In a Presidential Election, Is it the Candidate or the Party that is Most Important?

I generally vote Democrat, but wil not vote for that fraud Obama, I think McCain ismore mainstream and much more experienced

Linda,

Thanks for the comment.

McCain is definitely more experienced. Probably too old and infirm for me though.

I am not sure about the mainstream question.

I suspect that most Americans feel that the Iraq war has gone on long enough.

While polls show most Americans are in favor of more drilling, I suspect that most Americans would also believe that Exxon Mobil should have some tax consequence for posting a $10 billion windfall profit while regular Americans are feeling the pain every time they buy their gas.

And most Americans are ready to adopt conservation, support rapid transit, support environmental progress and dealing with Global Warming.

And most Americans, like you or I, are not multi-millionaires that own 9 homes, while being unable to even get online or 'Google'.

So no, I don't think McCain is more mainstream.

Selene,

The person is very important.

But on things like Supreme Court appointments, and working with Congress, have you noticed how the political parties vote almost completely in 'unison'!

While I don't support that kind of activity, it is a reality that we all need to come to grips with.

" I would like to propose that Presidential Candidates while important are probably less consequential than the political party which they represent.
~
Thus, it would appear to me that the media, seeking to make these campaigns very personal, fail to see the underlying powere shifts that party policy dictates.

~@~

I hope my fellow Americans realize that Senator John McCain's "flip-flopping" on this issue occurred in the same twenty-four hour news cycle as President Bush's announcement of his lifting the ban on Offshore Drilling Leases. If this issue doesn't reveal how closely McCain and Bush work in tandem on policy matters, I don't know what will.

Senator John McCain reversed his policy stance under orders of the President. He tries to claim he's a maverick who blazes his own trail yet, he completely reversed his stance on Offshore Drilling at the behest of President Bush. In a concerted effort, the Republican Congress joined with Senator John McCain's campaign bid for the Presidency when President Bush manipulated the campaign by injecting this issue as a political tool against the Democrats.

The Republicans fully understood no actions would be taken on Energy policy before this break. They simply wanted to create the appearance that Democrats are not concerned with the price of gas at the pump.

I can only surmise that Senator McCain was pressured into this "flip-flopping" on this issue for the good of the Republican Party heading into the election season.

That's not a sign of Leadership if you ask me.

While I would focus on the individual, your point is right on as far as which political party is elected along with the candidate. I agree that McCain is much more mainstream than the junior democrat candidate, and definitely carries more knowledge and experience with him. I don't agree that most Americans feel the Iraq war has gone on long enough. Nobody wants war. But let these guys complete the mission they set out to do. It takes time with so many factions involved. And McCain flips as much as Obama flops. Everybody is entitled to change a viewpoint as situations change. And I'm glad some seem to give President Bush such great power as to be able to manipulate people's stances on energy. Nothing better than a lame duck still weilding that type of power.

Cathi,

I am not sure that McCain is more mainstream.

But regarding the Iraq War. Let's take a look at the results from the latest USA Today/Gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109165/Nearly-Half-US-Adults-Now-Applaud-Iraq-Surge.aspx''

Those findings show that the surge is now almost evenly split, except that more Americans are opposed to it:

"The net result is that, for the first time, Americans are about evenly divided in their overall assessments of the surge: 48% say it is making the situation better while a combined 49% indicate it is not.

Although this balance of views is still not highly positive, it is more of an endorsement of the surge than what Gallup has previously found. The very first reading, from July 2007, was the most negative, when half of Americans (51%) believed the surge was having no impact and as many said it was making matters worse as said it was improving things.

Since then, the percentage crediting the surge with making things better has gradually come up and the percentage saying it is having no impact has gone down. There has been less change in the percentage blaming the surge for creating more problems, varying within an 8-point range from 25% to 17%."

But overall, the latest poll still shows that most Americans view the Iraq war as a mistake.

"The 56% saying the war is a mistake in the July 25-27 poll is similar to the 60% of last month and 59% in February. In fact, despite some fluctuation, views on this question have not changed substantively for the past 18 months."

Or as Gallup summarizes:

"The 56% saying the war is a mistake in the July 25-27 poll is similar to the 60% of last month and 59% in February. In fact, despite some fluctuation, views on this question have not changed substantively for the past 18 months."

So I would concede that Americans show more support to view that the 'surge' was successful, but still feel that the war was a mistake.

Robert F.,
I focus more on the individual than the party. I appreciate your view that votes in DC are now going down party lines more than in the past. I think that has more to do with how the media portray things, I believe they look for conflict rather than overall actions. AS a simple test of all the votes in Congress how many do you feel make the media spot light? It would be interesting if there were some way to determine how the party line votes today say compare to the party line votes of the 30s or 40s or an decade.

