In the primary, I like to vote for the person who best represents my views; in the general election, I’m more apt to make my vote a calculated one and allow other strategies to influence my choice.
For example, in 2000, I liked Gore better than Nader, but I voted for Nader because I knew that Gore had no chance in my state (SC) and I wanted to ‘give a boost’ to a third party candidate.
Also, by November, my favorite candidate is usually no longer an option, so I’m more likely to ‘vote against’ the one I hate the most rather than feeling like I’m ‘voting for’ the other guy.
By the way, that select smart quiz confirmed my feelings that Dean (and an unnamed Green party candidate) best represented my views (at 78%), but I was quite surprised that Sharpton finished as high as 4th for me. I would have put him just a step above Bush previously.
In any election you should vote for the candidate who best represents your views. Perception of not being able to win the election is not the same as not actually being able to win the election. How many people have you encountered who said something like, “I would have voted for X but I felt that Y would be more likely to win”? Not only does your vote count, but losing vote tallies are noted by the winner. And you just may be surprised that enough other people think the same as you.
Registered Democrat here. My answer: A resounding “it depends.”
I will usually vote for the candidate who best represents my views. I find it important to be able to support the person in question without (much) reservation; I hate having to hold my nose as I cast my ballot.
Examples, some ancient history: in my state’s primary back in '80 I voted for Carter over Kennedy; in '84, Mondale over Hart; in '88 Jesse Jackson rather than Michael Dukakis. In each case it was despite the assurances of some of my friends that my candidate couldn’t possibly win the general election…a statement quite true in '80 and '84, and probably even truer about Jackson as well. (Whether Kennedy or Hart would have won is an open question, too, but the point is I wasn’t terribly concerned with electability.)
(I don’t only back losers, BTW; I supported Clinton in '92, over Tsongas, and --I’ll say it–Gore in the primaries in 2000.)
On the other hand, sometimes the alternative is too terrible to contemplate. I really, really don’t want Mr. Bush to have another term in office, and my feelings have an intensity to them that I can’t recall with any previous major party candidate…so, electability is looming large this time around. Maybe Kucinich or Braun or Lieberman best represents my views; I’m not sure. But I don’t see any of those three winning the general election, and so they won’t get my vote. This year, anyway, I’ll probably support whichever Democratic candidate I feel has the best chance of winning in November. If that’s voting “against” more than voting “for,” you’re probably right; but that’s where I’m coming from right now.
I don’t think Lieberman’s religion is a major factor. There are certainly people who wouldn’t vote for him because he’s Jewish; but these same people already wouldn’t vote for him because he’s a Democrat.
I will fervently hope that the candidate who best represents my views survives the primary, but when I go into the booth for the general, I’ll vote the Kruger/Voorhees ticket if I think they have the best chance of ejecting that smirking bastard out of the White House. So when it comes to that, I’ll vote Dean, or Kerry, or Clark, depending on who’s nominated. If it’s Lieberman, though, I’m drinkin’ Drano.
And re the quiz at Shayna’s link, Dean scored 85% and Bush scored 5%. Big surprise.