How do you choose your candidate?

[JustAnotherNut]

Whether you are Democrat or Republican or Independent...how do you choose or what do you base your choice on? Party affiliation? Campaign promises? Or because it seems to be the 'cool' person to vote for?

Or do you base your decision on who you think will be able to lead this country thru thick and thin? What if the US is subject to another more far reaching attack than 9-11 or finds itself in the middle of WW3, do you think your candidate hopeful will still be as wonderful as you think now? Will they step up to bring this country together? Or divide us further?
What about their potential running mate? Do you base your vote not just for the candidate, but also the VP choice in the case of the President not being able to fulfill their duties, for whatever reasons?

Any other good points I may have forgotten??? Please share.

 

[X. Li]

I am not a US citizen, so I can't vote. But if I could, these would be my standards (ranked by priority from high to low):
1. Do the candidate's political positions generally align with mine?
2. Is the candidate a competent leader?
3. Does the candidate demonstrate sufficient knowledge and skills in formulating and implementing policies in accordance with his positions?
4. Is the candidate likable as a person?

 

[Pogo]

Principles, and their history in keeping those principles. Never party affiliation.

I agree with X.Li's list except for #4. That's really not a factor.

 

[CremeBrulee]

I am not a US citizen, so I can't vote. But if I could, these would be my standards (ranked by priority from high to low):
1. Do the candidate's political positions generally align with mine?
2. Is the candidate a competent leader?
3. Does the candidate demonstrate sufficient knowledge and skills in formulating and implementing policies in accordance with his positions?
4. Is the candidate likable as a person?

^^^^ That pretty much sums it up. I would add: Do I think the candidate's positions are right for and will benefit my community. That is pretty much the only thing I look for in down ticket races.

 

[my2¢]

After this fall's election in presidential elections I'll have voted for 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 6 third party or abstains. So it definitely isn't based on political party.

My first criteria is whether I trust the candidate to do what they say they'll do? If I definitely don't trust them, they not getting my vote. If I'm unsure and my feeling of trust is somewhat questionable, I'll prioritize this criteria below the following 2.

My second criteria is based on foreign policy and how will it put America's defense forces at risk? Criteria here is based on my view that nation building and playing international cop only succeeds in getting our troops killed. This kept me from voting for McCain because if anybody sneezed somewhere in the world his solution always amounted to American intervention. He's been fine as first my congressman and then senator. But I get the sense his desire has always been to play war as commander-in-chief.

My third criteria is a sound fiscal policy. I'm for the government spending our money wisely. This kept me from voting for Obama and will knock Hillary and Bernie off my list this fall.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How do you choose your candidate?"

Many of us don’t – perhaps most.

In scores of elections I’ve never voted ‘for’ anyone – only against.

 

[X. Li]

Principles, and their history in keeping those principles. Never party affiliation.

I agree with X.Li's list except for #4. That's really not a factor.

Just to clarify: likability is the least important among the four. Chances are the top three or two are sufficient to make a pretty good judgment.
However, likability is directly linked to the role of the national leader as the representative of a country.
A national leader with charming and respectable personality is more likely to gain respect from people all over the world and improve the image of his/her country. Likability is not necessarily entailed by strong leadership since great leaders have different styles, some of which may be unpleasant yet effective (e.g. Steve Jobs).

 

[Pogo]

Principles, and their history in keeping those principles. Never party affiliation.

I agree with X.Li's list except for #4. That's really not a factor.

Just to clarify: likability is the least important among the four. Chances are the top three or two are sufficient to make a pretty good judgment.
However, likability is directly linked to the role of the national leader as the representative of a country.
A national leader with charming and respectable personality is more likely to gain respect from people all over the world and improve the image of his/her country. Likability is not necessarily entailed by strong leadership since great leaders have different styles, some of which may be unpleasant yet effective (e.g. Steve Jobs).

