Criteria for Endorsing Candidates Poll

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have been thinking about this. I have noticed that ideology has led moderates to ignore other problems with a candidate and support someone just because they are moderate (ie Murkowski) and Conservatives do the same with some of their people (ie Angle, Vitter, and O'Donnell)? What do you consider when picking a candidate?

Is focusing only on ideology bad long term for the country?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Focusing only on ideology can be bad, in that it may lead one to support trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, or nominating a tea-partier in Delaware. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that it would be good for Republicans to not gain either house of Congress this year, so they can continue attacking Obama's agenda & the Democratic Congress enabling it, as he tries & fails miserably to implement it.

[tpfkaw]

Ideology.  I factor electability in when the ideological differences are small enough so that it still makes sense for me to favor the more electable candidate.

[Psychic Octopus]

Combination of the above. Sanity is obviously to be prized. I put their political views and competence tied for second after that.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Who bases their decision on just one criterion?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     Focusing only on ideology can be bad, in that it may lead one to support trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, or nominating a tea-partier in Delaware. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that it would be good for Republicans to not gain either house of Congress this year, so they can continue attacking Obama's agenda & the Democratic Congress enabling it, as he tries & fails miserably to implement it.

A very interesting Strategy, one which I support. But that doesn't mean we should give them any favors. Especially one as big as throwing Delware away entirely.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Focusing only on ideology can be bad, in that it may lead one to support trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, or nominating a tea-partier in Delaware. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that it would be good for Republicans to not gain either house of Congress this year, so they can continue attacking Obama's agenda & the Democratic Congress enabling it, as he tries & fails miserably to implement it.

A very interesting Strategy, one which I support. But that doesn't mean we should give them any favors. Especially one as big as throwing Delware away entirely.

     I see what you mean. Mike Castle is probably the only Republican in Delaware right now who could win a Senate seat there, & even if he retires after one term, it would be a boon to the Republicans to hold it over the course of that one term. The situation in 2014 could be very different from the situation now, so you want to pin down the difficult seats when the opportunity to do so presents itself.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     Focusing only on ideology can be bad, in that it may lead one to support trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, or nominating a tea-partier in Delaware. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that it would be good for Republicans to not gain either house of Congress this year, so they can continue attacking Obama's agenda & the Democratic Congress enabling it, as he tries & fails miserably to implement it.

A very interesting Strategy, one which I support. But that doesn't mean we should give them any favors. Especially one as big as throwing Delware away entirely.

     I see what you mean. Mike Castle is probably the only Republican in Delaware right now who could win a Senate seat there, & even if he retires after one term, it would be a boon to the Republicans to hold it over the course of that one term. The situation in 2014 could be very different from the situation now, so you want to pin down the difficult seats when the opportunity to do so presents itself.

If we do fall short, and indeed that is the best possible solution. I want it to be by 1 or at most 2 seats. That way, you have the benefit of Dems have the Senate but also the ability to easily sweep into the majority whilst defeating Obama. If we fall short it likely occurs in WA, WI, or CA at the present time and it should be for no lack of trying on our part. We come out with 49 seats and Obama doesn't have a GOP Senate to run against. Losing Delaware means you have less margin of error in those other three and could easily fall down to 46 if say CO falls through, althouhh unlikely, its possible considering the chaos there, and maybe ILL (Dems raise the Dead in Chicago). You don't hand them one of the top four most likely gains back, as a freebie.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well indeed, getting close would be desirable for the GOP. Considering how little Obama managed with 59 Senators, imagine how paralyzed he would be with only 50 or 51 Senators.

     But yes, I agree. When you need to make up so many seats, & a good third of the ones to put you at even ground are marginal to begin with, giving up a safe pickup seems more than a bit foolish.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

All of the above, to varying degrees.  I endorsed Lieberman in '06, and stand by that, so there goes the representing the state criteria to a degree; my undying support for Mark Warner hurts ideology a little bit; electability is a big one for me, which is why I was so strong for Creigh Deeds (along with the ideological agreement); sanity is always important, but I am a Jim Webb backer, so that calls that into question; it's really all of the above, with ideology and electability being the most important, and representing the state being last.

[You kip if you want to...]

Ideology, competence, sanity.

[Mint]

Ideology insofar as they agree on a few critical issues. I could care less if they call themselves conservatives, progressives, libertarians, pirates, whatever. As long as they agree on some basic issues like what should be done about the bankers or the troops overseas they're fine by me.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It depends.

[tpfkaw]

Since all you Democrats value sanity so much, I assume you back Jim DeMint over Alvin "Action Figure" Greene.  You presumably back Hank "Guam Capsizing" Johnson's Republican opponent as well.  You certainly back the opponent of UFO-spotting Dennis Kucinich, and all 30 other Democratic congressmen who voted to block Ohio's 2004 electors.

[Sewer]

Jim DeMint is Sane?

[tpfkaw]

Jim DeMint is Sane?

He's typically able to come up with a coherent sentence, and to string several such coherent sentences together.

[Sewer]

Jim DeMint is Sane?

He's typically able to come up with a coherent sentence, and to string several such coherent sentences together.

So can the guys you say are insane.

[President Mitt]

Jim DeMint is Sane?

He is not.

Jim DeMint is Sane?

He's typically able to come up with a coherent sentence, and to string several such coherent sentences together.

Which I'm sure qualifies him to continue being my senator.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Jim DeMint is Sane?

     Relative to Alvin Greene, possibly.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

you forgot 'character' and 'experience'

[fezzyfestoon]

Pretty much just competence.  On the off chance that there's more than one competent candidate, I'd then look at their ability to represent their state.