Are you more likely to vote for the passionate or the logical?

[Stinky The Clown]

This isn't about any particular race or any particular candidate. It could be about a Democratic primary ... or it could be about all voters in general and the general elections.

Assume there are two candidates running for the same seat (or nomination). Assume further that their stated, written positions on issues that matter *to you* are pretty much identical. Assume further that they're reputationally equal - which is to say they're both 'good guys'.

Are you more likely to support the one who shows real passion, but is somewhat vague or generalized in framing his views; a big picture type who rallies support rather than asks for support. Or would you be more inclined to go for the one who is very clear and precise in stating his views, but is more dispassionate and presents things calmly and in a logical and convincing fashion?

[ChazII]

1. Grew up with Mr. Spock

so of course I go with logic. :D

[Sammy Pepys]

2. logical...n/t

....

[Mass]

3. logical\nt

[Jesus W Vader]

4. False Dichotomy, but a but a common one-nt

[Tesha]

5. Some will vote for anyone who promises to cut taxes.

Some will vote for anyone who promises to cut taxes.
The dullards won't ask the incisive question: "Whose taxes?"

Some will vote for anyone who promises to keep Adam and Steve
from getting hitched.

Some will vote for anyone who promises to protect their
faux-penises (guns).

Some will vote for anyone they perceive as sharing the same
racist tendencies as themselves.

Some will vote for the persons who share the same religious
affiliation as themselves.

Some will vote for whomever their pastor tells them to
vote for.

Frankly, very few actually vote for the better candidate
whether "better" is based on logical or even emotional
reasons.

Me, I try to go with the logical reasons.

Tesha

[TayTay]

6. Both, head and heart informing each other. n/t

[rock]

7. Spock or Kirk?

Spock

[Totally Committed]

8. I'm lucky... I don't have to choose!

Supporting Wes Clark means supporting the passionate AS WELL AS the logical. He has it all.

If he decides not to run, well... we'll talk then. I will tell you this: Peace over War, Balls over Wimp-ass, Strong over Weak, and Populist over Corporatist will get my vote. No "lesser of two evils" will.

TC

[jwirr]

9. Logical.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. So far, I seem to be a majority of one

I'd go for passion over quiet logic if that's the only two choices. Obviously any candidate would be a point on a continuum, not all one or the other.

To me, the passion is even more important than the logic. My hypothetical assumes both candidates help essentially indentical views, with the difference being tested in this discussion the manner of public presentation.

The one who gets righteously passionate about issues seems to me more likely to win hearts and minds.

[Withywindle]

11. How about someone who's passionate about logic?

We've already had five disastrous years of someone who makes decisions with his "gut." Who doesn't need to really listen to advisers or reason because apparently, his intestines know all.

Our next President desperately needs to be someone who thinks things all the way through using his/her brain. This doesn't preclude also being passionate, but I'll definitely take a thinker over a shouter.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. It seems my essential point was stated unclearly

I wasn't really talking about a wishy-washy logic in either hypothetical candidate. I was really talking more about message delivery and speaking style.

To make the point at the risk of seeing this discussion sidetracked .... it would be something like comparing Kerry and Dean.

(PLLEEEEEEEEEZE ... this thread is **not** about either man.)

[Withywindle]

14. Right, I getcha!

No flames here. Personally, I think Kerry and Dean are both intelligent and passionate men, but I do think Kerry thinks things through more thoroughly and has more applicable experience (esp. in foreign policy), so I have a preference in his direction. Just as an example. Speeches are all well and good, but that's not what actually runs a country.

Mind you, I have heard Dean speak very methodically and I have heard Kerry be very fiery, so I don't think the stereotypes both men got stuck with are accurate.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. True

The contrast was framed in absolutes while people are somewhere on a continuum and usualy vary even from their 'mean'.

[seaglass]

28. But it was clear that's what you meant and it is what I thought

of when you asked the question.

See, I think someone can be passionate about ideas and still have a calm demeanor. People have different ways of expressing themselves. I prefer someone who can approach the world calmly and thoughtfully.

[JuniperLea]

34. Well said... agreed. n/t

[El Fuego]

12. Logical, but I'd be passionate about it.

[Writer]

15. Nearly everyone will claim that they vote logically...

but in reality, nearly all of us vote passionately.

[Hosnon]

20. I think you are 100% correct. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Kinda like no likes mudslinging ...

..... but it is incredibly effective.

I think you're right.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. Make take is that it depends on the office sought

The more logical one (and I'm totally generalizing here so take it with a grain of salt) might be someone who is very detail oriented and has in-depth expertise about one topic or a small range of topics. That would be someone I would favor for a position that requires that type of specificity.

Many political offices, however, require the ability to quickly assess and assimiliate information about an extremely wide range of issues. It is there that the passionate, but vague one might actually have the advantage. They tend to think "macro" and sometimes that precludes the opportunity to consider a particular thing from every angle the way that a more methodical thinker does. This doesn't mean that they can't be highly intelligent, competent, and able to make wise decisions. Politicians I've met tend to come from this category more than the former. And as long as I knew the candidate to be one of the good ones ideologically speaking, I'd probably throw my support behind him or her because the ability to rally support is crucial.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I really think your second paragraph hits the nail on the head ....

.... for a lot of people.

[NoPasaran]

17. Passion

I loves me some red meat!

[karynnj]

18. If Kerry runs, both

Kerry's positions are always meticulous and logical, all steming from a mature worldview, and Kerry's pragmatic, creative mind which looks for solutions not seen by others.

I think that he is as passionate on the issues most important to him as anyone. Passion doesn't mean anger. (I think Gore is equally passionate, but prefer the fact that an angry Kerry simply becomes more articulate.)

[kiraboo]

19. Logic. Otherwise passion is just foolishness.

[treestar]

21. In this country we have been going with the heart for at least

30 years and it doesn't seem to be working so well, so I'd say, give the head a try.

Just because someone is not THE GREATEST public speaker does not mean they would not make a good President.

Bush is not bad because he's inarticulate. He's bad for other reasons.

Reasonably articulate but not passionate and charismatic is something this country needs about now. Enough of the drama. Let's have someone sensible.

[tishaLA]

23. I tend to have libidinal attachments

to candidates I really like. I have to agree with them on most issues, to be sure, but I also have to have a kind of charge with them--maybe not erotic, but at least a chemical reaction.

I suspect most people here will say that they have a logical reaction to candidates, and that may well be true because we tend to be wonkier here than the general population, which seems to want someone with whom they can share a beer or a slice of meat loaf. But there's always something more than JUST a logical appraisal of a candidate's positions--they like style and substance.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. I'm not going anywhere **near** libidinal .....

.... but I know what you're saying.

I'm not quite sure its the 'have a beer' thing so much as its about being able to connect with - and maybe see in that person what one wishes oneself could be - a candidate who stands for something passionately.

I earlier framed this same thing as 'anger', but no one seemed to want to see the value in that notion. And that's okay. Anger or passion can be mush the same thing. It is about strongly standing for something and be willing to be perfectly clear about it ... in a long speech or in a 5 second sound bite, it **must** come through equally well.

[benEzra]

27. Logical. It seems to me that in politics, passion is usually used

to cover up illogical positions (terrah! drugs! etc.). Not just on the right, either; the hysteria over nontraditional looking civilian rifles is a case in point (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides)...

The best choice of all to me is someone who is passionately logical...they don't have to be mutually exclusive...

[noonwitch]

29. Aren't there any passionately logical candidates out there?

I know, I'm being difficult.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. I actually *do* think there are.

In my view, I think there were two in the 04 primaries. I won't name them here because I **always** try to stay out of personality discussions. I can make a case that there were three, but two for sure.

Looking at the races for the midterms .... or some recent events .... take Paul Hackett. I'd call him a passionate candidate.

I'd call John Murtha passionate.

I'd for sure call Barney Frank passionate.

None of them are loonies and surely they all have serious brainpower and almost absolutely hold their views based on sound logic.

[union_maid]

31. Well, it depends

In a primary, I vote for electable. That's recent, and I'm not the best judge anyway. In a general election, I vote on issues first. After that, smart. Smart is important, so I guess that leans toward the logical. But at the moment I can't conceive of a general election where party wouldn't be the most important issue. I couldn't vote for a Republican now even if he/she walked on water. I couldn't vote for anyone if my vote meant in any way that a Republican was more likely to win office. I want to disempower the whole party so every candidate counts.

[CPMaz]

32. Generally, logical

though logically passionate would be best.

Better yet, under your scenario, how about co-candidates? Who would become co-holders of the same office, with one vote between them (disagreements result in a "Not Voting" or "Abstention").

[McCamy Taylor]

33. Depends on where I am in the country, Electability number one criteria.

In the South passion is the big positive for a candidate. It doesnt mattter how smart or cool he is. If he doesnt have the southern gift for empassioned rhetoric, he aint going nowhere. Someone like John Edwards is perfect for the South.

In other parts of the country, too much perceived passion will doom a candidate, since it makes him appear overly emotional or unstable. In these regions, the voters look for a calm, cool collected leader. There I would support a candidate who comes across like Chuck Schumer.

This does not mean that I prefer Edwards or Schumer. I prefer to candidate who will win the election in which he is participating. A good candidate needs to know what races he is suited for and how to alter his style to fit the race and what races to stay away from.