Which candidate has the most detailed policy positions?

Great Debates
1

Simple question: which major candidate for the US Presidency has the most detailed policy positions on key issues?

I’m defining major candidates as plausible winners of their party’s nomination, which in my book includes: Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and if we’re generous, Thompson. For Thompson, I used his white papers for my word count, since they are on his website. If someone wants to add Edwards, go ahead.

I think we can define key issues somewhat objectively as well. According to all the polls, the key issues are: The Economy (let’s put tax policy and trade here too, but not fiscal discipline, which is a promise, not a policy); Iraq (not including veteran’s care); Health Care; Illegal; Immigration; Terrorism; Environment (including Energy policy). Obviously each party might be focusing on some over others, but I think this is a fair listing.

What is more difficult is determining how to objectively judge detail. Word count is one measure. Though some are more long-winded than others without adding much detail. But word count will at least get us rolling.

So that you don’t think I cherry-picked this method to support my candidate of choice and to save some time, I haven’t conducted the study for the last four issues. Here are my word count winners based on the policy proposals found on candidate’s websites, including only policy proposals (and not descriptions of the problem to be solved) for the first two items:

Economy: Obama by far, with Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee trailing in that order.

Iraq: McCain by far, with Obama, Clinton, and Huckabee trailing in that order (though Huckabee’s is not very detailed even though it’s long). Interestingly, some of the Republicans don’t mention their plan for Iraq at all (!).

Interesting results, I think, even if the method is less than perfect. I hope someone is willing to do the other issues.

Based on these first ones, let’s discuss.

For debate: Is the meme that Obama is an empty suit challenged by the detail of his policy proposals? Is Thompson the wonk some people think he is? Is there a better method to objectively judge the detail and robustness of their positions and if so who wins under that methodology?

2

I think Obama gets the empty suit label because he is campaigning so much on his personality and charisma. People see that, and assume that he doesn’t have an underlying policy platform. It’s not really fair, but that’s the price he’s paying for the privilege of constantly reminding us that he’s more likable than anyone else.

I’m not sure there’s an objective way to accurately measure who is more detailed or precise with their policy positions, though. You can see when people obviously dodge questions, like Clinton refusing to respond to hypotheticals and Huckabee telling us “Jesus would be smart enough not to run for political office”. I expect those two would be near the bottom of any hypothetical vagueness-measuring candidate list.

3

I’ll have to disagree with Mosier - I think Obama has the guts, and cerebral brawn to follow through on his assertions and policies. It’s just a bonus that he’s so likable. Something we are not used to in this country with several of the past POTUS’…

4

Maybe, and I think people also buy the empty suit label because it sort of fits intuitively with his perceived lack of experience. But I watch a lot of his videos, and if anything he gets a little too professorial and wonkish at the various town hall meetings–perhaps to compensate for his media image. The clips that get played in the media naturally tend to be the rabble-rousing parts of his stump speech, but I don’t think it’s fair to say he’s campaigning on charisma.

Huckabee’s website is pretty funny. He has these relatively long issue pages that say virtually nothing. On Clinton, I think she initially took a strategy of being pretty vague, assuming she could win the primary without locking herself into any particularly liberal positions. Now she has to fight, she’s gotten more detailed by necessity.

5

I agree, it’s just that every candidate has their “thing”, and Obama’s thing is that he’s the honest, young, unjaded, optimistic, likable one. Clinton’s thing is political experience. Huckabee’s thing is connecting with the rural religious simple folks. McCain’s thing is the POW war hero thing. Giulliani’s thing is 9/11.

Everyone has something that quickly and easily identifies them that they’re happy to embrace for their campaign. It might not always even be accurate, like Giulliani’s role in 9/11 or Hillary’s experience. Obama has welcomed the popular label he got, which makes him an easier target for claims that he just might not know what he’s doing, or have a plan. It’s not true, though. As shown in the OP, he’s probably among the candidates who explain their policy plans the most clearly and completely.

6

I did health care:

This one is Obama, again, by far. Runner up is Sen. Clinton followed by Sen. McCain. Fred Thompson came in last place.

7

Got it. Word count = depth. Wish I’d known that back in my term-paper-writing days.

Policy wonkery is great, I’m all for it. But *execution * of those great policies is what matters - y’all cain’t do that, y’all ain’t worth nuthin’ no matter how smart you is.

8

Please read the OP before responding.

9

How did you come to that conclusion? :wink:

10

I did. That’s the problem. Please have a point before posting. :rolleyes:

11

Your post was entirely irrelevant to this thread. I said several times in the OP that word count was a poor method, including once for the very reason you mentioned. I specifically asked as the question for debate–which was bolded to help you figure that out–“Is there a better method to objectively judge the detail and robustness of their positions and if so who wins under that methodology?” You ignored all that in order to insult me.

Then you added a total red herring that, while relevant to politics in general, had even less to do with this thread than your first sentence.

So I can conclude one of two things: you didn’t read the OP, you just tapped out a response with your knee, or you have nothing intelligent to say on the topic. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt.