• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ideological Purity or Electability?

Which one?

  • Ideological Purity

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • Electability

    Votes: 14 58.3%

  • Other/Don't know

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Total voters
    24
Anagram

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
9,218
Reaction score
5,860
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In the past few elections, Republican primary voters have nominated many candidates who appeared to be less electable than other possible choices. High profile examples of this are Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle in Delaware, Ken Buck over Jane Norton in Colorado, Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Sharon Angle over Danny Tarkanian in Nevada, Richard Mourdock over Dick Lugar in Indiana, and Todd Akin over Sarah Steelman in Missouri. The end result of this was five senate seats that could very well have gone to Republicans ending up in Democrat hands, with only Alaska staying Republican after Murkowski's write-in bid. Democrats have had big problems with this in the past too, but not as recently.

For the next set of races its already looking like this could come into play again. Steve King, who is heavily considering running for senate, is being dissuaded by the Republican establishment due to his perceived unelectability. Although, if he does run, he is the favorite to win the nomination. Paul Broun in Georgia who announced he was running for Senate is also perceived as a less than electable candidate, who if nominated, could turn red Georgia into a possible Democrat pickup opportunity.

Steve King: ‘Nobody can bully me out of running for Senate’

Dems start out ahead in Iowa Senate election - Public Policy Polling

My question is then if you were deciding between two candidates which trait would you value more? Electability or ideological purity? Would you choose the candidate whose ideals were closest to your own, even if that candidate would have little chance of getting elected? Or would you go with the one who does not share all of your viewpoints, although they are closer than the main competitor, and has a much better chance of being elected? In general, which do you find more important in a candidate?
 
Excellent poll and one I am going to watch with interest. I am some one most interested in results. As such I would take an electable candidate, assuming he or she still was mostly aligned with my beliefs. The only candidate who could run and 100% agree with me on every issue is probably me, so I always vote for some one less than absolutely pure.
 
Electability and usefulness. Ideological purity is politically foolish. For the GOP, this means that the Tea Party should be used as useful idiots. The only problem is they ceased to be useful on a national scale, and should be tossed on a national scale. They should be tolerated on a local and state level, but hardly encouraged elsewhere.

On a state level, there was a fellow that wanted to remove property taxes, and make North Dakota soar. Seeing as how I thought it was politically stupid in addition to counterproductive, I voted for the person more able to get a seat in the state GOP during the primary season (I voted with the majority). Then, seeing as how I thought the Tea Party platform was incredibly stupid for our state, with none of the political or economic turmoil of the midwest or urbanized South, I voted for the Democrat (who obviously lost).
 
Last edited:
In my humble opinion, the poll and the supporting question are missing a few choices. It's seldom an either/or choice. Considering the last Presidential race, there should be an option for:

"I don't vote if the person most likely to carry an agenda I very much support is a Mormon" or

"I don't vote if the person most likely to carry an agenda I very much support says something stupid"

A Democrat can say and do the most ridiculous, obnoxious things and be an utter fool, but liberals and Democrats will come out to vote for that person no matter what.

There is no doubt that in at least one area Democrats are far superior to Republicans - Democrats are smart enough to understand that your agenda gets nowhere if you don't win elections. There is no power in being angry on the outside.
 
I generally end up voting for the candidate closest to my views, but electability does play a small role, as does the opponent. I have cast many votes for candidates who didn't have a chance, and I don't consider one of them a "wasted" vote. however, when the opponent is just off the charts bad, I might pick the good option rather than the perfect one if the good option is more likely to win. it's a case by case decision.
 
While I cringe at the words "ideological purity" I must say, as a person who has voted 3rd Party consistantly for the last few election cycles, both local and national I feel that I must vote my conscience. Doing that means I'll never cast a wasted vote.

We're dealing with life, liberty, and property -- I give a damn who is most popular.
 
Anagram said:
My question is then if you were deciding between two candidates which trait would you value more? Electability or ideological purity? Would you choose the candidate whose ideals were closest to your own, even if that candidate would have little chance of getting elected? Or would you go with the one who does not share all of your viewpoints, although they are closer than the main competitor, and has a much better chance of being elected? In general, which do you find more important in a candidate?
Click to expand...

I'd lean toward electability unless the electable candidate held some view I just couldn't accept. For example, opposition to gun control is a deal-breaker. I'll never vote for a Republican but if the Democrat doesn't support gun control, I won't vote at all or I'll consider a third party candidate.
 
But these are false choices, in most real-life cases. Voting your conscience does not mean always voting for someone who shares all your ideas (usually, there's no such candidate). It means choosing a lesser evil, your "ideological purity" guiding you. (Its not so much "purity", but "clarity" that you need).

The early success of tea parties is a good example. Conservatives and libertarians had resolved to suspend their differences on social issues, immigration, etc, and push hard for electing the more fiscally conservative candidate, in each instance. Including moderates like Scott Brown or Chris Christie. Yes, in some cases the relative fiscal conservative was unelectable, but what do you have to lose, if the alternative is the status quo you "ideological purity" is rebeling against?

When, on the other hand, the media portrays toxic loudmouths like Michelle Bachmann as "ideologically pure tea partiers", it ignores the fact that these politicians had shown no fiscal restraint or any libertarian proclivities until jumping on the tea party bandwagon, exactly to improve electability - their own. And their "ideology" is such a mess of conflicting slogans, it hardly can be considered "pure" - except, maybe, as in "pure nonsense".
 
Can I say neither?

I want a candidate who has ideas and a desire to do something once elected. I didn't much care for all of Ted Cruz's ideals and political philosophies, but the guy got to Washington and immediately started getting involved. Marco Rubio, same thing. Even Al Franken...as much of a joke as I think he is...he got involved.

I'm tired of senators and reps who sit around waiting for a reason to make a statement against the other side, never putting forth anything of their own. I myself am not ideologically pure...so finding a candidate who matched my personal ideology who could also get into office? Not gonna happen. But picking somebody just 'cause they're liked by the people isn't smart, either.
 
Electability is #1 (of the two), but not absolute. Simply being electable does not necessarily equal acceptable. There are occasions where one should vote their conscience, lest one is nothing more than a tool for results they know they won't approve.
 
For me it'd be Ideological Purity on that which is most important to me, up to a certain point. After that point, it comes down to electability.

Hypothetically, if talking percentages, it'd be something along the lines of suggesting that as long as the guy is about 75% in line with what I think, then electability becomes a bigger concern.

More specifically, sometimes it's less about general ideology but specific issues AND track record. For example, if I care greatly about reforming entitlements, staunch border control/enforcement, legalization of marijuana, and 2nd amendment protection then someone who rates poorly on those four things to me is not going to get my vote simply because he's more "electable" than the other. This is either based on what the candidate has said on those things...OR what the candidate has shown himself quickly ready to compromise himself on in the past.

There are also more factors than just ideology and electability that go into my vote. But in a vacuum of just those two....the first hurdle is making it over a certain baseline needed to get my vote in terms of ideology, the second hurdle is to get over a certain hurdle in terms of electability, and as they come down the home stretch it becomes a balancing act of how far each candidate is beyond the minimum requirements for me comparitive to each other.

If you're someone whose going to make me groan more than cheer, whose going to be voting in favor of more damaging things in my mind than positive things, if you're someone who I just can't rightly feel correct in supporting...then I don't care if you're a 100% guarantee to win, you're not getting my vote. You're not getting my voice as a citizen stating "I support this person and what he chooses to vote for, because I'm giving him the ability to be my voice". If you will act and vote in a way that will leave me typically more happy than upset, but perhaps not AS happy as the other candidate would, but you're significantly more likely to win...Then yes, I'll cast a vote for you. But you have to get past that minimum threshold.
 
tessaesque said:
Can I say neither?

I want a candidate who has ideas and a desire to do something once elected. I didn't much care for all of Ted Cruz's ideals and political philosophies, but the guy got to Washington and immediately started getting involved. Marco Rubio, same thing. Even Al Franken...as much of a joke as I think he is...he got involved.

I'm tired of senators and reps who sit around waiting for a reason to make a statement against the other side, never putting forth anything of their own. I myself am not ideologically pure...so finding a candidate who matched my personal ideology who could also get into office? Not gonna happen. But picking somebody just 'cause they're liked by the people isn't smart, either.
Click to expand...

I know there are other factors that you consider when choosing a candidate like whether they get things done, but I'm trying to look at these two traits in a vacuum, so in this scenario both candidates would attempt to get involved when in office.

And obviously in the real world, this doesn't apply to most people on the political spectrum, but if it did, who would you pick? If you had a choice between Tessaesque who could not be elected and Tessaesque-lite who did not believe everything you did, but agreed on most core issues, and had a much greater chance of being elected who would you pick?
 
Zyphlin said:
For me it'd be Ideological Purity on that which is most important to me, up to a certain point. After that point, it comes down to electability.

Hypothetically, if talking percentages, it'd be something along the lines of suggesting that as long as the guy is about 75% in line with what I think, then electability becomes a bigger concern.

More specifically, sometimes it's less about general ideology but specific issues AND track record. For example, if I care greatly about reforming entitlements, staunch border control/enforcement, legalization of marijuana, and 2nd amendment protection then someone who rates poorly on those four things to me is not going to get my vote simply because he's more "electable" than the other. This is either based on what the candidate has said on those things...OR what the candidate has shown himself quickly ready to compromise himself on in the past.

There are also more factors than just ideology and electability that go into my vote. But in a vacuum of just those two....the first hurdle is making it over a certain baseline needed to get my vote in terms of ideology, the second hurdle is to get over a certain hurdle in terms of electability, and as they come down the home stretch it becomes a balancing act of how far each candidate is beyond the minimum requirements for me comparitive to each other.

If you're someone whose going to make me groan more than cheer, whose going to be voting in favor of more damaging things in my mind than positive things, if you're someone who I just can't rightly feel correct in supporting...then I don't care if you're a 100% guarantee to win, you're not getting my vote. You're not getting my voice as a citizen stating "I support this person and what he chooses to vote for, because I'm giving him the ability to be my voice". If you will act and vote in a way that will leave me typically more happy than upset, but perhaps not AS happy as the other candidate would, but you're significantly more likely to win...Then yes, I'll cast a vote for you. But you have to get past that minimum threshold.
Click to expand...

In this case, I was assuming the second candidate met that threshold. Most Republican primary voters also find the candidate that doesn't quite fit their views acceptable to vote for in the general election. If more moderate Todd Latham were to beat conservative Steve King in the Iowa primary, most King voters would still vote for Latham.

So in this scenario assume the second candidate met the threshold that you would easily vote for them in the general election, even though they you don't agree with them as much as the first.
 
I vote against the incumbent. If there is no incumbent, I vote for the younger one provided he does not wear cuff links. People who wear cuff links are dandies, and I do not support dandy-ism.
 
I never have many choices to begin with when it comes to elections. It was pretty interesting though that in the last couple of presidential elections I had a choice between two people, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, but that isn't usually the case. In most elections I'm usually sitting there hating both candidates and I just decide not to vote in that given election. The reason for this is that I'm looking for someone that understands the problems the country actually faces and understands the basis of liberty in a free society. I never see that pretty much, sadly. Its all personal favors and statist crap from both sides that just makes me ill. You have the in denial fascist on the one side and in the denial planned economy socialist that denies that is a form of socialism on the other side. That is even taking into account they both have certain corporatist attitudes either. Just great, two douchebags that I hate with a passion that can't admit what they are. I either go with the douchebag that hates gays and wants to fight everyone on the planet, or I go with the douchebag that wants to control what I eat, limit my second amendment rights, and limit my property rights while making me pay for every other person on the planet. Great, just great. There is just nothing here to make it worth my while. I would rather kill myself than vote for one these two douchebags.
 
