Conquer Club

This is largely posted in the context of American politics, but can be applied elsewhere.

These, I believe, are the five broad categories voters look at when comparing candidates, in no particular order and of varying importance based on the individual. Of course, in the ideal world, voters would choose the candidate closest to their policy positions, but this does not happen in the real world. Whether or not you agree is not important right now.

A Candidate's Past Outside of Politics
Party Affiliation
Policy (only in cases where catch-all parties with many different factions exist)
Perceived Leadership Ability and Ability to Implement their Policies
Looks/Image

Since the Birther issue, there has been constant talk about Obama and Romney's past. College records, tax forms, birth certificates, etc. How important is this stuff to you? Does it, and the reactions by politicians toward requests to see said private information affect your opinion of a candidate? If so, how much?

As an aside, do you value any of the above (or things I have missed) as more important than policy positions?

I think there is some relevance, certainly. Voting records, in particular, I find to be illuminating. But even aside from voting records, things like business practices and the like can show what type of a person we might be electing. But to me, it almost always comes back to voting records when it can.

Party affiliation is meaningless to me.

Looks/image is meaningless to me.

their past is an indicator of categories 3 and 4, so it is somewhat important, particularly because many politicians try to polish their image around election time

I can only speak for America here, but it goes like this.

Democrat's past: not important
Republican's past: all important

I can only speak for Republicans here, but it goes like this.

Democrat's past: all important
Republican's past: not important

past, non-political history has got to be the most trivial thing about a politician. I could care less if Obama was a crackhead or whatever. Policy history to me probably is the most important one, seeing as both Obama and Romney bow down to the bigwigs.

Timminz wrote:I can only speak for Republicans here, but it goes like this.

Democrat's past: all important
Republican's past: not important

read this book. Let me know if anything changes


try not to ignore all the sourced examples. At worst you will be able to admit Obama got a free pass on 2008.

Obama campaign advisor Anita Dunn - "We were successful in the campaign because we controlled the media"


Obama even ditched the media and sent them on an airplane trip to nowhere, and got away with it.
Media reporter - "Why were we not told the president ditched us until after we were on the plane and the doors were closed behind us?"

But, Kenya! Marxist professors! DRUG USE!!!

GreecePwns wrote:This is largely posted in the context of American politics, but can be applied elsewhere.


A Candidate's Past Outside of Politics

A pretty wide category.

In general, I don't really care much about "marital issues", though I do care if someone lied seriously or violated the law in their business dealings.

I don't necessarily care if all their personal values/opinions match my own, but I do care how those beliefs shade their actions.

GreecePwns wrote: Party Affiliation

utterly irrelevant, except in reference to which "political machine" brings them into power. Right now, Republicans are going to have to be pretty anti-women in their policies, and anti-homosexual, against healthcare reform.

GreecePwns wrote:Policy (only in cases where catch-all parties with many different factions exist)

Very much matters.

GreecePwns wrote:Perceived Leadership Ability and Ability to Implement their Policies
Looks/Image

I put these two together.
To the extent this involves "looks", no.. though I won't pretend that image and such have subtle impacts on us all. A person can be very smart, but appear a bumbling idiot.. and they won't go far. We do need a leader.

GreecePwns wrote:Since the Birther issue, there has been constant talk about Obama and Romney's past. College records, tax forms, birth certificates, etc. How important is this stuff to you? Does it, and the reactions by politicians toward requests to see said private information affect your opinion of a candidate? If so, how much?

GreecePwns wrote:As an aside, do you value any of the above (or things I have missed) as more important than policy positions?

Those are pretty broad categories.

I think everyone does/should care about basic honesty and integrity, but how? I would care if someone cheated in business dealings because it tends to show that they value their personal and immediate income over following through with contracts, and shows a disrespect for the law. BUT... business is so complicated that someone in charge can be accused of "cheating" when they really were following bad advice or just misinformed. Does that translate into what kind of president they would be? Depends on the details and how they responded. If its a case of "been burned once.. won't be again", might be a somewhat good thing. But, who knows? And, even powerful people can be cheated. Sometimes someone may invest financially in something, but not really have the time or knowledge to go into all the details (this happens a LOT, to be frank). I expect policians to be experts in politics, not necessarily business.