Fair enough. In this country we've had a bit too much emphasis on "likeability" and it's cost us. George W. Bush for example was touted as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with". Sadly, some of our electorate seem to have actually voted on that basis and ignored the more crucial analysis. Emotion is never useful in a rational decision.

Another (and related) issue we have is that our candidates and our politics have become, rather than the selection of executives they should be, advertising campaigns selling a "product". And those sales pitches are inevitably going for the "likeability" factor, leaving us with little tangible idea of what the "real" is. So I already know that whatever the person's character traits, those have already been tweaked and massaged and "sold" to me, so they're not real.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whether you are Democrat or Republican or Independent...how do you choose or what do you base your choice on? Party affiliation? Campaign promises? Or because it seems to be the 'cool' person to vote for?

Or do you base your decision on who you think will be able to lead this country thru thick and thin? What if the US is subject to another more far reaching attack than 9-11 or finds itself in the middle of WW3, do you think your candidate hopeful will still be as wonderful as you think now? Will they step up to bring this country together? Or divide us further?
What about their potential running mate? Do you base your vote not just for the candidate, but also the VP choice in the case of the President not being able to fulfill their duties, for whatever reasons?

Any other good points I may have forgotten??? Please share.

You forgot "looking at the supporters they attract".

 

[gallantwarrior]

I look for integrity first. Who would I prefer to be the "face" who represents me to the world at large. I understand that there are inherent obstructions to accomplishment of goals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Principles, and their history in keeping those principles. Never party affiliation.

I agree with X.Li's list except for #4. That's really not a factor.

Just to clarify: likability is the least important among the four. Chances are the top three or two are sufficient to make a pretty good judgment.
However, likability is directly linked to the role of the national leader as the representative of a country.
A national leader with charming and respectable personality is more likely to gain respect from people all over the world and improve the image of his/her country. Likability is not necessarily entailed by strong leadership since great leaders have different styles, some of which may be unpleasant yet effective (e.g. Steve Jobs).

Fair enough. In this country we've had a bit too much emphasis on "likeability" and it's cost us. George W. Bush for example was touted as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with". Sadly, some of our electorate seem to have actually voted on that basis and ignored the more crucial analysis. Emotion is never useful in a rational decision.

Another (and related) issue we have is that our candidates and our politics have become, rather than the selection of executives they should be, advertising campaigns selling a "product". And those sales pitches are inevitably going for the "likeability" factor, leaving us with little tangible idea of what the "real" is. So I already know that whatever the person's character traits, those have already been tweaked and massaged and "sold" to me, so they're not real.

I already have people to have beers with. They're called "friends and family". Since I'm very unlikely to even meet political candidates in person, let alone pal around with them, I frankly don't give a rat's ass how "likeable" they are. My feeling is that the most effective leaders in history had to be sons-of-bitches to one extent or another, in order to get anything done.

I want them to be able to communicate their policies effectively and persuasively; I want them to have policies that generally align with my own; I want them to have a cogent plan for implementing those policies; I want them to have evidence that they can be trusted to follow through on those policies once they get elected; and I want them to behave in a reasonable, civilized manner while in office so that they don't become a public embarrassment.

And I want them to attract followers in whose company I'm not ashamed and horrified to find myself.

 

[X. Li]

Principles, and their history in keeping those principles. Never party affiliation.

I agree with X.Li's list except for #4. That's really not a factor.

Just to clarify: likability is the least important among the four. Chances are the top three or two are sufficient to make a pretty good judgment.
However, likability is directly linked to the role of the national leader as the representative of a country.
A national leader with charming and respectable personality is more likely to gain respect from people all over the world and improve the image of his/her country. Likability is not necessarily entailed by strong leadership since great leaders have different styles, some of which may be unpleasant yet effective (e.g. Steve Jobs).

Fair enough. In this country we've had a bit too much emphasis on "likeability" and it's cost us. George W. Bush for example was touted as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with". Sadly, some of our electorate seem to have actually voted on that basis and ignored the more crucial analysis. Emotion is never useful in a rational decision.

