What's more important: issues or winning?

[Q]

- I've noticed that candidates would rather have voters talking about their personalities and hair rather than the ISSUES. They love it when you consider their 'winnability' instead of choosing them based on where they stand on the issues.

- Republican candidates have made this into an art form. Reagan was the best at it...the first 'good old boy' that wanted you to vote for him regardless of his stance on issues like welfare or taxes. Good old boy George II learned how to campaign from the Gipper: act ignorant, never answer a question in a direct manner...and everything will eventually fall down the memory hole.

- Our lack of attention to detail has filled congress, Senate and now the WH with politicians that never had to answer the hard questions to get elected. Have you noticed that candidates haven't debated the war on drugs in a very long time?

- We've become a culture that values winning over principles...power over accountability. More than half the population doesn't vote...and those who do vote demand less and less from candidates in order to 'win'.

- Now is the time to be discussing issues...not whether a candidate has a winning smile. Ask the difficult questions and demand straightforward answers.

[ComerPerro]

1. Well, on the other hand

I can appreciate how people can get passionate about their candidate of choice. With an unispiring moron like Bush in the White House, its better to focus your energy into someone you can really back. Plus, its fun to fantasize that your candidate is president, and not this drunken GI Joe Wannabe.

[Q]

2. Too much 'fantasy' gives us a shitload of bad government...

- I'm not suggesting people shouldn't have a 'favorite' candidate. But it seems all this bickering about which one is 'best' is driven by wishful thinking as opposed to facts.

- As an 'old Dem'...we used to spend this year before election talking about which candidate had the best stand on the issues relevant to how they would perform as representatives of the people and Democratic party.

- But I've noticed a trend: issues have become secondary to winning.

[ComerPerro]

3. Im not saying that some of the fanaticism I have seen

Isn't slightly disturbing. But I think its a good sign of life that people can get behind our candidates.

Whoever gets the nomination, I am doing everything I can to prop them up.

[Q]

4. We could make a very long list of all the issues...

...that aren't being debating during campaigns for high office. Have you noticed that both Dems and GOPers have gradually strayed away from debating certain 'hot button' issues?

- Candidates are rarely asked where they stand on many issues...the war on drugs being the most ignored to date.

[ComerPerro]

5. Its true that these issues aren't touched

And I think we suffer for it. But no one wants to venture an opinion on hot-button issue, for fear of losing the allmighty swing voter. I have personally never really respected swing voters.

[Q]

7. It's not so much the cheering for candidates...

...but that we're in danger of nominating politicians that haven't had to answer the tough questions...only to be 'surprised' when they vote with the opposition on these issues.

[FauxNewsBlues]

6. I absolutely agree

I changed my avatar from Dean to Anybody but Bush. I will vote for any of the candidates, even Lieberman over Bush. I plan on voting for Dean in the primaries, yet I am getting disturbed over the fighting on the board, with people trying to trash the candidates other than their own.

Karl Rove can do that. I am not going to criticize anybody meanly, just constructively. This election is so important. Our future is at stake.

Our very freedoms would be crushed with a Bush victory. He will have a "mandate" to enact Patriot Act III and IV, the tax breaks for the rich will further saddle us in debt, leaving a whole generation of program cuts. It will take us longer than 4 years to recover from this criminal in the White House.

I only will criticize the Greens this time. Anybody who wants to teach the democrats a lesson, by taking their ball and going home, deserves nothing but scorn. I will personally picket Ralph Nader if he acts up again.

[Q]

8. Vote for the candidate you think will do the best job...

...but along the way...ask difficult questions and make sure they're answered. If a candidate doesn't answer the questions to your satisfaction...then don't vote for them.

- This could save us a lot of headaches later on...when we expect them to respond in a certain way on issues important to Democrats.

[Q]

9. GOPers started this 'issueless' campaigning...

...with nominees for the Supreme Court. They told their nominees (like Thomas) that he didn't have to answer any questions that made him 'uncomfortable'. They accused Dems of requiring a 'litmus test' when they asked his position on abortion and other things. The end result was to intimidate many Dems into not asking the tough questions the next time.

- Questions not asked are questions that never appear in the public debate.

- How does your candidate stand on the war on drugs? What is their position on building more 'usable' nuclear weapons? What have they done to push for open investigations into 9-11, government secrecy or healthcare?

- If a candidate can't or won't answer these and other questions...they don't deserve your vote.

[karlschneider]

10. In the current climate, it might not matter. Either should lead to

the other. ;-)

[CMT]

11. unfortunately both

issues matter first to me, but I also realize that the only way to accomplish anything is to have the power to do it. For instance, in this campaign I won't support for the nomination any democrat who voted for the Iraqi resolution. That means if Dean stumbles I go to Graham as my backup and then Kucinich. But in the end, Bush has been such a disaster not only in the US but around the world that if a pro-Iraqi war Dem is nominated I will end up voting for him.

