How To Decide Whom To Vote For in the US Presidental Primary
And now for something completely different. I don’t usually post about politics, but what with all the election coverage I hear every day during my commute, I can’t help but think about it. I am basically a “progressive”. Perhaps my politics is “defined” by the fact that I read The New Republic and The New Yorker, and listen to National Public Radio. So here’s how I look at the Presidential election.
Because the primary elections are in progress, we hear mostly about them. But what’s really important is the general election. Any of the major Democratic candidates is way, way better than any of the major Republican candidates. So, the only thing that matters is for a Democrat to win. And therefore, the only criterion that matters for the primary is to vote for the Democrat who is most likely to be able to win in the general election.
That means that my primary vote should be based on how I expect everyone else to vote in the general election.
What criteria will everybody else be using to make their decision in the general election?
Polls tell us relatively little. As we all know, there have been major failures in polling already. Many voters don’t make up their mind until they are actually in the voting booth. I believe that what voters say to pollsters is influenced by what they think the pollsters want to hear, and the way that they’d like to sound and to perceive themselves, which is not all that accurate a predictor of how they will actually vote. Things keep changing, often rapidly: one “gaffe” can have a big effect. Polls asking “if x and y were candidates in the general election, who would you vote for?” are particularly dubious, since so much will change between now and general election day.
I believe that Iowa and New Hampshire tell us very little. They are quite atypical in so many ways, particularly that New Hampshire allows independents to vote Democratic in the primaries. Obviously Michigan tells us nothing about the Democratic primary race, since the only major candidates on the ballot is Clinton.
Some people mostly care about the real issues and/or ideology. The Democratic candidates are quite close on all the issues. (The differences that are being debated now are very minor.) So from the point of view of my primary voting decision, none of that matters.
A lot more people vote on what they perceive as the “character” of the candidate. Among the most important “character” criteria are:
- Is he/she someone I’d enjoy spending an evening with?
- Is he/she the “kind” of person who respects my “kind” of person?
- Is he/she optimistic?
- Is he/she female?
- Is he/she black?
- Is he/she “cold”?
For example, last time, I believe that John Kerry was perceived by many voters as being an “Eastern elite liberal sushi-eating Chardonnay-sipping type who snickers at ordinary working-class people”. It makes no difference whether that’s true or not; the only thing that matters is the perception. George W. Bush affects a Texas accent (gee, his dad and brother don’t talk that way!), is seen in jeans clearing sagebrush from his ranch (or whatever), and so on, portraying himself very differently from Kerry.
(The fact that W. avoided war service, while Kerry served honorably, was a cause of cognitive dissonance to some voters. They were looking hard for an excuse to dismiss this fact, and the “Swift Boat” people, no matter how implausible their claims, gave them the excuse they needed to make them feel happy opposing Kerry.)
I believe that Clinton cannot possibly win the general election. The Republican attack machine will have a much easier time sliming her than Obama (or Edwards). So many people already loathe her; her “negatives” are about 40% now (this is one polling result that I have some confidence in), and (I am told) negatives are much less volatile than positives. Last summer, I met an otherwise-reasonable woman who told me that she would never vote for Clinton, “because she didn’t divorce Bill”. And a lot of people, most of whom won’t admit it, would not vote for any woman.
Obama is a brilliant and inspiring orator, very optimistic and positive, and I don’t think he will be perceived as an “Eastern elite liberal etc.” as Kerry was. I am afraid that his major drawback is that he’s perceived as being black, albeit not with the kind of negatives that you’d get from, say, Al Sharpton (to put it mildly). I think more people will claim to be comfortable to be voting for a black candidate than actually are.
A lot of these things can be influenced by advertising, organization, and endorsements; sadly, people can be influenced (the advertising industry is not crazy to spend all the money they spend). Clinton has a lot of strengths in these areas that will help her a lot in the primaries.
I think that all things considered, Obama is less unelectable than Clinton, which is why I’m going to vote for him (unless something big changes in the next few weeks).
My prediction of the outcome, which has not changed in many months, is that Clinton will win the Democratic primary and lose the general election.
And what do I actually believe (as opposed to how I’m going to vote)? I prefer Obama, although any of Obama, Clinton, or Edwards would be just fine with me as President.
I do not buy the argument that Clinton had “experience”. Perhaps Biden and Dodd has experience that matters, but they’re out of the race. Clinton was merely a kibitzer; she didn’t even have a security clearance. And the Republicans will make great hay out of this. (And why does she say she was named after the recently-deceased Sir Edmund Hillary, who didn’t become famous until six years after Clinton was born? And what was going on when she made $100K in fast commodities trading? And those are just two of the real issues, not counting all the fake ones like Whitewater.) And they will find ways to make the point “you don’t want a woman as president”, without saying so in those words. Attacking her will be like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s going to be very ugly and unpleasant.
