How you select primary candidates to vote for

Obviously they all help a candidate. But the ones that you really think matter the most to you personally. Don't vote the ones you honestly don't consider very important in how you decide who you vote for, if you really had to choose.

I voted 3 options.

Has executive experience. Preferably a Governor or Cabinet Secretary - and as Cabinet Secretary that can even mean at the State (or sometimes even City) level - but the higher up the better. This one isn't my most important one. It comes as my 3rd option.

Shares my political ideology. This one is a must.

Shares my religious belief. This one is very important. They do not necessarily have to match my exact religious beliefs. However, there are some religions I wouldn't vote for a candidate if they were that.

The political ideology I think would be the most important - as long as the candidate isn't an evil religion. Otherwise I'd put the religious belief above that.

The one who has the greatest combination of ideological compatibility, experience, and electability.

Anagram said:

The one who has the greatest combination of ideological compatibility, experience, and electability.

Click to expand...

You wrote that before I could add the poll questions to this thread. You can vote in that now if you want.

I feel like on this board it will be a lot based on political ideology. For most though it is simply who has the best chance at winning/ the biggest name. Most people on this board take the time to actually indulge in the process and do things the right way (being informed, getting involved, etc.) most people could care less then wonder why there is ineptitude elected to federal offices (from both parties) .

I usually look at who agrees with me, then then I look at who is the most electable person who agrees with me the most and I vote for that person. I think part of what makes a person "electable" is that they have a credible claim on the office they are seeking in the sense that a governor with executive experience would arguably have a more legitimate claim on the experience necessary to be president than say a mere house member, but I also believe that they need to be somebody who can appeal enough to the 5-10% of pure swing voters to win an election.

I think that for those of us on the right there are basically two competing theories about what politics fundamentally is. One side says it is all about trying to get the base out to vote and beating the other guy by running up the scoreboard, and that there are enough people in the conservative/libertarian base to be able to defeat Democrats so we might as well nominate the most conservative candidate possible, because if we don't base people will stay home or vote third party. The other side says that base conservatives will almost always end up voting for the Republican candidate because at the 11th hour most of them will still begrudgingly do what it takes to keep a Democrat from being elected, and that politics is really about a small fraction of fickle swing voters in the dead center, who make up maybe 5-10% of the electorate at the most, but who nonetheless hold disproportionate power in who is elected since many of them reside in swing states. Accordingly the Republicans must nominate somebody who can appeal to their concerns. I am firmly in the second camp.

Ideology/issues is far and away the most important thing for me. If there isn't sufficient agreement there, I just can't support a candidate - in the primaries or the general election. Now let me also say, that goes beyond just campaign rhetoric. I want to see a track record that supports positions or stances that I support.

Electability is probably next. I'm willing to compromise in the name of electability to a certain extent. For example, let's say candidate A is my dream candidate. He agrees with me 100% on every issue, but because some of our stances are outside the mainstream, he has little to no chance of winning a primary or a general election. Candidate B has the same general philosophy as me, but doesn't go as far as I might like. But those moderated views make him more electable and a better bet in the general election. I would support Candidate B, as he would represent a move in the right direction. I'd even support a candidate who disagreed with me on a handful of secondary or tertiary positions, if we agreed on the biggies and he had the best chance of winning a general election. However, I refuse to back someone purely because he can beat the other guy. Beating the other guy doesn't matter if you don't get someone in office who actually represents your views in some way, shape or form.

Experience matters to me as well. High offices are not the place for on the job training. I definitely had an issue with Obama's thin resume. But I will admit I support Rand Paul right now among the main GOP hopefuls and he has a similarly thin resume. The reason is that Paul is just about the only candidate who closely lines up with my ideology. If I had other options, I would probably go with them. In fact, part of me thinks Paul might be best served by finishing a strong second or third this time around and running again in either 2020 or 2024 depending on how '16 turns out.

The rest are pretty much fluff. I don't really candidate's religion, unless it starts to affect his policy positions. Intelligence is nice, and I certainly would prefer for my candidate to not come across like a moron, but for the most part any who got far enough to be a serious candidate is probably bright enough to handle the job. Being the smartest guy in the room isn't necessarily the same as being the best guy for the job. Likeability, eh. As long as he gets the job done, that's my main concern. And I don't give a crap about looks.