Connections to candidates

[fezzyfestoon]

Out of curiosity, let's talk about our individual experiences with choosing candidates. We all support dozens of politicians at a time around here and I know you don't feel some sort of connection to all of them or even remember their names a year later. Primarily with Presidential candidates, how do you feel when you choose a candidate? What makes you pick certain candidates? Has there been a candidate recently that you were all-in for? How often do you really fall in love with a candidate and find them perfect for you? Or is it more about victory for your party regardless of the sap on the front lines?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Most of the people I have a truly high esteem for have generally no chance to win (see my sig for a good example).

Regarding more "mainstream" figures... I did have, and still do have, a great deal of admiration for Lionel Jospin, one of the rare French politicians who was honest, principled and competent at the same time. I do have a high opinion of Obama as a person, though I am clearly disappointed by  his record as President. A few other contemporary politicians struck me as slightly better than usual. In most cases however, my choice is a "least worse" option.

[Gamecock]

I'm sort of an enigma, I'm a pretty staunch social conservative, but I try and choose the candidate who can win more easily. My biggest issue is Supreme Court nominees, because the issue that really matters to me (abortion) can't really be undone without Roe being overturned. For example, in 2012 I was pretty sure Romney and Santorum were going to appoint the same people if vacancies came up, but I voted for Romney in the primary because I thought he stood a more of a chance in the GE.

So if I can get Rudy Giuliani in office to get another Scalia in place of Anthony Kennedy, I'll take what I can get.

[TNF]

I support the most electable pro-labor candidate in a Democratic field that I can find. In 2008, that led me to supporting John Edwards before ultimately choosing Barack Obama over Hillary's empty rhetoric and her record as a corporate board member for Wal-Mart, I think it was.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm kind of a tough nut to crack.  I'm pretty much conservative on both social and economic issues, but I don't really have a single issue that is more important to me than any other.  My policy would probably be, as Bill Buckley used to say, the most conservative candidate who can win.  In recent years, that would usually translate to the most moderate Republican.  In 2012, I wanted Romney even before he announced his candidacy, and as such, I went all-in for him once he entered the race.  I knew he was the only Republican who could beat Obama in the GE, so naturally, I voted for him in the Michigan primary without much hesitation.  I voted for Pete Hoekstra in the Senate primary for largely the same reason.  It's not that issues don't matter to me; it's that I'd rather have a moderate Republican than a liberal Democrat if that's the only real way that conservative values can be advanced.  As you can imagine, the last two elections have been very painful for me (especially the last one, since I could actually vote in it.) 

[Donerail]

I knew he was the only Republican who could beat Obama in the GE, so naturally, I voted for him in the Michigan primary without much hesitation.  I voted for Pete Hoekstra in the Senate primary for largely the same reason. 

That happened before the primary. Sure you voted for the most electable guy?


I vote for the candidate that will best advance the cause of liberty. Electability is a factor but not a major one; better to lose and maintain one's principles than support someone who goes against your beliefs most of the time just because they're more electable. I rarely find a candidate perfect, and most of those that are close aren't 'electable' anyways. Party is also a minor consideration; I will vote for the best candidate regardless of party.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I knew he was the only Republican who could beat Obama in the GE, so naturally, I voted for him in the Michigan primary without much hesitation.  I voted for Pete Hoekstra in the Senate primary for largely the same reason. 

That happened before the primary. Sure you voted for the most electable guy?

That was a simple mistake made by his ad team.  The truth his, he had more name recognition and was more moderate than the other Republicans, so obviously he was the most electable.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I try to support the candidate more in line with my ideology, but I don't even know what that is.

[tmthforu94]

I can't really comment too much on Presidential elections due to my age. I began seriously getting interested in 2007 and started liking Mitt Romney (can't remember my original reasons, to be honest) and it never waned.

As for Senatorial and Gubernatorial elections, I try as hard as possible to find someone close to me on the issues, which, incidentally, means usually the more electable candidate in the GOP primary. I proudly voted for Lugar in 2012 and in 2014, I will back Roberts if the Tea Party puts someone up against him. Not because I think he's more electable, because either would win in the GE, but because he'd probably be closer to me politically.

I really don't have a specific issue that is "make or break" in terms of garnering my support. There are a lot of different candidates in 2016 of varying ideologies who I could see myself voting for.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I prefer the candidate who is principled, but pragmatist. He can work across the aisle on important issues, but has his principles and will call the other side out on their BS if necessary. Bill Clinton comes to mind. The first time I really fell in love with a candidate was in 2008 with Barack Obama. I was like 12 at the time, but he interested me. For the first time, I talked politics. And knew what I was talking about. As of now, I'm kinda undecided in the Dem Primaries. If Hillary doesn't run, I'm leaning towards either Governors Cuomo or Schweitzer. But if someone like O'Malley or Warren wins, I'll probably cross-over and vote for Christie.

[Dr. Cynic]

I always try to balance ideology with strategy. I try to decide if the candidate can win, but most important to me is ideology.

[fezzyfestoon]

I do like the responses so far, but they're not exactly what I'm looking for. I mean what is the basic core of your support. Is it emotional or are you just making a calculated decision? Something like that. It seems like everyone's calculated and dry with it, no real gut emotionally motivated reactions.

[fezzyfestoon]

I do like the responses so far, but they're not exactly what I'm looking for. I mean what is the basic core of your support. Is it emotional or are you just making a calculated decision? Something like that. It seems like everyone's calculated and dry with it, no real gut emotionally motivated reactions.

When you follow politics as closely as most of us do, you can't avoid making a somewhat calculated decision. "Going with your gut" becomes impossible for someone saturated in information.

True. I ask mainly because of my own decisions lately to strip away decisions I make automatically and rethink them. I don't like the idea that I've slipped so far into political thought that there's nothing there anymore but a cold, dispassionate allegiance. I don't vote because I actually want a candidate to win, I vote because I have to. I don't want to do that anymore, so I was curious to see if there's anyone else out here still has that passion for anyone. I suppose knowing as much as we do and given the general quality of candidates, that's near impossible. But I think I'd rather vote once in a decade for somebody I really thought my vote was worth giving to than vote constantly for the common trash that regularly gets tossed our way. Perhaps it's just my independent bitterness, but I'm growing to resent politics and government. Especially mainstream candidates.

[Zioneer]

I don't really feel a connection to presidential candidates; the ones I support are usually my favorites based on a mix and match of their ideology and public "style".

Local candidates that I support are rare enough, but I usually support them based on how much good they've done/that I think they will do, their ability to win, and their style. If I'm not satisfied by the first and last criteria, no amount of the second (electability) can overcome that. So I vehemently hate Jim Matheson, because I don't think he's done any good (besides acting as a buffer to keep the Utah GOP from controlling the entire Congressional delegation, and that's not good enough), and I hate his "independent" (meaning that he rolls over and parrots the GOP) style.

On the other hand, I'm an almost fanatical supporter of newly-elected Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, as I like his "Boy Scout with a sense of humor" public style, as well as his work in the state legislature on anti-discrimination policies and stronger measures against credit card fraud.

I also greatly support candidates whom I have personally met. I met most of the 2012 candidates at the Utah Democratic Convention, and all seemed to be decent, honest folks, which let me gladly support all of them. Well, except for Matheson of course. He seemed... slimy and distracted.