[rock]

12. You ask an astute question

I don't want to give to simple an answer, but it boils down to you should want a leader. This means you have to select your candidate on a wide variety of traits. Remember the candidate can say how he stands on an issue but when elected do as he damn well please (c.f. bush*sucks). So regardless of the issue, I want to be able to trust the candidate.

[Q]

13. Trust...haven't heard that word applied to candidates in a long time...

- But do we want candidates that say things just to win...only to later 'change' their minds and vote contrary to their 'promise'?

- If a candidate states they will work hard on an issue...I expect them to work their asses off delivering on that campaign promise.

- The disturbing trend is that many issues are simply taken off the table during campaign debates...allowing them to completely avoid responsibility after being elected. The war on drugs is a prime example. Even before the patriot act...the war on drugs took away many of our 'rights' and gave the US the dubious honor of imprisoning more of their citizens than any other.

- We need to talk about these things...or kiss democracy goodbye.

[pansypoo53219]

14. yes, issue matter, BUT

considering the DEADLY HARM that the Bushivics are sure to cause. GETTING RID OF him is JOB ONE.

[Q]

15. Or you could perpetuate that harm...

...by electing someone just like him or that will stay with Bush* policies after the election.

- That's why it's important to KNOW how the candidates stand on the issues. Will the Dem nominee keep Bush's* 'usable' nuke program? What's their position on privatizing government and public education? Will they push for renewable sources of energy? Will they stay in Iraq until the cows come home?

- Ask questions. Demand answers...THEN choose.

[tjdee]

16. Winning winning winning winning winning winning.

I am willing to split hairs with any of the 10 Democratic candidates when they're in the White House.

If they win, Bush/Rove/Cheney lose.

You want to talk issues, let's talk about what George Bush has done to this country and will continue to do. That's a BIG issue to me.

As the saying goes, talk is cheap. We can talk until we're blue in the face--if Bush stays, we get NOTHING.

Besides, personality and issues are intertwined. If you trust someone, you trust their judgment on nukes, etc. If you think someone is a snake oil salesman, it really doesn't matter *what* they claim their stance on the issues is.

Also, it really comes down to what you think of the American electorate and their ability to do what you're saying we should do. I know what I think.

[Q]

18. Talk isn't 'cheap'...it's necessary in a democracy.

- Do you want a Dem nominee that will 'cooperate' with the Bush* regime and keep their policies intact? What about the idea of informed consent...informed voters?

- The anybody but Bush* rhetoric is just as dangerous as the Bush* admin. itself. It's saying that we don't give a shit who we put in office as long as it's not Bush*. In that case...welcome to Bush II in sheeps clothing.

[Mairead]

17. I've noticed that an issue "isn't important" to some people if their

candidate doesn't take a position or takes a poor position. I have a hard time with that kind of slavishness. It approaches idolatry.

I am the one who decides what issues are important to me, and I demand the right to catechise anyone who wants my support. As far as I'm concerned, if my issues aren't important to them, then neither is my support.

[Q]

21. Not taking an position on certain issues has become the acceptable norm...

...but all we're getting for it is an unaccountable, corrupt government.

- Even if a Dem wins the WH...the corruption will remain because it's deeply entrenched and hidden under layers of deniability.

- Hell...the CIA has become a private army for the excutive branch and the justice department their secret police.

- A Dem won't be allowed to actually govern until we strike at the heart of this ingrained corruption.

[Mairead]

27. Right. It's become television. Theater.

[FlaGranny]

19. Of course, issues are the most important.

The trouble is, issues mean nothing unless you win. Catch 22?

[WillyBrandt]

20. Winning: there is no moral victory only real victory

Here is my thought process:

(1) Is X sane?
(2) Are X's instincts basically progressive and moderate?

If (1) and (2) are yes, the rest is gravy. We have no time for luxuries. The last question:

(3) Of all the candidates, does X have the best chance of beating Bush?

Is, for me, answered "Yes" by Wesley Clark. Followed, perhaps, by Kerry and Edwards.

[gully]

22. Winning because you care about the issues.

They go hand in hand.

A democrat must 'win' the white house because of the 'issues' surrounding this administration and most Republican administrations.

Issue # 1. Bush is dangerous, need I say more?

You raise a good point however...

[donsu]

23. Both - we need both in equal measures

nt

[2cents]

24. Stop the bleeding - Win

Fine tuning the national health is secondary.

[Orangepeel]

25. It's a balance (plus, add in the likelihood of effectiveness as prez)

If I didn't care about winning (or effectiveness) but only wanted a candidate who agreed with me on everything, I'd run myself. If I only cared about winning, I wouldn't belong to a political party but would always support the incumbant.

I support the candidate who has what I believe to be the magic formula -- the right balance of being correct on the issues (or at least most of them and the ones most important to me), having a strong chance of winning, and a likelihood of being able to get things done.

It's a compensatory model, but there are minimum threshold levels for all of the variables.

I realize that every voter will have a different magic formula. That's fine. That's what primaries are for.

[LWolf]

26. Why do you assume that they are 2 opposing choices?

If we're doing our civic duty and voting on the issues, the issues win, don't they?

