Primary voting - how do I decide?
February 17, 2020 7:07 PM Subscribe
I am registered unaffiliated and will be voting in the Democratic primary on Super Tuesday. I need some resources to help me figure out who to vote for. (More inside)
I took the quiz on Isidewith and ended up with the same top four people I am already considering and they were all rated between 85% and 92% as agreeing with my stance on the issues. Not enough to sway me to any one over another. What resources are there to actually get to clearly know the candidates and what they stand for? I feel like their own websites are propaganda and I would like impartial information. Seeking mostly print/online resources I can read at my own pace rather than videos but all suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
I took the quiz on Isidewith and ended up with the same top four people I am already considering and they were all rated between 85% and 92% as agreeing with my stance on the issues. Not enough to sway me to any one over another. What resources are there to actually get to clearly know the candidates and what they stand for? I feel like their own websites are propaganda and I would like impartial information. Seeking mostly print/online resources I can read at my own pace rather than videos but all suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
I asked a similar question in May and was directed to these extensive comparison tables. They provide linked citations to all the information provided.
posted by bookmammal at 7:36 PM on February 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by bookmammal at 7:36 PM on February 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
Where do the 2020 Democratic candidates stand on the key issues? (Guardian)
The Issues (Politico) "The most comprehensive guide anywhere to the issues shaping the 2020 Democratic presidential primary."
Fact-checking the eighth Democratic primary debate (WaPo / MSN)
FactChecking the New Hampshire Democratic Debate (FactCheck.org)
Fact-checking the seventh Democratic primary debate (WaPo)
FactChecking the January Democratic Debate (FactCheck.org)
Fact-checking the sixth Democratic debate (WaPo / MSN)
FactChecking the December Democratic Debate (FactCheck.org)
posted by katra at 7:40 PM on February 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Issues (Politico) "The most comprehensive guide anywhere to the issues shaping the 2020 Democratic presidential primary."
Fact-checking the eighth Democratic primary debate (WaPo / MSN)
FactChecking the New Hampshire Democratic Debate (FactCheck.org)
Fact-checking the seventh Democratic primary debate (WaPo)
FactChecking the January Democratic Debate (FactCheck.org)
Fact-checking the sixth Democratic debate (WaPo / MSN)
FactChecking the December Democratic Debate (FactCheck.org)
posted by katra at 7:40 PM on February 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
When many candidates have substantially the same world view, I will read their statements or watch a video of their statements and evaluate them on (not necessarily in this order):
- complexity of thought process -- why do they think what they do, how nuanced are their views of opposing viewpoints, and how intelligently are they likely to handle new information;
- complexity of their views on other people, especially those who disagree with them -- are they likely to see people who disagree as mere obstacles, or are they likely to be able to understand people well enough to persuade them;
- clarity of expression -- are they likely to be able to take the depth of understanding I've detected and persuade others, or at least present complex systems of facts clearly and interestingly
- empathy at the right level -- do they genuinely feel compassion for people
... and there are probably other factors that I haven't consciously articulated.
What you want in an elected person is someone who will help move the whole society forward, who will be able to do the job well. I'm not electing a checklist.
posted by amtho at 8:03 PM on February 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
- complexity of thought process -- why do they think what they do, how nuanced are their views of opposing viewpoints, and how intelligently are they likely to handle new information;
- complexity of their views on other people, especially those who disagree with them -- are they likely to see people who disagree as mere obstacles, or are they likely to be able to understand people well enough to persuade them;
- clarity of expression -- are they likely to be able to take the depth of understanding I've detected and persuade others, or at least present complex systems of facts clearly and interestingly
- empathy at the right level -- do they genuinely feel compassion for people
... and there are probably other factors that I haven't consciously articulated.
What you want in an elected person is someone who will help move the whole society forward, who will be able to do the job well. I'm not electing a checklist.
posted by amtho at 8:03 PM on February 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
Read their websites! Specifically, read their policy papers. What are they proposing to do? Is their plan carefully thought through? Is it realistic? Do they cite appropriate experts? Is their plan so simple-minded or pie-in-the-sky that it insults your intelligence? Policy papers tell you a lot about how a candidate will lead. Don't skip reading them!