Things like marriage infidelity are often pointed out as faults of integrity. I agree, in a personal sense. To the extent it might show a general view of women, it might matter. However, someone can get caught up in very personal situations because of very personal things and feelings. I know plenty of people who are respected in a community, who do a lot of good, but who are simply bears to live with. To some extent, I live that life. My husband spends close to 15 hours a week, on average on various fire issues. Any time I make plans, I have to make them with the knowledge that my husband may have to drop everything (literally) and go fight a fire. It feels worse because most of the time they are false alarms or minor car wrecks that need traffic control (the fire dept does that here, not the paid police force ) . But.. he doesn't really know until he gets there. Every alarm has to be treated fully, or they risk missing the few that really are serious. Anyway, that, most definitely, impacts our marriage. I am not one to go have affairs (unless you count the excess time I have spent on CC ), but if I were.... Well, he has one ex wife already. Now, you may say what pertinence does that have to being a president.. only the sense that how one acts in the public forum and what happens "at home" differ.

At some point, it comes down to the fact that we elect human beings and human beings are not perfect. I think looking for the "most perfect overall" person means we end up with mediocrely skill individuals. Instead, I say we look for the people best at the job we want them to do... and worry a lot less about the rest unless it actually directly impacts their duties.

GreecePwns wrote:This is largely posted in the context of American politics, but can be applied elsewhere.

These, I believe, are the five broad categories voters look at when comparing candidates, in no particular order and of varying importance based on the individual. Of course, in the ideal world, voters would choose the candidate closest to their policy positions, but this does not happen in the real world. Whether or not you agree is not important right now.

A Candidate's Past Outside of Politics
Party Affiliation
Policy (only in cases where catch-all parties with many different factions exist)
Perceived Leadership Ability and Ability to Implement their Policies
Looks/Image

Since the Birther issue, there has been constant talk about Obama and Romney's past. College records, tax forms, birth certificates, etc. How important is this stuff to you? Does it, and the reactions by politicians toward requests to see said private information affect your opinion of a candidate? If so, how much?

As an aside, do you value any of the above (or things I have missed) as more important than policy positions?

Basically, I ask the following of any candidate:


(1) What are the ends? What does he want accomplished?
(2) What are the means? How is he gonna do it?
(3) Then, how credible is the political platform? This answer depends on the politician's past performance (within government, the private sector, and of lesser importance, during his/her education).


(4) Party Affiliation is just a trademark, a logo. It's a low-cost signal for the non-savvy voters to react to and vote accordingly.
(5) Looks/Image is the marketing. It's positive association with the broadcasted product (i.e. political package).



#2 is important for implementing policy wisely.
The last two are important for getting elected. #1 is spouted out like a robot; #2 is ignored; #3 is proclaimed loudly whenever its positive, and denounced whenever negative. One's antics with #1-3 will heavily influence #4 and especially #5.


I highly value #2 and somewhat #3, but those won't get the politician elected compared to the others.

hey BBS, how do you think economics relates to natural selection, if at all?

john9blue wrote:hey BBS, how do you think economics relates to natural selection, if at all?

As far as institutional development goes, then yeah, there are similarities. But that's probably all it is--similarities.

There's ecological economics and a journal called Economics & Human Biology. I don't know what they're up to, but that might answer your question.

john9blue wrote:hey BBS, how do you think economics relates to natural selection, if at all?

For the sake of double-posting, I just recalled something which is unrelated to my previous post:

the problem with applying the idea of natural selection to human behavior is that the institutions created from the many interactions of humans aren't always the "strongest" or "best adapted" because they can be significantly altered to serve a powerful, minority group at the expense of the governed.

Natural selection may be similar to spontaneous order...

Economics could relate to natural selection, but it would be limited... Economics, at least Austrian economics, starts with conscious, human action. Without that, there isn't much for economics to say.