I hope that John McCain wins the Republican primary; he’s the least awful of them.
OK, now I’m on the record, here on the wonderful Internet where nothing ever goes away. I’ve been wrong about politics many times before, and the present situation is pretty volatile and hard to predict. (As have been the last few general elections, which were extremely close.)
January 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Thanks!
Gives us outsiders (UK) a glimpse into the thinking of choices people have to make.
Especially the bulleted list.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
No fear Dan, you can predict all you want. It wont matter.
There will be fraud and incomptetence just like the last time. Finally the votes will be bought and the stability restored.
I have no confidence at all that the candidate the voters want is going to win. None at all.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Your characterization of the motivation of pro-Bush voters is insulting and incorrect. I voted for Bush because I thought he would be the better president. I wanted low taxes and a vigorous war against Islamic terrorism. I was willing to put up with all of Bush’s faults in order to achieve those goals.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Oh, and regarding your election predictions this year, I think they’re pretty good.
But I think you’ll agree that the race is pretty wide open on both sides. A scandal or effective attack ad could tip the ballance.
One wild card is that the Republican candidate may be undecided by the end of the primary season — he may have to be chosen by the convention. America hasn’t done that in over 40 years — nobody remembers how to do it.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
You say without supporting it that any democrat would be better than any republican. Care to elaborate? I don’t see it.
-t
January 17th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Jack P: I know that there are some voters who are truly intelligent and thoughtul, and supported George W. Bush after careful consideration. I just think that voters in BOTH parties are mostly not like that.
Thomas Lord: No, I don’t really want to get into the general issues of Republicans versus Democrats, progressives/liberals vs conservatives, and so on. It’s just too open-ended a discussion, and not very likely to convince anyone or even shed much new light. This post was on a very specific topic. I don’t think any of my ideas above is original; it’s just a putting-together of the things I’ve heard or learned that I felt were important and that seemed valid to me.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I have never lived in a state with an early enough primary to matter, and the trend continues. Our primary is in March IIRC. As such, I really haven’t been paying attention to the current contests.
I have to admit a certain amusement by how Candidate X has momentum this week after winning in 1 state out of fifty (and a small state at that) until Candidate Y comes from behind and wins another small state next week.
I don’t believe in momentum in the primaries. If I had a hard time choosing which moron to vote for I don’t think I’d get any useful advice from voters in different states with different political environments.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Ah yes, my prediction: Democrats will control Congress after November, but not the White House. I originally thought Clinton would win the nomination, but she’s gone into some weird self-destruct mode, and Obama seems to be the most likely nominee other than her. I have no idea who the Republicans will choose.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Gee, Dan, it’s not exactly Vaclav Havel’s “we must live with hope”, is it?
Out of hard-nosed pragmatism you’re going to bow to the sexists but not the racists?
If only there were a non-black, non-female candidate in with a real chance of winning the nomination?!
I understand where you are coming from. You do have a moral duty to keep fundamentalist Christians out of the White House. But it’s pretty unpleasant to hear!
January 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Thomas: Would it be better to bow to the racists and not the sexists?
Another thing I worry about is that some people will vote for whoever “looks Presidential”. All previous presidents look like white males.
Looks matter. After all, why is the average height of Presidents significantly higher than that of the general male population?
January 19th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Daniel:
First, that’s funny.
Second, I owe you my honest thoughts. I haven’t decided who to vote for or anything but here’s where I’m starting from:
On the D side, while I admire and share the purported aim of the “vaguely in the general direction of the neighborhood of progressivism” attitudes — the policies and polarizations scare me. I see mostly proto-fascists. Clinton strikes me as someone a little more feet-on-the-ground and worldly enough to avoid stupid mistakes. I’m tentatively excited about the possibility that her gender, personality, brains, and history can be very effective at empowering our diplomats.
On the R side: McCain is the only (and not a bad) choice. He won’t screw up on the world front either and, again, seems a stand-out in terms of rationalism.
-t
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Dan,
On the issue of race and gender being major factors for voters, I’m not sure they are, or even in what direction they play out. While I’m sure there’s some number of whites who would tend not to vote for a black candidate, there are also many who would *prefer* to vote for a black candidate. It would appeal to many as a tangible step of healing the racial wounds in the country. This is certainly true in the Democratic Party and most likely true of many independents and Republicans too. Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas are very popular with the right wing.
