Posted at 8:36 AM on August 21, 2007
by Bob Collins
(3 Comments)
Tim Dickinson, writing in the latest Rolling Stone, takes a look at the campaign of John Edwards (The Real Liberal, 8/10).
The Mrs. got a lot of heat a few weeks ago, lamenting -- sort of -- that Edwards isn't black and isn't a woman. Dickinson makes the point that Democrats appear to be in the mood to "make history," and electing pretty boy liberals isn't making history, even if he is -- the article suggests -- more in line politically with the people who won't vote for him.
This isn't a new phenomenon, however. People base their vote on electability as much as they do on the positions of the candidates; perhaps more so.
Proof? Easy. Look at Select A Candidate over the years. Now, keep in mind, SAC doesn't tell you who you should vote for, it tells you who you're most closely aligned with politically.
Predictably, this year -- like 2004 -- Dennis Kucinich aligns more closely to those who've taken the "quiz" so far than anyone else. Likewise, for Republicans, Tommy Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are tops.
But few people are actually going to vote -- given the chance, of course -- for these folks. Why? Because we make concessions with our votes. We don't want to "waste" them, as the cliche goes.
So Democrats want someone with the liberal positions of Dennis Kucinich, they just don't want that person to be named Dennis Kucinich.
This phenomenon, it seems to me, is the underpinning of our dissatisfaction with politicians. We think the problem is with them. But the problem is with the voter the minute he/she/it concedes his/her/its own position in favor of electability.
"Predictably, this year -- like 2004 -- Dennis Kucinich aligns more closely to those who've taken the "quiz" so far than anyone else."
This reflects a general limitation with Select-a-candidate. On two top issues - Iraq & Immigration - none of the available options match my preferences. So I get a 'top match' with Kucinich - but its on a bunch of issues that I don't think are as important as others we're facing. Hey, he and I match on stem cell & abortion legislation. Great. But that has little to do with how I'll select a real candidate.
The point is not to criticize the tool - I understand there are limits to how it can be made to work. And, given those limitations, its pretty interesting & still helpful.
On the topic of John Edwards, he has a couple fatal flaws. 1) He's less experienced than the so-called 'inexperienced' candidate; 2) he already has a loss under his belt (as Kerry's VP); 3) maybe is a repeat of #1: what are the reasons to vote for him? I recall hearing about how good-looking he was & how he would be 'the next Bill Clinton' - this back before he won his first term as Senator. Since then, he's parlayed those good looks into one Senate term & two Presidential campaigns - but what's he done?
Bri, email the issues you want included. We add as we go along. I'm working on a banking/economy addition now.
Bob- its not so much the questions as the answers that left me unsatisfied. You don't have much control over those!
| August 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |