Listening to the news on the way back from dropping Sam at school, there’s plenty of talk about the elections, naturally. One concept I haven’t heard explored is why people vote for a particular candidate.
No, not in the "which policies does s/he support" way. I mean in terms of the voter’s overall goals.
What I mean is, I believe there are two ways of thinking about your vote. You can choose a candidate because you support his ideas or think she’s voted the right way in the past. Or you can choose a candidate because you think he has the best chance of beating the opposition.
So some people will choose between, say, Clinton and Obama not based on what either of them necessarily believes, but based on which one they think has a better chance of beating the repub nominee. Ditto for the other side of the aisle.
It’s not black and white, of course; many people, I suspect, are balancing the two ideas. But there’s been precious little (if any) discussion of the idea at all. I’d love to see a poll asking people if they picked a candidate primarily because of that candidate’s views, or primarily because they thought he had the best chance of beating the other side.
The Fray
Emily says:
Or, I guess if I was an odds-maker “had the best chance of beating the other side” would have a special meaning for me.
Randy says:
I know my wife often votes for “has best chance to beat opposing party” candidates when there are choices and she is informed. She always votes democratic in elections in cases where she doesn’t know much about the candidates and when there is a single member of her party in a category.
I on the other hand only vote in categories where I am informed, and only for candidates I believe I want representing me. I’ve come from intentionally politically unaware to my current stance after suffering through the first W “election” and finding out just how horrid he is. There may come a time when I vote “any-but-this-one” or “my-party” when insuffuciently informed, but my current voting is, as stated, only where I am informed and only for the candidate I want representing me.
Steve says:
This time around, not only do I agree with my candidate (Obama!), but he’s also the only one with a chance at beating Republicans, *and* he’s got a lot of things going for him that have nothing to do with his ideas (stirring rhetoric, a drastically new face for America, and the avoidance of a 20+ year Clinton/Bush boomer fight over America).
Emily says:
Andrew, is “had the best chance of beating the other side” equivalent to “the lesser of two evils” or am I missing your point?