Exactly, it is crucial that those standards are prioritized appropriately. If the voters are unable to distinguish the trivial from the important, bad decisions are inevitable. However, it is unfair to blame the voters too hard considering the media in this country are notoriously biased.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I look for integrity first. Who would I prefer to be the "face" who represents me to the world at large. I understand that there are inherent obstructions to accomplishment of goals.

They don't have to win every battle, but they DO have to at least fight them when they promised to.

 

[Kat]

I am not a US citizen, so I can't vote. But if I could, these would be my standards (ranked by priority from high to low):
1. Do the candidate's political positions generally align with mine?
2. Is the candidate a competent leader?
3. Does the candidate demonstrate sufficient knowledge and skills in formulating and implementing policies in accordance with his positions?
4. Is the candidate likable as a person?

And there you pretty much have it!

 

[X. Li]

Principles, and their history in keeping those principles. Never party affiliation.

I agree with X.Li's list except for #4. That's really not a factor.

Just to clarify: likability is the least important among the four. Chances are the top three or two are sufficient to make a pretty good judgment.
However, likability is directly linked to the role of the national leader as the representative of a country.
A national leader with charming and respectable personality is more likely to gain respect from people all over the world and improve the image of his/her country. Likability is not necessarily entailed by strong leadership since great leaders have different styles, some of which may be unpleasant yet effective (e.g. Steve Jobs).

Fair enough. In this country we've had a bit too much emphasis on "likeability" and it's cost us. George W. Bush for example was touted as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with". Sadly, some of our electorate seem to have actually voted on that basis and ignored the more crucial analysis. Emotion is never useful in a rational decision.

Another (and related) issue we have is that our candidates and our politics have become, rather than the selection of executives they should be, advertising campaigns selling a "product". And those sales pitches are inevitably going for the "likeability" factor, leaving us with little tangible idea of what the "real" is. So I already know that whatever the person's character traits, those have already been tweaked and massaged and "sold" to me, so they're not real.

As an observation: Obama did a superb job in terms of likability and largely destroyed Romney with this respect. Obama managed to brand himself as a likable and trustworthy candidate while painting Romney as a cold-blooded rich liar who flip-flops all the time. Like it or not, his plan worked.

 

[Pogo]

Principles, and their history in keeping those principles. Never party affiliation.

I agree with X.Li's list except for #4. That's really not a factor.

Just to clarify: likability is the least important among the four. Chances are the top three or two are sufficient to make a pretty good judgment.
However, likability is directly linked to the role of the national leader as the representative of a country.
A national leader with charming and respectable personality is more likely to gain respect from people all over the world and improve the image of his/her country. Likability is not necessarily entailed by strong leadership since great leaders have different styles, some of which may be unpleasant yet effective (e.g. Steve Jobs).

Fair enough. In this country we've had a bit too much emphasis on "likeability" and it's cost us. George W. Bush for example was touted as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with". Sadly, some of our electorate seem to have actually voted on that basis and ignored the more crucial analysis. Emotion is never useful in a rational decision.

Exactly, it is crucial that those standards are prioritized appropriately. If the voters are unable to distinguish the trivial from the important, bad decisions are inevitable. However, it is unfair to blame the voters too hard considering the media in this country are notoriously biased.

Not sure if "this country" means the US or China, but here the media is obsessed with commercialism, not any particular ideology bias. That's what has made elections into a crass sales event.

I don't know how much of US television you get to see but we've had debates in the current campaign that look far more like game shows than political debates. With commercials too. There seems to be less and less respect for the 'real'. Serious political matters used to be treated seriously; now they've succumbed to the same sensationalism that pollutes the rest of the medium. We've even got a candidate who skips a debate and then says "let's see what their ratings are"; that's how low the ship has sunk.

 

[Never3ndr]

Whether you are Democrat or Republican or Independent...how do you choose or what do you base your choice on? Party affiliation? Campaign promises? Or because it seems to be the 'cool' person to vote for?