AS for mainstream versus polls; it seems that mainstream has more of constancy to it over time, the broader population will turn to certain values or perceptions on multiple issues while polls are more transitory and are narrowly focused. Just as you say the polls show people want the war to be over and yet have the impression that simple withdrawal doesn’t have that same broad support.

While you consider McCain “Probably too old and infirm for me though.”, most people find that the older we are the less mercurial we tend to react and more tempered or thoughtful we have become and considerate of others. To be truthful, I don’t expect any new ideas from either candidate, I expect them to select the better ideas presented to them and to properly support those ideas.

As much as we all want to have a minimal impact on the environment (and both candidates espouse that view), the willingness to accept the reality that by ignoring/denying drilling for oil (with today’s technology) is pacing more of a burden on people in this transition to less traditional energy sources. The “old and infirm” candidate seems to have grasped that concept much quicker and is more willing to adapt to the public needs quicker and more decisively than the younger one.

A couple pints of information, in my small town (with a unemployment rate greater than the state of Mich) anyone can get online and “Google” (the library has free access for a couple of dozen at a time) so in this country the vast majority can get on line. You seem so concerned about Exxon’s profits of over $11billion, if you consider the Exxon rate of return windfall profits then you must consider current 30 year mortgage rates usury.

Thank you, Robert. I understand the polls and percentages reflect what you have stated. But my view comes from the military side. Realize the divide between civilians and military in this country is growing greater and greater, almost to the point of two separate civilizations within one country. Does Gallup do a poll of the general population? Or include an equal balance between active military and civilian? I already know the answer to that, no. I firmly believe that information coming from the ground is more valid than information available through newspapers, news programs and blogs. So much of the information regarding this war does not make headlines, much less back page articles. I've seen a dire attempt to get that information out there and apparently it is having some success.

Also, Americans, IMHO, have short memories and little patience! I understand all of the above are based on my own opinion, but we have lived so many different places!

"More mainstream. "

Define mainstream. Looks more like us, the white majority. If so yes McCain is the guy. Mainstream is being used in this campaign as common. Commonality is being understood as more like the majority of voters, the US population (i.e. White). Commonality in the people who held the office in the past. All US presidents so far look a certain way.

Other than that, on the issues how is McCain more mainstream? The only issue the "mainstream" agrees with McCain more so than Obama is drill or no drill. And its formulation is flawed. Of course at $4 a gallon the "mainstream" would invite oil companies to drill on their backyard if they thought there was oil there.

If there were someone in the middle, I would vote for them, but McCain is already there.

In a sense, it is about the political parties, and their platforms. It will be interesting how the platforms change this year at the conventions.

The Republican party going left, and the Democratic party going, what?

Lefter? Right of left? You're right, Tim. It's not a simple answer.

Robert F said:
"Thus, it would appear to me that the media, seeking to make these campaigns very personal, fail to see the underlying powere shifts that party policy dictates. "

I don't think the media fails to see anything regarding what's important or not in reporting presidential politics. It's simply not what drives them in deciding what to report. They're after ratings. They'd much rather talk about comparatively inconsequential things between the candidates that have NOTHING to do with issues, because issues don't drive ratings.

In our "reality TV" culture, what DOES drive ratings is semi-presidential news. There was a story that pet owners prefer McCain. Seriously? Is that the best you can do? There was a HUGE media frenzy over Obama's "fist bump" with his wife after a speech. VERY little coverage on the speech itself - we wouldn't want to cover substance because the public quickly gets bored with substance! We want to cover McCain's wife and whether that was really her cookie recipe or not, because obviously that's what makes her husband qualified or not for the office.

The media isn't "missing" something - they're just not motivated by what you seem to assume they are motivated by. "Trash" news drives ratings. Ratings drive advertising. Advertising = revenues. It's as simple as that.

Totally candidate for me! I am not loyal to any party. I choose who I feel is best for the job!

The candidate is most important. I like many Democratic ideas and Bill Clinton made a great president. On the other hand John F.Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Obama were losers. All too inexperienced to do the job. Kennedy left us with the mess in Vietnam; Jimmy Carter didn't know what to do about inflation, the oil embargo or the hostage situation in Iran. His campaignand his ideas were almost identical to Obama's. Why do we want to make that mistake again?

The best president in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan. I voted for him twice.

Obama has no qualifications for the job for which he seeks. I can't image how he got so far so fast when he has bad connections with people like Reverend Write and Ludacrous and William Ayers and his wife, Michelle , is not proud to be an American.

I am proud to be an American and john McCain deserves the presidency because he has the qualifications and because he defended his country and because he is proud to an American.

Mary Ann,

I can't agree with Reagan, I voted against him twice. Far right, or far left, it makes no difference. Both are bad for the country.

