Vote for the person or the policy?

[AndrewC]

Here is the scenario. One candidate has policies that you largely do not agree with, but you admire them as a person. The other candidate is someone that you do not like at all, but their platform is appealing to you. Which candidate do you choose?

 

[americanwoman]

I would vote then based on policy. Even if the person was a douchebag, if their policy is what's best for the country, I would have to vote then based on their platform and not the person.

 

[Summerwind]

Depends, if they're a lying douchebag (to quote americanwoman), then I wouldn't vote at all or I'd vote third party or I'd write in. If we're talking about someone like Howard Dean who is just annoying but otherwise ethical, I'd vote policy.

 

[The Mark]

While I voted policy, it seems to me that both factors have an effect.

As a current example, I dislike both Obama AND McCain, but I think McCain's policies will do less harm to the country. What a choice.

 

[Cephus]

And I'm the opposite, I really don't care for McCain or Obama, but I think 4 more years of Bush-like stupidity, coupled with the very real possibility of the Palin-bitch getting into office, plus the fact that we simply cannot afford any more right-wing nutjobs on the Supreme Court, requires me to vote for Obama. It's simply too dangerous to do anything else.

 

[UtahBill]

And I'm the opposite, I really don't care for McCain or Obama, but I think 4 more years of Bush-like stupidity, coupled with the very real possibility of the Palin-bitch getting into office, plus the fact that we simply cannot afford any more right-wing nutjobs on the Supreme Court, requires me to vote for Obama. It's simply too dangerous to do anything else.

agree with you but my state is red to the 5th power, so McCain will get Utah no matter what he does wrong, or fails to do right...
I almost always vote republican, but the far right of the party has gotten too much power, likewise don't care much for religious agendas overshadowing more important issues...

 

[UtahBill]

And I'm the opposite, I really don't care for McCain or Obama, but I think 4 more years of Bush-like stupidity, coupled with the very real possibility of the Palin-bitch getting into office, plus the fact that we simply cannot afford any more right-wing nutjobs on the Supreme Court, requires me to vote for Obama. It's simply too dangerous to do anything else.

Republicans like to call Obama the empty suit, then McCain picks Palin? She is an empty skirt. Interesting and attractive, yes, and a vast improvement over the possible empty pants suit HRC, but presidential, no....

 

[obvious Child]

Here is the scenario. One candidate has policies that you largely do not agree with, but you admire them as a person. The other candidate is someone that you do not like at all, but their platform is appealing to you. Which candidate do you choose?

How do I know that the person I dislike will actually carry out that policy? How do I know that the candidate I do like won't change their policies?

 

[Cold Highway]

Policy bar none, I dont care about how appealing he is to others, if the man or woman has sound fiscal and social policies they have my vote.

 

[Cephus]

agree with you but my state is red to the 5th power, so McCain will get Utah no matter what he does wrong, or fails to do right...
I almost always vote republican, but the far right of the party has gotten too much power, likewise don't care much for religious agendas overshadowing more important issues...

I'm a lifelong registered Republican, but I vote for the best man (or woman) for the job and because the religious right has a stranglehold on the Republican party at the moment, I haven't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since Reagan. It's not necessarily that I support the Democrats, I just don't want a party that completely flaunts the separation of church and state in power and history has shown, especially in the last 8 years, what a mess that can cause.

Until the Republican party throws out the fanatical religious right, I will likely never vote for a Republican Presidential candidate again.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Not too long ago, I would have said that voting policy is a no-brainer here, but now I'm not so sure. There is a difference in personality between people that translates into a difference of ability to lead. A total moron can come up with the correct policy (theoretically), as can someone given to anger, flippancy, warmongering, apathy, lethargy, etc.--all bad qualities in a leader. When times change from ordinary to extraordinary, it is intelligence and character that matter more than policy, IMO, precisely because policy isn't designed to deal with extraordinary circumstances.

The questions we ought to be asking ourselves, as members of the electorate, is why it seems so difficult to find candidates who can both come up with the right policy, and also have the qualities that go to make a good leader.

 

[UtahBill]

Not too long ago, I would have said that voting policy is a no-brainer here, but now I'm not so sure. There is a difference in personality between people that translates into a difference of ability to lead. A total moron can come up with the correct policy (theoretically), as can someone given to anger, flippancy, warmongering, apathy, lethargy, etc.--all bad qualities in a leader. When times change from ordinary to extraordinary, it is intelligence and character that matter more than policy, IMO, precisely because policy isn't designed to deal with extraordinary circumstances.

The questions we ought to be asking ourselves, as members of the electorate, is why it seems so difficult to find candidates who can both come up with the right policy, and also have the qualities that go to make a good leader.

very good point....my opinion is that the party leaderships decide who we get to vote for and are using "outdated methods to choose modern candidates".
For the life of me, I cannot figure out how we got GWB instead of McCain when they were running against each other. Sure looks like some backroom string pulling going on....
I am also of the opinion that the GOP really messed up this time....if they think that momentum will carry the ball for another 4 years, they are fooling themselves big time. Clearly what we have isn't working, so let's try something new...