posted by shadygrove at 8:23 PM on February 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by shadygrove at 8:23 PM on February 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
To piggyback on amtho's excellent list, I would suggest you watch or read interviews with the candidates, read profiles of them by good journalists, and/or watch the debates to get some sense of:
- how they respond to adversity: do they get defensive and whiny, or do they show some character and savvy by acting like a grown-up
- what's their level of self-awareness; i.e., does what they say about themselves seem accurate based on what you've seen and/or heard of them
- are they complex thinkers who can figure out how to kill two birds with one stone or do their solutions seem flat and simplistic
- can they present their ideas in a compelling way that gets people to understand and agree with them, or do they seem determined to just keep repeating the same talking points ad nauseam until you relent out of sheer exhaustion
- are they credible and trustworthy, do they inspire you - this is the hardest to define, but most people know charisma when they see it
- can they learn by considering new data and others' viewpoints
As someone who assesses executives for a living I have an admitted bias, but these are the sorts of things I look for in good leaders; the kind of leaders who can handle whatever arises by devising effective and timely solutions while also marshaling the people around them to support and implement those solutions.
posted by DrGail at 8:43 PM on February 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
- how they respond to adversity: do they get defensive and whiny, or do they show some character and savvy by acting like a grown-up
- what's their level of self-awareness; i.e., does what they say about themselves seem accurate based on what you've seen and/or heard of them
- are they complex thinkers who can figure out how to kill two birds with one stone or do their solutions seem flat and simplistic
- can they present their ideas in a compelling way that gets people to understand and agree with them, or do they seem determined to just keep repeating the same talking points ad nauseam until you relent out of sheer exhaustion
- are they credible and trustworthy, do they inspire you - this is the hardest to define, but most people know charisma when they see it
- can they learn by considering new data and others' viewpoints
As someone who assesses executives for a living I have an admitted bias, but these are the sorts of things I look for in good leaders; the kind of leaders who can handle whatever arises by devising effective and timely solutions while also marshaling the people around them to support and implement those solutions.
posted by DrGail at 8:43 PM on February 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
In addition to the candidate's policy positions, you should be aware of their positions in the polls. FiveThirtyEight has polling averages for states where polls are available, and a model that provides estimates even when there are no state-level polls. (On both these pages, you can use the drop-down menu to choose your state. The numbers will probably become more accurate the closer we get to election day, but they are still just a best estimate.)
Why is this important? In the primary, delegates are awarded to the candidates that get at least 15% of the votes in each state or district. If a candidate gets less than 15%, they don't get any delegates from that state or district. This may affect your voting strategy:
posted by mbrubeck at 8:47 PM on February 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
Why is this important? In the primary, delegates are awarded to the candidates that get at least 15% of the votes in each state or district. If a candidate gets less than 15%, they don't get any delegates from that state or district. This may affect your voting strategy:
- If your favorite candidate is very unlikely to pass the 15% threshold in your primary (either statewide or in your congressional district), you might want to vote for another candidate you like who is polling better, to avoid “wasting” your vote.
- If a candidate is very close to the 15% threshold, then a small number of votes might make a huge difference to them. If you like two candidates about equally, and one is very close to 15%, then you might choose to vote for that candidate so your vote can have a larger effect on the delegate count.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:47 PM on February 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
Candidate Field Guide 2020 (AP) "Learn about the candidates for president and see where they stand on key issues with this guide"
Elections 2020 Voter Guide (USA Today) "Learn more about the issues driving the conversation and where the 2020 candidates stand."
How accurate are the candidates on the stump? Our Stump Speech Analyzer boils it down (PolitiFact)
posted by katra at 9:17 PM on February 17, 2020
Elections 2020 Voter Guide (USA Today) "Learn more about the issues driving the conversation and where the 2020 candidates stand."
How accurate are the candidates on the stump? Our Stump Speech Analyzer boils it down (PolitiFact)
posted by katra at 9:17 PM on February 17, 2020
I feel like their own websites are propaganda and I would like impartial information.
If you pick a specific policy area you know the most about (for example, your professional field or a hobby of yours), it’s worth reading their websites to see how they discuss it. Some will surprise you with how accurate and prepared they are, others with how generic, others with how outright wrong. It’s not the only thing you need to know but it can be very telling.
posted by sallybrown at 7:46 AM on February 18, 2020 [5 favorites]
If you pick a specific policy area you know the most about (for example, your professional field or a hobby of yours), it’s worth reading their websites to see how they discuss it. Some will surprise you with how accurate and prepared they are, others with how generic, others with how outright wrong. It’s not the only thing you need to know but it can be very telling.
posted by sallybrown at 7:46 AM on February 18, 2020 [5 favorites]
It doesn't matter if some candidate's views are incrementally closer to your own unless that "better" candidate ends up winning the general election.
If you think that your "best pick" will beat Trump in a general election with a wide safety margin, then go for it.
If (like me) you are worried about it being a near thing, then electability is the only criterion worth thinking about.
The "swing voter" (in the context of the US presidential race, at least) may well be completely mythical. If so, then it really comes down to who you think is going to best motivate voter turnout within your party (hopefully without inspiring even more turnout amongst the enemy).
posted by sourcequench at 8:20 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you think that your "best pick" will beat Trump in a general election with a wide safety margin, then go for it.