Also regarding the “looks like a president” argument, I’d argue that Mitt Romney certainly looks the part more than anyone…he’s straight out of central casting. But his success has been limited, despite all the money and backing of a big part of the right-wing establishment — talk radio especially, who hate McCain.
I guess my main comment is that voters are more intelligent and fairer than you’re giving them credit for.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Bob: An interesting thing I heard recently is that on the whole, older black voters are more for Clinton, while younger black voters are for Obama. Some of the older black voters, who were involved in the Civil Rights Movement in the Sixties, feel Obama isn’t “one of them” in a political sense; he hasn’t paid his dues, he gets along too well with whites (!), and generally that he isn’t “black enough”. Whereas these older black voters have formed a close relationship with Bill Clinton.
The other reason I thought blacks might vote for Clinton is that they may feel more strongly, having felt the effects of racism directly, that whites in America just won’t go for a black president. But I haven’t been hearing that, or at least not much, in the news coverage. (My news comes from NPR and The New Republic, for the most part.)
Well, just a few more days to go before it becomes far more clear who is going to win the primaries.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Interesting reading of this entry. I was poking around LinkedIn tonight and found the listing for your blog there. I hope you have a good WordPress client (perhaps MarsEdit) for your postings.
Dan: Friday’s WSJ had an article about what a large percentage of Americans were unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President:
‘A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in late January revealed that 50% of Americans said they would have reservations or be “very uncomfortable” about a Mormon as president. That same poll found that 81% would be “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with an African-American and 76% with a woman.’
No matter what judgment one has of Romney, these numbers have to be disturbing. We as a nation also seemed rather complacent about what seems like rather blatant religious discrimination.
I live in CO; I’ve known enough LDS members to be fully comfortable and trusting of them. At the same time, I don’t know if that had been the case if I had stayed in the South my whole life.
Comments?
–phil
March 26th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Viewing the election process from a German perspective, I find it very scary how little emphasis is put on actual politics…
Btw, it would be interesting to know how many Americans would have objections against an Atheist as president. According to Richard Dawkins, he would be worse off than a gay black president.. which is even more scary.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:18 am
The only activity going on now is the primary election to choose the candidate from Democratic party. There are only two candidates who might win, and their policy positions are essentially the same. That may be why it seems as if there is so little emphasis on actual politics. When it’s time for the general election, I hope we’ll see more emphasis on substantive issues.
It would be absolutely out of the question for an atheist to become president of the USA at this time or in the foreseeable future. I know that this must seem strange to anyone from Western Europe. I always find it ironic that Americans are characterized as nonreligious by many Islamic activists. The rate of attendance of churches and other places of worship is extremely high in the USA, and even those who don’t attend regularly nevertheless usually characterize themselves as having some religious affiliation. And there seems to be a widespread sense in the USA that it’s OK to be of some other religion, but it’s not OK to be an atheist.
In a recent speech, Barak Obama said something like “this is not only a Christian nation but also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers.” I was so impressed that he included that last clause!
June 26th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I am delighted that I was wrong about Clinton being nominated. Since the beginning of the campaign, my regard for Sen. Clinton has fallen tremendously. Well, I was almost right: it was very close.
The Republican attack machine has started, unsurprisingly. Here’s a line of attack that we’ll be hearing from now until January:
—–
This was Rove’s take on Obama to Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club Monday, according to Christianne Klein of ABC News:
“Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”
—–
This is the “Obama is a liberal” line of attack. “Liberal”, in politics today, means “a person who thinks he is better than you are; who sips wine and eats sushi; who makes more money than you and doesn’t have to deal with any of your concerns; and who sneers at you and things that you value.” They painted Dukakis and Kerry that way, and they will unquestionably try to paint Obama that way. Obama’s unfortunate comment that Pennsylvania’s small town voters are bitter about losing jobs and that to explain their frustrations, they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them. is something we’ll hear over and over.
It will be interesting to see how the Republicans try to appeal to racism. They can’t do it directly, but there are plenty of ways to stir anti-black feeling. The classic way is to talk a lot about “crime”. We won’t hear it from Sen. McCain directly, I’m sure, but I do expect to hear it, or perhaps something more subtle but clearly coded, from the Republican’s instruments such as Fox News.
They’ll also play on everything that Sen. Clinton used: Wright, “inexperience”, and so on.
I’m glad Sen. Obama is forgoing public financing, even though I agree with his point that public financing is in the public interest. It’s perfectly valid to advocate a change in the rules, while playing by the current rules until the rules actually change. Obama is going to need all the money he can get to fight off the attacks.
I know that in many ways, it looks like the Democrats have a slam-dunk, but they are awfully good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.