On the Ability to Beat Bush
It seems like every interview I hear or read these days with average-Joe Democrats on whom they're going to vote for in the primary has the following gist: "I just want to vote for the guy who can beat Bush." I'm wondering: Is there any Democratic candidate who is so compelling to Republicans that they'll vote for him instead of Bush? And, given this "anybody but Bush" sentiment, is there any Democrat who will vote for Bush just because s/he doesn't care for the Democratic nominee?
My guess, on both fronts, is no. So I guess my real question is: Is there *anybody* who will vote for Bush *solely* because they don't care for the Democratic nominee? And, conversely, is there any Democrat currently in the race who could compel an Independent/Libertarian/Other who voted for Bush last time around to vote Democratic this time? Or is the concern over the ability to beat Bush really a concern that if the "wrong" candidate is nominated, people faced with two unpalatable choices won't vote at all, and that this somehow favors Bush?
I guess there are enough "swing" voters—that is, voters who decide for whom they will vote based on personality, stance on a specific issue, or the lesser of two evils, regardless of party affiliation—to make the difference in this election. Bill Clinton did beat a sitting Republican president, after all (though probably with the help of Ross Perot, who drew votes from Bush the Elder); Michael Dukakis seemed to lose solely because he was portrayed as weak and dorky; and Reagan was loved (or at least preferred to a Democratic party in disarray) by all but die-hard liberals. I might just be hanging out too much with folks who are at one end of the political spectrum or the other (and I might be too far to one end myself) to fully appreciate the power—and the motivations—of the undecideds in the middle, but is the choice between any Democratic nominee and George W. Bush all that difficult to make?
I'm curious: What goes into your decision about which candidate to vote for in the general elections (not the primaries)? Do you identify strongly with one party or another? If not—like me—do you consider yourself liberal or conservative on specific issues that tend to align you with one party or another, even though you might be registered as NPA or Independent? Do you have a litmus test for your candidate (for example, you'll only vote for a candidate who is pro-choice or pro-life)? If the candidate you voted for in the primary (if applicable) doesn't end up being your party's nominee, are you less likely to vote?
Personal attacks or hateful rhetoric will be edited out, so consider stating your case without them.
Comments (4)
I'm definitely one of the people who feel strongly that "Bush must go", but mainly because of his position on the issues I consider most important. Since you asked (and my afternoon latte's kicking in), these are the issues I examine and I'll keep the tirades brief:
(1) Pro-choice. I don't care if people call it "murdering an unborn child" to give women the right to own her own body. I think forcing a woman to endure eight months of unwanted pregnancy and have a child against her will is Orwellian.
(2) Environment. The Republicans have officially promoted Mr. Fox to COO of Henhouse, Inc. We've given the worst polluting businesses a leadership role in designing our current pollution laws. These new laws are now much less stringent and these business no longer have to pay to clean up their pollution. Go figure.
(3) Education. Vouchers don't work and neither does privatizing the public education system. In my mind, we have enough evidence that this shouldn't be a question any longer. However, the present GOP leaders seem to think chanting their position repeatedly will make more people believe it. And so far, it looks like they're probably right about that.
I typically will only vote for a candidate that shares these values, but the first two are the most important. Given the choice to beat Bush with a candidate that's not as strong on education, or a weaker candidate with the risk of losing to Bush but who is strong on all three, there's no choice: "President" Bush must leave for the good of the country. For me, that's just making the best of the situation. And I feel Bush is so bad that there's no doubt I'll vote for a Democratic candidate who wasn't my choice in the primaries: I'll even fly to swing states to help campaign for them, if I can.
Posted by Craig | January 31, 2004 3:57 PM
Posted on January 31, 2004 15:57
I am generally a Libertarian and I have tended to vote as such(unless the candidates are loons or pushing cigarettes...again!)
However, I will vote against Bush no matter who runs against him. I may not vote for someone who "can beat Bush" because I do tend to vote based on a comparison of where each candidate stands on several issues: Taxes, Pro-Life/Choice, Foreign Policy, National Debt Reduction, Enhancing rather than reducing personal liberties, limits government controls, gay rights(marriage), gun control, environmental protection, education, health care, stem cell research, separation of church and state. There are a few more, but I can't think of them right now.
I'll have to take that quiz and see who I should vote for... ;)
Posted by kerry | February 3, 2004 1:46 AM
Posted on February 3, 2004 01:46
I've been known to vote straight Libertarian tickets before. I've also voted for Greens, Democrats, and Independents. I can't recall ever voting for a Republican, but I might have. There's a reason I'm registered as Non-Partisan. :)
Posted by Lori | February 4, 2004 1:28 PM
Posted on February 4, 2004 13:28
If God had intended us to vote, he would have given us actual candidates.
Posted by Joe | February 24, 2004 8:23 PM
Posted on February 24, 2004 20:23