Henrin said:
I never have many choices to begin with when it comes to elections. It was pretty interesting though that in the last couple of presidential elections I had a choice between two people, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, but that isn't usually the case. In most elections I'm usually sitting there hating both candidates and I just decide not to vote in that given election. The reason for this is that I'm looking for someone that understands the problems the country actually faces and understands the basis of liberty in a free society. I never see that pretty much, sadly. Its all personal favors and statist crap from both sides that just makes me ill. You have the in denial fascist on the one side and in the denial planned economy socialist that denies that is a form of socialism on the other side. That is even taking into account they both have certain corporatist attitudes either. Just great, two douchebags that I hate with a passion that can't admit what they are. I either go with the douchebag that hates gays and wants to fight everyone on the planet, or I go with the douchebag that wants to control what I eat, limit my second amendment rights, and limit my property rights while making me pay for every other person on the planet. Great, just great. There is just nothing here to make it worth my while. I would rather kill myself than vote for one these two douchebags.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to wander in the maze when you can leave at any time?
 
haymarket said:
Why do you continue to wander in the maze when you can leave at any time?
Click to expand...

I would, but then I would have to attach myself to some other country where I never even get a glimpse of a good candidate/person. At least here there are still people that get it and sometimes those people show up to be voted on.
 
Fisher said:
I vote against the incumbent. If there is no incumbent, I vote for the younger one provided he does not wear cuff links. People who wear cuff links are dandies, and I do not support dandy-ism.
Click to expand...

How about elitist dandies? I always thought elitists and dandies were one and the same, many TPs seem of that opinion when deriding dems... ;)
 
Anagram said:
My question is then if you were deciding between two candidates which trait would you value more? Electability or ideological purity? Would you choose the candidate whose ideals were closest to your own, even if that candidate would have little chance of getting elected? Or would you go with the one who does not share all of your viewpoints, although they are closer than the main competitor, and has a much better chance of being elected? In general, which do you find more important in a candidate?
Click to expand...

I don't need a candidate whose ideals are close to mine I need one who is likely to get done what I need them to get done and they can't do any of that if they aren't first elected into office. So I would go with Electability over ideological purity.
 
notquiteright said:
How about elitist dandies? I always thought elitists and dandies were one and the same, many TPs seem of that opinion when deriding dems... ;)
Click to expand...

No. my Congressman is a cufflink wearing dandy and has been since long before he was a Member and he will let GOP, TP, or anybody else with cash in hand feel him up just as long as it keeps him in office I think.
 
Ideological purity...turns into "North Korea"...

I've asked the question: If all liberals could be somehow removed (and lets not get into how they would be removed)...or if all conservatives could same how be removed...is that a political culture that you would want to live in? A place that having diverse ideas...is not allowed...

I'm never ceased to be amazed at the number of people who believe that if everybody lived under the same political philosophies...that all our woes would disappear.
 
Anagram said:
In this case, I was assuming the second candidate met that threshold. Most Republican primary voters also find the candidate that doesn't quite fit their views acceptable to vote for in the general election. If more moderate Todd Latham were to beat conservative Steve King in the Iowa primary, most King voters would still vote for Latham.

So in this scenario assume the second candidate met the threshold that you would easily vote for them in the general election, even though they you don't agree with them as much as the first.
Click to expand...

Oh, as long as they met the threshold I'd definitely vote for them in the general regardless if they were my primary guy or not.

That said, depending on how close the electability is and how far the difference in ideology is, I may vote the other way in the primary though.

Let's go on a 1/10 scale, just for the hell of it (I know that's a bit tricky).

If there's Guy One in the primary that, on the issues important to me, is a 9 out of 10 but only a 4 out of 10 on electability

Then there's Guy Two in the primary that, on the issues important to me, is like a 7 out of 10 but he's probably a 6 out of 10 on electability.

