So do you vote on a candidate's record, rhetoric (futurity), personality (futurity), positions,

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

or a combination?

This, I imagine, is THE question for both parties.

I don't want to make this a loaded question, so I won't add definitions to each category (oh, I so mistrust myself).

Or, to give you utilitarians out there an option, is it a simple matter of winability?

[illinoisprogressive]

1. all of them. They are all vital and important

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

2. Well, yeah, they are all vital and important, but I'm looking for some guidance here.

I mean, this is what they primaries come down to, right? Or even the general election (cue Nader).

Clinton?

Edwards?

Richardson?

Kucinich?

Obama?

Biden?


Although I realize all are taken into account, there has to be one or two or three aspects one weighs more than others.

[napi21]

3. I'm not quite sure what your question is, but let me try to answer what I

think your asking.

When I watch and listen to all the candidates, I look first for apparent ability to do the job. Some are good, nice, kind, and lots of other attributes, but simply don't display the ability to do the job.

Then I listen to what they say and what their statements mean overall. (Hawk, dove, people person, business person.)

Then I watch for differences that show leadership over the others.

Right now, there are two candidates that fit MY critiera. Clinton & Biden.

We'll see how the rest of the public thinks and if I'm just the weirdo!

[blm]

12. How was that leadership demonstrated to your satisfaction over these Bush years

when we only saw a handful of Democrats step up to oppose Bush publicly on all the serious matters from 2001-2006?

And those Dems who were leading and opposing Bush publicly were also taking almost all the hits from the WH and the corpmedia for doing so. And with little or no back up from other Democrats too timid to take those hits.

[windy252]

4. I vote for candidates based on their record,

whether I think they've done a good job and how much they appear to listen to their constituents and how close their positions are to mine.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. I Say Ability To Lead And The Capability To Logically Deduce The Best Outcome Within A Plethora Of

different situations.

That's all I care about. Strength and strong reasoning/deduction skills.

[jobycom]

6. First and foremost, on whether I think the candidate has the experience to do the job.

I only notice rhetoric and position in how they affect voters, since the candidates craft every position to make the most voters happy and to position themselves closer to the middle than the opposition. Rhetoric and position have nothing to do with what a president can or will do. An inexperienced candidate with strong ideals will help the opposition more than his or own side.

Naturally, that's assuming the candidate is liberal.

Between two candidates who both seem to have the ability and experience, I look for signs of leadership, and proof that the candidate's ideology has some depth to it--in other words, do the candidate's economic, social, foreign, environmental, and human rights policies all seem interrelated and cohesive, or is the candidate just borrowing policies here and there to sound liberal? A liberal ideology isn't just a group of positions, it is a complete way of viewing the world, and I want to see that the candidate has a thorough grasp of it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I'm generally a "lesser of two evils" voter, unless my nose refuses the punishment.

I consider most politicians as menaces society and humanity. However, most of society being convinced that it must have "leaders", in most cases, I'll pick the one that is likely to do the least harm.

History, and experience, have more than convinced me that expecting "leaders" of almost any kind to "do good" is an exercise in futility. And, "trusting" politicians is more than foolish, it's irresponsible.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[Augdog20]

8. Don't forget to weigh the records

Take Rudy Giuliani, for example. Today, he is more socially conservative; six years ago he was clearly more liberal.
Ditto for Mitt Romney.
Take a look at this expose of Giuliani:
The June 14, 2007 Rolling Stone has a stinging article by Matt Taibbi on Rudy Giuliani’s 9/11 failures and his profiting from the disaster! He raced to get lower Manhattan and Wall Street back in business ; and now the cleanup people from the World Trade Center site are getting sick and dying early from cancer.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14952564/giuliani_worse_than_bush

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. I don't need to in the case of Republicans. They always qualify as the "greater evil".

However, all to often, the Democrats manage, in their quest for the mythical "middle", run an evil that approaches the Republican.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi Augdog20!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MH1]

9. Likelihood that, if elected, they would actually effect the kind of changes I want.

Components of everything you mention go into that assessment, but record and values are most important.

Okay, personality really doesn't go into it, except that it will have affected the person's record through ability to actually get things done in the past.

[porphyrian]

13. For me, every Presidential election has been a choice of which shit sandwich to bite.

Of course, people hear that and want to argue about degrees, but a shit sandwich is a shit sandwich. I want someone to represent me, my values, my priorities, but I'm always trumped by the status quo and corporate interests. I know many people who feel the same way, and that's the reason they give for not voting at all.