If (like me) you are worried about it being a near thing, then electability is the only criterion worth thinking about.
The "swing voter" (in the context of the US presidential race, at least) may well be completely mythical. If so, then it really comes down to who you think is going to best motivate voter turnout within your party (hopefully without inspiring even more turnout amongst the enemy).
posted by sourcequench at 8:20 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
Primaries are when you get to vote your own values most clearly. I suggest you look beyond policy positions and also consider how effective the candidate will be. Do look at their website. Is it clear? Does it project organization and competence? Also, in listening to the candidate and reading their responses, how would you feel if this individual was running the organization where you work? Would they improve things? Be a problem solver? Find ways to make everyone more fulfilled and productive?
It sounds like this is really the problem of an embarrassment of riches in some sense. So, don't feel bad or worry that your vote needs to be perfect.
posted by meinvt at 8:42 AM on February 18, 2020
It sounds like this is really the problem of an embarrassment of riches in some sense. So, don't feel bad or worry that your vote needs to be perfect.
posted by meinvt at 8:42 AM on February 18, 2020
Seconding meinvt; I have a preferred candidate in the presidential primary, but the few candidates I would be really worried about aren’t doing well enough to be risks. So I have the following algorithm:
1) if my preferred candidate is above 15% I vote for them.
2) if my preferred candidate is *close* to 15 %, I vote for them and bother friends and colleagues to go vote too.
3) if my preferred candidate has withdrawn/is polling way below 15% in my state by primary day, then I reevaluate for a tactical vote (eg to prevent my least preferred candidate from getting votes).
And one last most important step:
4) I spend the majority of my political energy (canvassing time, etc) on the Senate race in my state (clear candidate, but will need support to win; senate matters as much or more than president), and the majority of my “learn about candidates” energy on learning about my local candidates (mayor, city council, state house).
posted by nat at 9:18 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
1) if my preferred candidate is above 15% I vote for them.
2) if my preferred candidate is *close* to 15 %, I vote for them and bother friends and colleagues to go vote too.
3) if my preferred candidate has withdrawn/is polling way below 15% in my state by primary day, then I reevaluate for a tactical vote (eg to prevent my least preferred candidate from getting votes).
And one last most important step:
4) I spend the majority of my political energy (canvassing time, etc) on the Senate race in my state (clear candidate, but will need support to win; senate matters as much or more than president), and the majority of my “learn about candidates” energy on learning about my local candidates (mayor, city council, state house).
posted by nat at 9:18 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
In case healthcare is a thing you care about, I give you what presidential candidates say about healthcare.
posted by acridrabbit at 12:11 PM on February 18, 2020
posted by acridrabbit at 12:11 PM on February 18, 2020
If (like me) you are worried about it being a near thing, then electability is the only criterion worth thinking about.
I would, respectfully, disagree with this. Especially in a case where an election is likely to be a near thing, there are simply too many factors for any of us to be able to accurately game out who is or isn't electable before the actual election.
There was a time when many people worried that Obama wasn't electable; and there was a time, perhaps up until election night, when most people thought the same about Trump. The electorate is big and varied, and campaigns are long and volatile. America still seems capable of surprising us.
Part of the consequence of politics being turned into spectacle and entertainment is that many of us ingest so much punditry that we've become infected with pundit brain ourselves. Personally, I have found it clarifying this primary season to just throw my support behind the candidate whose platform I like the best, and not fret about what the mainstream media says will play in the South or the Rust Belt or the suburbs or wherever. They could be wrong about it; and they could also have an interest in promulgating falsehoods about it.
posted by Beardman at 12:22 PM on February 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
I would, respectfully, disagree with this. Especially in a case where an election is likely to be a near thing, there are simply too many factors for any of us to be able to accurately game out who is or isn't electable before the actual election.
There was a time when many people worried that Obama wasn't electable; and there was a time, perhaps up until election night, when most people thought the same about Trump. The electorate is big and varied, and campaigns are long and volatile. America still seems capable of surprising us.
Part of the consequence of politics being turned into spectacle and entertainment is that many of us ingest so much punditry that we've become infected with pundit brain ourselves. Personally, I have found it clarifying this primary season to just throw my support behind the candidate whose platform I like the best, and not fret about what the mainstream media says will play in the South or the Rust Belt or the suburbs or wherever. They could be wrong about it; and they could also have an interest in promulgating falsehoods about it.
posted by Beardman at 12:22 PM on February 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Wulfhere at 7:32 PM on February 17, 2020 [1 favorite]