate who is closer to my personal views, perhaps, but if I don't think that candidate has the best chance to win in '04, I won't vote for him or her.

I've narrowed my consideration mostly to Dean, Clark, and Gephardt. Kerry and Edwards could earn their way back into the mix with a surprise showing early, but right now that does not appear likely. I'll support the nominee, but my primary vote will go to the one I think is strongest vs. Bush.

Issues are important, but if you don't win, you lose on all of them. I'm perfectly willing to try to convince a Democratic President to my way of thinking on any given issue.

It would be easier to judge based on more results. I think that only those candidates who have won a primary by Feb 3, or finished second in four, will be able to continue a viable campaign. Right now, Dean is first or second in all the first states, so he will be one of the finalists. Gephardt leads in MO and may win IO, and is within striking distance of first or second in SC, OK, and NM. The odds favor him being able to go on, unless it quickly devolves into a two-man race. Clark is ahead in SC, and is first or second in AZ, and NM, too. His late entry forced him to concentrate on later states, and this strategy could work if his results follow current trends in polling.

Unfortunately, my state (SC) votes on Feb 3, so I don't have the benefit of these results before I decide! So it will be a judgement call. I am watching the race very closely to better inform my decision.

I appreciate the many issues the field of candidates have brought forth, but the time is drawing near to narrow the debate field to those who have a practical chance to win the nomination. We can learn a lot more about 3-4 candidates in a debate than we can learn about nine.

[Dr Satan]

30. just my opinion

I don't like to tell anyone how to vote.
However, we as progressives, liberal, etc. should RESPECT democracy by standing for an ideology, not a perception or desperation or superficialities.

Most people on DU have zero respect for democracy which is ironic if we are called "democratic."

Stand for something and let the cards fall where they may.

[Kanary]

41. "Stand for something and let the cards fall where they may."

Soooo right on! The articles I've read about how the Dems can reclaim their power all say the same thing... stop trying to figure out what or who will "Sell", and get back to the Democratic Soul!

Kanary

[SheilaT]

31. You've gotten a lot of good advice here.

You might also check out the various websites each candidate has. Also, attend some meet-ups. Tomorrow is Clark's meetup day. Wednesday is Dean's. Kucinich on Thursday. December 18 for Kerry. There's a meetup for the Democratic Party.

Go to www.meetup.com and check it out.

[burning bush]

35. Kick myself

ouch!


Just wanted another round of opinions, if possible :)

[mlawson]

36. I can think of three main methods for choosing a candidate:

1) Choosing the candidate who most closely fits one's ideology, regardless of whether that person can WIN; or

2) Choosing the candidate with the best chance of winning (so far as you know), even though the person dos not fit your ideology, 100%; or

3) Choosing the candidate who somewhat fits you, out of those who can WIN.

Repukes usually employ method 2, and they tend to win a lot. Many on the Left like method 1, and they rarely win. Method 3 would seem to be a very practical one. Which do you like??

[burning bush]

37. Pragmatic

I like your 3rd choice, if your read my post #23, I think I have expressed a similar view.

I agree with your view on the limitations of voting ONLY on ideology. In this media-centric age, candidates must be have an image as well as a message.

One day we'll grow out of that, if our democracy lives long enough.

[Bandit]

45. I have to say this is one of the better threads I've seen lately

I like the way you think and agree with most. I have to admit though that Senator Kerry has always been fairly high on my list and you brush him off easily. I take no offense though because I like the depth of your views. For a newbie you are doing good. Welcome and keep em coming. :beer: :toast:

[burning bush]

47. Thanks! But I have something to say about newbies...

I'm an old timer on the net, and even longer involved in politics. Many folks come here after a lifetime of thinking about issues, and a decade of expressing their views in various forums.

We may be a little green here at DU, but some of us are actually pretty ripe.

hmmm. That didn't quite come out the way I hoped. Oh well...

THanks for the response. BTW - Kerry was an early favorite of mine, going back to 2000. I'm disappointed in his campaign, not him as a person. In fact, he's right there with Gep, tied for 4th place on my list. He should have been higher, but that's not how the cards were dealt this hand.

[gulliver]

48. Not a good way to pick a candidate.

Start with the America you want to see. Use that as the goal and reason your way back to the candidate who has the best chance to get you that America (or its closest possible approximation). To me, the answer is obviously Clark. He has the same issues as your other two candidates, but then adds the national security issue to the Democratic side to boot.

[burning bush]

49. "who has the best chance to get you that America"

Exactly.

Start with your perfect scenario, then research each candidate (don't be afraid to go outside the Dem party) to see "who has the best chance to get you that America."

Obviously, the list you would build would-at some point-have to exclude those who are not actually running. Like Gore or Clinton (H).

At some point, it would also have to exclude those who have no chance of winning, like Sharpton, or Mosely-Brown.

How do you determine who has the better chance of winning, and who has the best ideas?

Build those lists, cross reference them, and there you go.

I like Clark, his resume is pure gold. But he's not the full package. Not for me. I haven't found the perfect candidate.

[burning bush]

50. Kick to hit 50

It's my first thread, and I had to kick it past the 49 mark! lol...

let the thread die if you like! I'm happy with it.

Thanks everyone for your responses. :)