I could probably go either way in that case in the primary, and would definitely vote for either in the regular.

Drop the issues rating for Guy Two down to 6 or less and I'm probably DEFINITELY voting for Guy One in the primary. Drop Guy One's electability to 3 or less and I'm definitely going for Guy Two. Increase Guy Two's electability, and it becomes a much more difficult decision to not go with him in the primary.

It's all kind of weighed against itself. It also assumes that the one with less electability is unlikely to win. In the above scenario, lets say Guy One's electability was a 6 out of 10 and Guy Two's was 9 out of 10. In that scenario, I'd ABSOLUTELY go for guy one. Why? Because he's more ideologically in line with me AND has a fair shot at being elected. The fact that Guy Two is a shoe in isn't worth it to me because the gamble on Guy One has good enough odds.

Granted, this is all hypothetical with hypothetical numbers...but I think it should highlight how, for me at least, there's not a static answer. It all relates against each other.

But absolutely...as long as the candidate reaches my minimum requirements to feel that I can, in good faith, cast my vote stating that person speaks with my voice in government then they'll get my vote regardless to whether I voted them in the primary or not.
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh, as long as they met the threshold I'd definitely vote for them in the general regardless if they were my primary guy or not.

That said, depending on how close the electability is and how far the difference in ideology is, I may vote the other way in the primary though.

Let's go on a 1/10 scale, just for the hell of it (I know that's a bit tricky).

If there's Guy One in the primary that, on the issues important to me, is a 9 out of 10 but only a 4 out of 10 on electability

Then there's Guy Two in the primary that, on the issues important to me, is like a 7 out of 10 but he's probably a 6 out of 10 on electability.

I could probably go either way in that case in the primary, and would definitely vote for either in the regular.

Drop the issues rating for Guy Two down to 6 or less and I'm probably DEFINITELY voting for Guy One in the primary. Drop Guy One's electability to 3 or less and I'm definitely going for Guy Two. Increase Guy Two's electability, and it becomes a much more difficult decision to not go with him in the primary.

It's all kind of weighed against itself. It also assumes that the one with less electability is unlikely to win. In the above scenario, lets say Guy One's electability was a 6 out of 10 and Guy Two's was 9 out of 10. In that scenario, I'd ABSOLUTELY go for guy one. Why? Because he's more ideologically in line with me AND has a fair shot at being elected. The fact that Guy Two is a shoe in isn't worth it to me because the gamble on Guy One has good enough odds.

Granted, this is all hypothetical with hypothetical numbers...but I think it should highlight how, for me at least, there's not a static answer. It all relates against each other.

But absolutely...as long as the candidate reaches my minimum requirements to feel that I can, in good faith, cast my vote stating that person speaks with my voice in government then they'll get my vote regardless to whether I voted them in the primary or not.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity...who will always control the thresholds?

As I see it, in a Republic form of government...there can't be an ideological purity.
 
Fisher said:
No. my Congressman is a cufflink wearing dandy and has been since long before he was a Member and he will let GOP, TP, or anybody else with cash in hand feel him up just as long as it keeps him in office I think.
Click to expand...

Ummm what does all the last part have to do with elitist? The elite can be money grubbing whores, they just dress and justify it better. might be I have a different angle to target but I see elitist dandies like Willard dressing down to move among the people. The Carhart so clean and stiff because it is brand new and never was or will be in his closet.

Of course he isn't the only elitist dandy, just the one that quickly came to mind. Just seems to me every elitist I have seen sure looks like a dandy to me.

I'm sure there are exceptions that prove the rule... :peace
 
Removable Mind said:
Out of curiosity...who will always control the thresholds?

As I see it, in a Republic form of government...there can't be an ideological purity.
Click to expand...

Ultimately the threshold is for each individual person. All I can really speak about is for myself. I don't expect ideological purity, but I at least expect solid ideological identity on the majority of things most important to me if you want to get my vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom