The day after any election, my wireless phone nearly blows up. All my non-political friends want to either congratulate me or give me their outsider’s analysis. All of my political friends have to call and dork out on the numbers, who won what region by how much, etc. (I use the word “dork” with love, as I certainly include myself in that category.)
Two friends that I spoke with today expressed thoughts that frankly didn’t make much sense to me. And rather than ask them straight up, you know it is MUCH easier to blog about their comments, right? (Don’t worry friends, no one except Mrs. SMD will have a clue who you are…)
One friend is a staunch Democrat who voted for Obama. She has a serious disdain for Hillary. Her feeling is so strong, that she will not vote for Hillary in the general election, and would consider not voting. (Never mind that Hillary is not going to be on the ballot, just work with me on the hypothetical here.) My other friend voted for Richard Moore for Governor and has disdain for Bev Perdue. This person is an independent and is seriously thinking about voting for the Republican nominee, Pat McCrory in the fall.
I love my friends, but statements like that make my head explode. In an admittedly broad sense Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton, who is to the left of John McCain. Likewise, Richard Moore is to the left of Beverly Perdue, who is to the left of Pat McCrory.
So why would two voters who voted for more liberal candidates in the primary, ditch those values for the general election? I get it that neither of my friends “like” Clinton or Perdue. (Of course, let’s once again admit that these likes and dislikes which seem so personal are actually perceptions formed through the mass media.) But why not base the choice on the issues instead of personality?
I know that a bang this drum of being better informed and using issues to vote rather than perceptions all the time. I keep banging because I just don’t get it.
If you list 10 issues and match each candidate with those issues, why not vote for the person who best matches your political values? I completely respect the most right wing Republican, as long as they can rattle off the issue positions they hold. What I don’t respect is this “cult of personality” that seems to exist within our political system. I am very tired of Hillary Clinton. Her campaign tactics have infuriated me at times. But you’d better believe that were she to pull off a miracle and win the Democratic nomination, I would pull the lever that says Clinton in November.
Why? Her values and vision for the country are much closer to my own than John McCain’s. The choice would not be ideal, but it beats making a choice based on who I think I “like.” If I wanted to vote for somebody I like, I’d vote for Ty Harrell! 
10 responses so far ↓
Political Junkie // May 8, 2008 at 9:06 am
I am a 60-year old white woman who once supported Hillary but now have serious disdain for the woman - I am embarrassed at how she has ran her campaign. I was surrounded by more like me last Friday evening at the JJ dinner held at Dorton Arena. A group of us had a serious conversation about the differences in Hillary and Obama and many voiced SMD’s concern…could they actually vote for Hillary if in fact she would win the nomination (fat chance, I say). Last Friday night, I said I could not vote for Hillary, I would write in Obama, but after hearing both candidates speak last Friday night about uniting tha party once the candidate has been selected, I changed my mind. They are right! We simply cannot elect John McCain - he might be termed a “maverick” by some and some see him as a moderate but we cannot for a minute think that he is not even more conservative than Bush. Just remember, who ever is elected President will be appointing at least 3 new Supreme Court justices. Just ask yourself and anyone you know, how many more rights are you willing to give up?
Undecided // May 8, 2008 at 8:23 pm
This is why I can’t and won’t join either major political party. Republicans say they are for small government and fiscal responsibility and Democrats say they are open-minded. Neither lives up to the billing.
Assuming that I do or should vote for the person with issues most similar to mine is making a huge assumption. I vote for the person who will do the best job leading this country - which may or may not be the person that believes in similar issues as myself.
My view on many issues doesn’t necessarily fit the rest of America.
southernmaledemocrat // May 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm
^So are you saying that issues don’t matter? I suppose it depends on the definition of “who will do the best job.”
To me, the person who does the best job is someone who fights for an agenda that I agree with. I could never say that someone who would enact a far right agenda (just as an example, since I come from the left) has “done a good job.”
I suppose I am saying that to me, the agenda is slightly more important that the person. Granted, I would not vote for a total nincompoop who happened to support my issues, but by and large, I believe that most candidates do have the basic competence to serve. (Well, that could be argued over GWB I suppose.
)
lillingtondemocrat // May 9, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Well I wanted Joe Biden to get the nomination myself but then nobody wanted to give him any money. I’ve always supported Bill Clinton. He has his faults but don’t we all? He was a solid centrist/moderate that got a lot of things done in his eight years. Hillary Clinton took a lot of baggage with her into the campaign, both her own and Bill’s. There are people that just plain hate her, not for her positons on issues but for personality and the Clinton name. I’ve never understood the depth of their distaste for her. Obama on the other hand is the rising star in the Democratic Party but he is untested. This primary season is the only time he has had to fight. A presidentual race is not the time for personality issues to raise their ugly heads. The church issue, the weather underground connection, the SF leftist law firm he worked for these should have been aired out and worked through during a couple pf senate races, not one easy senate race. I will support Obama vigerously this election season but he is a very hard sell. Why must we nominate untested, far left candidates every time. Experienced , moderate candidates that aren’t from Mass. would give us a much greater chance of winning each November and better reflect the party as a whole and the nation in general. Sometimes as a moderate, southern, white, Democrat I feel like the “redheaded stepchild” of the party.