 

[MSgt]

I see 13 people voted for "policy?"

President Bill Clinton: President Clinton was up against a mountain. President Bush was a military veteran, a CIA director, an ambassador to the UN, in the White House during the height of the Cold War which saw the Berlin Wall come down, and was coming off of orchestrating the UNs highest point in the Gulf War (90 percent presidential approval rating). But having presided over two extraordinary victories (Cold War and Gulf War), he was unable to translate those momentous achievments into a direction for the country. With Saddam Hussein still reigning in Iraq and disrupting peace processes in the region and showing a greater interest in stability than freedom in the final year of the Soviet Union's existence, he seemed to resist change.

President Clinton chose to use this and address these issues and sought to woo the NeoCons back to the Democratic Party by showing that he did have a vision and purpose for America in the Post Cold War. He outlined Bush failures. Not only had Bush stood by when the Chinese government massacred students in Tiananmen Square in June 1989, but he also eagerly reengaged with the Chinese soon after. He ignored Boris Yeltsin before the August 1991 coup in Moscow and was not doing enough to support democracy in Russia. He did nothing to encourage the Baltic nations and Ukraine in their drive for independance, and left the Kurds to an awful fate after the successful campaign in Kuwait. He explained that the American people could not afford a status quo president either at home or abroad. He and Gore criticized Bush for allowing Hussein to remain in power. And during the Democratic National Convention (July 1992) he insisted for the need "not to coddle tyrants from Baghdad to Beijing.

Aside from wooing the disenfranchised NeoCons because President Bush emphasized stability and the management of great power relations rather than bold solutions and big ideas, he catered to his own party's social reform issues. Promises to allow gays in the military was a biggie and the basis of freedom and democracy are the basis of Liberal thought.

These were his policies and these were his visions. People voted for him. After only six months in office "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was on its way to seeing thousands of gays out of the military and he was looking for ways to get out of Somalia, push off the Baltics, ignore Rwanda and Sudan, and simply bombed out Hussein's structures whenever he flew his jets over Jordanian and Saudi air space while we dealt with the humanitarian crisis of the Kurds on the ground. Of course, some of this was merely due to his military inexperience by deciding that he could move a mountain with ease (gays in the military), his willingness to ignore global disorder in the forms of religoion (too politically incorrect), and less than earnest policy visions on the campaign trail to beat President Bush, but a lot of it was because he was up against a beauracracy that kept looking backwards into the Cold War for guidance.

America Between The Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11.



Did Americans vote for the man or his policies? Because Clinton's policies on the campaign trail were very close to President Jr's post 9/11 policies, which the same people here who voted for "policy" blast Bush for, but celebrate President Clinton's presidency. If "policy" truly mattered, then some of the voters here should not have had such a problem with Bush Jr's. policies. Or is it that we merely wish to preach with out substance? It's easy to pretend we stand for certain things from on high, but tougher in the reality of this world when it comes to proving it. We ignore genocide and obvious tyrants who disrupt our national interest goals, apologize later, and then state that we should have done something then just to excuse ourselves from doing somehitng in the present or to simply cling to the idea that we are really better than what we have displayed. Of course, with ever situation, we seek excuses for impotence and reserve the right to only self flagilate long after we ignore our obligations.

I vote for character. Policy is merely a reflection.

 

[dragonslayer]

How could I possibly like a candidate if I did not like his policies?

Sarah is lovely woman, but I would never vote for her. Her policies and statements are Silly.

 

[Tr991]

I've always been an issues voter. If the candidate and I are in agreement ideologically, I don't have too much trouble liking them. Truth be told, I'd sooner vote for a liberal scoundrel then a conservative saint. In my experience, those that are voting exclusively on likability haven't taken the time to familiarize themselves with the issues/voting record. They have failed to do their 'homework' yet often feel self-satisfied they've arrived at the correct conclusion. Had someone recently tell me, he'd voted for GWB in '04 but really liked Obama's smile...

Course', I agreed with him enthusiastically.

 

[American]

The person is the only constant, they don't change.

 

[Curious George]

In the case of this election, I'm voting for the person and the policy.

Obama FTW!

But for the most part, I've usually voted Republican for the policies, even though the Republican candidates were mostly first class, grade A douchebags. Of course, most of the Republicans I've voted for were economic conservatives without the social conservative baggage, and the few Democrats I've voted for have been social liberals without the economic liberal baggage. Other times I've voted Libertarian even though, almost without fail, the Libertarian candidates have been a little... eccentric.

 

[Curious George]

Btw, when I lived in Maryland, I voted for Michael Steele for Senate (and for Lieutenant Governor when he was running with Robert Ehrlich).

After seeing him guest hosting on Hannity though, I realize that maybe my nose is a little off when it comes to the social conservative baggage.