Or do you base your decision on who you think will be able to lead this country thru thick and thin? What if the US is subject to another more far reaching attack than 9-11 or finds itself in the middle of WW3, do you think your candidate hopeful will still be as wonderful as you think now? Will they step up to bring this country together? Or divide us further?
What about their potential running mate? Do you base your vote not just for the candidate, but also the VP choice in the case of the President not being able to fulfill their duties, for whatever reasons?

Any other good points I may have forgotten??? Please share.

Depends on a "total package" picture more than anything else. I'm usually more than willing to sacrifice on somethings that I don't agree with to accept the positives that make the candidate appealing. Everything from poise (they are the "face" of our nation), to perceived intellectual level, to level of political connections / experience (one of Obama's worst faults is that he was not well connected in Washington, which is why I think we saw Congress tear itself apart during his terms), to past achievements / work, to stances on the issues...they all need consideration in my opinion.

Very rarely, however, a candidate will have something that removes them from (in my mind) being able to be seriously considered. McCain (whom I still love as a candidate) wrote himself off when he choose Palin as his running mate. Likewise, Trump's absurdly extremist stances and lack of poise / presentability remove him from being able to be seriously considered as a candidate.

 

[X. Li]

Principles, and their history in keeping those principles. Never party affiliation.

I agree with X.Li's list except for #4. That's really not a factor.

Just to clarify: likability is the least important among the four. Chances are the top three or two are sufficient to make a pretty good judgment.
However, likability is directly linked to the role of the national leader as the representative of a country.
A national leader with charming and respectable personality is more likely to gain respect from people all over the world and improve the image of his/her country. Likability is not necessarily entailed by strong leadership since great leaders have different styles, some of which may be unpleasant yet effective (e.g. Steve Jobs).

Fair enough. In this country we've had a bit too much emphasis on "likeability" and it's cost us. George W. Bush for example was touted as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with". Sadly, some of our electorate seem to have actually voted on that basis and ignored the more crucial analysis. Emotion is never useful in a rational decision.

Exactly, it is crucial that those standards are prioritized appropriately. If the voters are unable to distinguish the trivial from the important, bad decisions are inevitable. However, it is unfair to blame the voters too hard considering the media in this country are notoriously biased.

Not sure if "this country" means the US or China, but here the media is obsessed with commercialism, not any particular ideology bias. That's what has made elections into a crass sales event.

I don't know how much of US television you get to see but we've had debates in the current campaign that look far more like game shows than political debates. With commercials too. There seems to be less and less respect for the 'real'. Serious political matters used to be treated seriously; now they've succumbed to the same sensationalism that pollutes the rest of the medium. We've even got a candidate who skips a debate and then says "let's see what their ratings are"; that's how low the ship has sunk.

Sorry about the confusion. I am currently in America, so "this country" refers to the US. Of course, the Chinese media is also highly biased, but in a different way.

I kind of disagree with the idea that American media are not biased ideologically. For example, Fox and Fox business news promote largely conservative values and principles, whereas MSNBC and CBS lean towards liberal values most of the time. This is especially noticeable when it comes to issues like racial justice, tax reform, and immigration, etc. Fortunately, if you are willing to listen to both sides, you have a chance to get a pretty good picture of what is actually going on. In contrast, the Chinese media are entirely controlled by the government, so you don't have "the other side of the story", and a lot of things remain in a black box.

As for the debates, I think the Republican debates were fun to watch, and some of them covered a lot of important issues, too. Many of my American friends seem to feel a little embarrassed when talking about some candidates, especially Trump. Certainly, he is sometimes brash and insolent but that's a likability issue, and as you said, it's not that important. What I think an American voter should really pay attention to is not the way he debates (or skipping debates if that matters), but his positions/principles and political skills. America is a highly diversified country, and I'm not surprised at all to see someone with Trump's political views or positions. However, whether he shares the views of the majority of the American people is something to be decided by the results of the election.