Why would you assume that making sure a candidate who did not represent your views on the issues got elected would be "winning?"

We win when we get a candidate into office who works for what we believe...who acts on our issues.

Electing a candidate who does not support our issues is an empty victory, and so unnecessary. We're going to campaign to win anyway; why not win with the person we want?

[Iverson]

28. issues

Thank you for playing. You'll be receiving a handsome copy of our home game.

[WilliamPitt]

29. Winning

Issues are useless unless they can be translated into policy.

[Q]

30. What will you 'win' if our government remains corrupt...

...but under the rule of the Dems instead of the GOPers?

- The answer is that you'll 'win' nothing at all. Yes...you'll be able to say that Dems won...but the real winner will be corporations who run our 'shadow' government.

- We're on the edge of having a one-party system of government. Electing the 'wrong' Dem to office is not the solution.

[gully]

32. Q, there are several issues. corporate influence is but one...n/t

[HereSince1628]

31. Now THERE is a meme for the DLC!

God Will, you R a creative genius!

[quaker bill]

33. Winning

Voting for lofty principles might make you feel good about yourself. Losing the election over them is not an acceptable outcome in this case.

I will vote for the strongest candidate that reflects some portion of my political views. I will then continue to work for my issues with an administration that (if we win) is more likely to listen.

[Q]

34. "Lofty" principles like fair elections?

- Think about what you're saying. We 'lost' the last election because of the absense of those silly, lofty principles.

- Here we are marching like lemmings to the next election without fixing what went wrong LAST TIME. What will you do if they steal it again? Cry in your beer?

- These situational ethics are pretty scary coming from Dems.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

35. That's a real hard one

Thanks, Ralph. I'll take victory. The main issue for me is defeating Bush.

Never let perfection become the enemy of the good.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Media. Period.

I think we have a "shitload of bad government" because of them. This must be addressed first.

[Blue_Chill]

37. Winning

You can stand for all the right things and still not be worth a damn if you can't win an election.

Also we live in America, the land of Hollywood and people voters who don't really know the difference between a liberal and a democrat other then whcih stands for gay rights. A winning smile can account for a great many votes in this great land of ours, a good image can win even more votes.

Satan could run for office and as long as he/she looks hot and says "I love Amurica" a great many people would vote for him.

[Procopius]

38. Winning is most important

Remember the Republicans HAVE to run on good looks. They're totally stupid!

[hedgetrimmer]

39. dude it's all about the hair... it is the only way to ......WIN!

the hair, the smile, the dopest campaign, the most charisma, what kind of underwear, the fastest comeback........

wait... that sounds like prom king....

i think i'll take the issues....

[ScreamingMeemie]

40. There are those of us who are affected by a stance on issues, and then

there are those of us who are more affected by a "look". The trick is to combine those two and present the best package one can. One cannot reach all voters by being either/or. It is unfortunate, but look how Jimmy Carter got slammed for buying his suits at Kmart.

[Mechatanketra]

41. The bulldog and the greyhound

Around here (the Illinois sticks), we have a common metaphor for a certain kind of catch-22, comparing two dogs in a bear chase: the bulldog might be tough enough to take the bear, but can't run fast enough to catch it; the greyhound can run it down easily -- but what's it gonna do when it's caught it?

That's the problem with this question. People who stand by the issues get derided a lot as politically suicidal idealists, who cost the party elections by being perfectionists. And there's some truth to that. But then there's that greyhound -- thinking only in terms of electability, especially cosmetic electability ("but X is so HANDSOME!") or cargo cult politics ("We have to nominate a Foo, because 19 out of 20 Presidents have been Foos -- and there's never been a non-Foo President who's also Baz.") Sure, I might be able to find a candidate who can win handily if I quash my ideals -- but at that point, do I really care if he wins? What's he gonna do that I want? After all, at the ultimate end of electability, we can just nominate Bush for the Democratic candidate and we're assured of victory!

As naive as it sounds, we have to be greedy -- we need an electable candidate who's also good on the issues. It's irrelevant to ask which quality is more important, because each is useless without the other.

[Terwilliger]

42. both

winning without purpose is like fucking for chastity

[Redneck Socialist]

43. winning

Winning, hands down. Very few people, less than 25% of the people who actually bother to vote, vote on the "issues." It is about who they feel "comfortable" with, who they perceive as trustworthy. I have found the "six pack rule" to be a very good indicator of who will win any given election. The candidate that you would most likely want to sit down and drink a six pack with more often than not wins. Beer drinking isn't much of an issue, but this test is a good indicator of peoples perceptions and comfort level with any given candidate. I would hazard a guess that most of us in this forum care deeply about the "issues," but we are not necessarily representative of the larger voting populace. Personally if I can find a candidate that I agree with on 80% of the issues I am estatic. Unfortunately that doesn't happen too often.

[Dr Fate]

44. Why does it have to be one or the other? Win first-THEN issues!

First we WIN, then we start implementing our "issues"...

It's not one or the other, its winning- THEN issues- you cant get your "issues" into the system until you WIN.