Undecided // May 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Of course issues matter, but are only a part of the overall picture. To me, being a leader of our nation isn’t about pushing an agenda necessarily. There are enough special interest and lobbying groups and other agencies who will ensure that is done. How much do our daily lives actually change from one presidency to the next, based on the agenda/issues of that president?
What I do take exception to is criticizing others because they use different criteria to choose who they support. I have a friend in LA whose husband’s car was keyed because he had a “W” sticker. I also have staunch democrat friends who are afraid to admit they support Clinton because it’s not the “in” thing to do.
I try to just observe political discussions at cocktail parties since I am an undecided independant - and people on both sides are so judgmental. It’s hurtful.
Last example: I know a republican who was a Guliani supporter and says he won’t vote for McCain and will consider one of the Dem nominees - not because the ideals are closer to his, rather because he feels that “anyone but McCain” would make a good president.
southernmaledemocrat // May 11, 2008 at 5:49 pm
^Your point is well-taken about being critical of “other criteria”. I didn’t mean to come across that way.
I suppose then that the real argument is, what are the *best* criteria? From where I sit - I truly think that too many voters use the wrong criteria. Voting for someone based on what one sees as “personal qualities” would seem to leave said voter too susceptible to spin and perception.
Example - GWB. He and his campaign did a VERY effective job of creating the perception that he was a regular guy who drove a pickup truck on his ranch — and that both of his opponents Gore and Kerry were elitist, out of touch types.
But the fact is - he’s lived his life in the upper echelon, bought the ranch in 99 and his wife has already talked openly of selling it after they leave office. So clearly - the “guy on a ranch” thing, was just part of building the perception. And it WAS effective.
But many of the people who voted for him based on that likeability criteria - voted directly against their own economic interests.
So again I ask, what criteria are better than issues? I am not challenging, I am honestly asking.
Thanks for logging on and contributing, I really appreciate it!
Redneck // May 13, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m a little late on this one - but I offer my congratulations without dorking it up too much.
I’ve campaigned for Obama in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana - so I don’t have much of a personal track record to cling to here. And though I am biased right now here’s my take on it.
I like Hillary personally. She is engaging, funny and very, very smart. In fact, I think Bill Clinton would be a state rep in Arkansas or may have made it up to DA without her. But I really don’t like her politics. She’s not liberal in any sense of the word. Some people are populists, some conservatives, some liberal, some neocons and some reactionaries - Hillary is an opportunist. She will do what benefits her. Nothing more - certainly nothing less.
That’s why my disdain for her has grown to the point that I have two observations on the status of her campaign and why I couldn’t possibly support her - maybe even for President at this point.
1.) We’ve had eight years with a stubborn president who won’t listen to anyone. She has proven her ability to be equally stubborn since Chuck Todd, Russert, Ambinder and the rest told us after Texas and Ohio that the numbers showed she couldn’t win.
2.) Bush has put our country in a financial hole it hasn’t seen since 1792 when the Frenchies owned everything. If she can’t manage the money on her campaign or is simply willing to spend an extra $20m without consideration of all the regular people who won’t get paid because of her irresponsible spending, what the hell is she going to do to fix the mess our country is in?
southernmaledemocrat // May 13, 2008 at 5:02 pm
^You’ll get no argument from me on either of those points. But that brings up the bigger question -
If the above reasons would make a Democrat like yourself (readers, I know who redneck is…) not support Hillary, which is worse? Voting for someone you don’t agree with on anything? Or voting for an adittedly flawed candidate on your “team.”
vortexoffreedom // May 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm
If you don’t want to vote for Perdue and you’d rather be dead than vote for McCrory, then I would suggest Michael Munger for Governor. He is running as a Libertarian Party candidate.
Before you say that third parties “don’t have a chance”, I will remind you that BOTH parties have failed us. How many more chances can we give Republicans and Democrats when the education, health care, and fiscal failures come from both parties.
southernmaledemocrat // May 30, 2008 at 8:19 am
Respectfully, I disagree. As I read your argument, it is based on - “if ya don’t like the other guys, try us” — which is in essence the personality based politics that I was writing against.
I mean, why would someone who voted for a Democrat, then switch to a party that believes in very little government?
My argument was - check out what the Libertarians say about X,Y and Z. If that matches up with your values, then vote that way.
Our perception of “people” is always shaped by what images we see/hear from them in the mass media. If we admit that we don’t have the capacity to judge these people, and vote our political values based on the issues, we’ll all be a lot better off.
But I would strongly disagree with voting Libertarian out of frustration with the other party choices. That’s actually a weak argument for the Libertarians. The stronger argument would be why various libertarian policies are better than either party choice.
If Munger makes that case to the voters and more people choose his vision based on the issues, then more power to him.