Hi SD,
I am not well-versed in politics, so I’m relying on you to help me out with this one.
When the field is wide, like it is now, there are tons of debates in which some come out looking better than others. Politicians snipe at each others’ records and viewpoints to try and get the upper hand. Negative campaigning and maligning of character is common.
But then a candidate is chosen to represent the party.
The wide field of potential presidential hopefuls got me thinking–these very same people who “endorse” a chosen candidate were just bashing them earlier! Those who say they throw their support behind a candidate were at their throats previously.
-
How do politicians explain away their negative portrayal of their rivals within the context of a unified party? If it’s “just politics”, as they say, then their pointed barbs and criticisms are not genuine. If so, then how can the American public believe that these politicians stay true to their own personal beliefs? How can the public trust them? Is there a tacit understanding not to take a politician at his or her word?
-
How far will a politician get who absolutely refuses to change his beliefs or compromise? Obviously, this person will maintain support from a like-minded base, but is moderation (moving to the political center) par for the course in politics? Who is the most extreme candidate (left or right) to ever hold office in this country?
-
Is it common for politicians to say “I don’t agree with the candidate our party chose, and I am only supporting him/her because I like the other choices less?”
Does an outright refusal to support a rival candidate (of the same party) happen often, and is it news when it happens? I would think it would happen all the time if you assume they are speaking from the heart. -
Are debates effective as an indicator of leadership ability? It would seem to me that you can memorize talking points and pick at your opponent’s record all you want, but how does that translate to taking the “phone call at 3 AM” kind of leadership required to preside at the White House? What portion of debate preparation is done by the candidate him/herself, versus the “handlers” that prepare talking points and counterarguments? You’d think that a candidate’s performance is too important to the campaign to be trusted to just his or her own skills alone.
Thanks,
Dave