Hypothetical primary election

Politics & Elections
1

Not listing specific real world candidates in this one, just want to get an idea of what attributes posters think are a must, and what they can live without, since no one is perfect. So here’s the list of candidates:

Candidate A: Is extremely knowledgeable about policy but has some heterodox views on issues very important to the base. Say for example, has the opposite view on abortion to your party. But is also pretty charismatic and excites as many people as he chases away.

Candidate B: Doesn’t seem to know too much about policy, but is smart and shares your values and is a fighter.

Candidate C: Has vast experience and has been successful in every position he’s occupied, but has no core beliefs, although he is campaigning as a standard politician in your party.

Candidate D: Doesn’t know shit, doesn’t care about shit, says crazy things, but the crowds he’s drawing are insane, he’s polling well, and seems to have the best chance to win.

Candidate E: Doesn’t seem to have any weaknesses other than that he’s 85 years old. His mental health appears quite sound, his physical health less so.

Candidate F: Very knowledgable, charismatic, and stable, but no political experience whatsoever.

Candidate G: Very knowledgeable, charismatic, vast experience, but with zero self discipline either in his personal life or in his ability to stay on message. Not corrupt, but does show poor judgment from time to time and has had his share of scandals.

Which candidate do you support in your party’s primary?

2

I would choose candidate C. Someone who can successfully implement policies close to my heart is what I want, whether he personally cares about them or not.

Edit: although candidate A might be better, depending on exactly which issues he is heterodox on. I have problems with some of both the major American party’s key issues

3

For what position is the election being held? My answers would be very different for POTUS and Chief Accountant. IOW do I want a manager or a leader?

Assuming the election is for POTUS, I want a leader, someone with charisma, so I’d plump for F (Nigel Farage), then A (Tony Blair), then B (Farage again), followed by G (Boris Johnson). Candidates C (H Clinton) and D (Trump) would be at the bottom of the pile.

I’ll note that Reagan and Bill Clinton fit in none of your categories, being charismatic, knowledgeable, smart, experienced, stable, and reasonably orthodox to the base.

For a manager, I’d want experience so C would be at the top of the list.

4

Clinton is closest to G and Reagan to B IMO.

5

In my years in politics I learned several things. For campaigns the most important thing I learned is: qualifications don’t matter. It is true at every level.

As for which candidate I would recruit: Candidate D.
The over side will pick someone like that.
We should nominate the candidate with the best chance to win. Picking the best technocrat simply doesn’t work.
Obama wasn’t the best person for the job. But he showed the best set of charisma and popularity, so he won his primaries and the national election.

6

True, but governing poorly has consequences, very serious ones. Bush hurt Republicans a great deal and Obama hurt Democrats. Contrast that to Reagan and Clinton, who elevated their parties’ reputations.

7

In what alternate reality did Bill Clinton elevate the Democratic Party’s reputation?

8

A, E, C, F, G, B, D, from most to least preferred – with a BIG gap between C and F, and another big one between G and B.

ETA: Although it kind of depends on the policies on which A is heterodox, and the office for which they’re running (an 85-year-old president is more of a problem than an 85-year-old senator. I could easily be persuaded to swap where A, E, and C fall in my rankings.)

9

The actual reality in which you and I exist.

Even Mitt Romney thought so.

10

Foolsguinea isn’t totally wrong. Clinton wrote some checks that the party didn’t want to cash: smaller government, welfare reform, balanced budgets, tough on crime… A problem his wife had while running was having to disown most of his legacy.

11

Wait, I’m being very serious. Policy preferences aside, the Democrats fell apart while Bill Clinton was in the White House. Some of that was Gingrich remaking the Republicans, but Clinton was not exactly a glorious and inspiring leader.

12

Clinton did improve the reputation of the party though, “Tax and spend”, “fiscally irresponsible”, “Big Government”, even “weak on foreign policy”, those attacks just didn’t stick anymore. It’s not Clinton’s fault that Obama decided to return the party to its tax and spend, big government ways. Now the party is where it was in the 1970s.

13

Wow. Maybe it seems that way in between your ears. But you can’t really treat Obama as more like a 1970’s Democrat than like Clinton. Obama largely followed on Clinton’s policies, and where they differed most was usually due to different circumstances. More precisely, Clinton never had to deal with the fallout from his era’s bank deregulation, and Obama had to do so from the beginning. If you’re blaming Obama for the stimulus, remember that that was about cleaning up a Bush/Clinton mess.

OK, sorry for the hijack.

14

To get back to the point then, it’s not just important to nominate someone who can win, but someone who is likely to be a good President.

15

Best real world fits, IMO:

A - not sure, due to the “charismatic” part. Lamar Alexander might fit but isn’t particularly charismatic, neither are any of the pro-life Democrats I can think of.

B - not sure – who is “smart” but doesn’t know policy? Intelligence and knowledge don’t always go together, but I can’t think of a politician in which they don’t. I don’t think George W. Bush was as dumb as the caricature, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call him intelligent (for a politician). Maybe Reagan on the conservative side, don’t know on the liberal side.

C - Hillary Clinton, I guess (though I think she has some core beliefs about helping children).

D - Trump, obviously

E - Maybe Barack Obama in 2044, with a change to the Constitution to allow 3rd terms?

F - Rachel Maddow, maybe. Or Chris Hayes. On the conservative side, maybe Erick Erickson.

G - Bill Clinton.

I’ll rank them on two scales, who is most likely to win the general election, and who would be the best president:

On most likely to win: 1st tier: D (based on explicitly saying “seems to have the best chance to win” – if it really is Trump, then he’d be a lot lower on the list), B, and G. Second tier: E, F, and A. Third tier: C (assuming she has HRC’s baggage – if not, then second tier).

On best president: E, C, G, F, A, B, D.

Looking at it this way, I’d support candidate E (old Barack Obama) in a heartbeat. Very easy decision.

16

Well, since you brought it up, these candidates are models of real people for the most part:

A- Bill Clinton in 1992. Not heterodox on abortion, but “end welfare as we know it” was a pretty huge tack to the right on a position important to the Democratic base.

B- Could be lots of past primary candidates: John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and Ted Cruz come to mind. Unquestionably smart people that excited many but never really showed much in the way of policy chops.

C- Yes, Hillary Clinton, but she’s not the first front runner like that: Mitt Romney, George Romney for that matter, Bush 41, Bill Richardson.

D- Donald Trump, yeah. That could be Kanye West in 2020.

E- I was thinking more Jerry Brown, but there are other pretty darn old guys who would be good Presidents if they can keep their faculties and health.

F- Jon Stewart, other commentators who have demonstrated they know their stuff but who are newbies to actually running for anything. Al Franken I think showed that such types should not be underestimated, although President might be a stretch.

G- Yup, Bill, Gary Hart too, Howard Dean, Joe Biden, and John McCain to a lesser extent(inability to stay on message).