Mary Ann,
As much as I agree with what you said. I have to temper it with my view of reality. Your points about defending our country and be prooud to be an American just don;t fit into the vaules of the major media outlets isssues of importance. A willingness of a person to risk their all in the service of this country or the fact that they take pride in this country independent of what they get from the country just doesn;t show well on the evening news. They want to the cnadidate/President to reflect themselves in appearance, in articulation, and then in their political views.

Tim N.,
I agree that the extremes are the riskiest of any thing whether it be what you eat, waht you do, and what you believe.

I wonder what your examples of the extremes politically are. Is Reagan your example of the extreme right, if not who? What/who is yuor example of the extreme left (please us an American example)?

Well I think recent history mostly agrees with you about how Republicans vote, but I feel that is not the case with the Democratic party; an issue that I feel is actually the downfall of the Democrats as a whole, which has led to the elections of such poor leaders.
It seems that the Republicans in general will vote within their party, but Democrats aren't that loyal. I notice that quite a few Hillary supporters have decided NOT to back Obama despite their similar policies and are choosing NOT to vote in this election. I find that when generally speaking about the Democratic party there are many small special interest groups who for one reason or another feel that their minority should take the precedence of the entire party. In believing this, they are just harming themselves. If we could all get together and form these smaller special interest groups into one solid Democratic party, we might actually get something done in Washington.
As for me, I am going to vote Democrat in this election. Which means, I say YAY for Obama, despite my earlier loyalties to Mrs. Clinton.

Duane B.

Paul Wellstone used to joke that he represented the liberal wing of the Democratic party, but even he upset the far left base (the people who never run for anything as a candidate, but just blog about Democratic party traitors).

The number of far left in government is really not the issue, government goes forward on compromise. The group I'm interested in is the moderates, which were 25% of Congress in the 70's.

Tim N.,
I keep hearing about liberals and conservatives, the extremes of either, and moderates or centrists. I am simply curiuos what they might be.
If Reagan is one end of the spectrum and I am looking to see what the other end is.

I have some baseline guideposts that I start from when assesing an idea or point of view. Though I live in the grey, so none are hard and fast. I am just curious how I fit into the spectrum.

I have had limited contact with people in governemnt at each level. But what I have found it that they are trying to do a good job and only adjust their focus based on what the politicals in power are pushing. In fact I have found those in governement willing to adjust based on the information presented even if it isn't aligned with the current agenda of the politicians.

Since I see that there are functions that arebest done by governemntal agencies so the Libertrian view (no govenrment) moves to end of the spectrum to me. I believe that the right to freedom of choice brings with it the responsibility and accountiblity of the person making th echoice. Those that feel no one be able to choose badly and that the government should provide for all of their needs is at the other end of the spectrum.

I am interxsted who you feel is the an example of the other extreme from Reagan.

Sarah,
I like the idea of each party being made up of small interst groups. Whenever one of those interst groups become the dominate we seem to get in more trouble. Though the Republicans for the last few years have lost any sense of party or even individual interest group prirorities.

Duane,

The libertarian vs anti-libertarian is not a good structure to describe politics in the United States. These ideas are not mainstream, though pro choice people wants everyone to believe that abortion is a libertarian issue.

Capitalism might be a better model. Reagan would be pro capitalism, and maybe the protectionists are on the other side. The problem with this model is that both parties have made attempts at protectionism over the years. Maybe this is another dead end.

What we are left with is probably partisans. Find the politician that opposes everything the Republican party is in favor of doing, just because they are doing it, with no regard to merit, and that politician would be the farthest left.

I think some bloggers fit that bill too.

Tim N.,
I am just trying to get some point of reference, I am not looking for any hard and fast definition. When someone uses the shorthand of "conservative", "neo-con", "liberal", or "moderate"/"centrist" to frame their comments, I am trying to get a gage of what they are trying to tell me.
Do you have an example of somone that is the antithesis of Reagan? Limiting the choices would Congressperson Pelosi be a fair example?

Candidate. Too bad the Republicans picked a lemon this time. (OOPS, I mean AGAIN!)

Want to help shape the conservative agenda?

Creating A Conservative Candidate Platform For The Next Election!
No person’s insistence of an idea makes it engaging until it meets with some approval and scrutiny of their peers. This discussion is an attempt to form an organization that can develop a plan with merit that without doubt, each issue has a in-depth discussion to seek the middle and the importance of this requires professionals in each area of expertise to validate the thought process, through their professional opinion or scrutiny with a description of that opinion or scrutiny. Adding additional nuances that improve on the original intent is commendable. This attempt to build an organization is to help insure like-minded people who are willing to become part of this organizational team, will have a venue to help further the agenda , which will design a complete platform for any conservative candidate, that we can all support.

This is a format for in depth consideration of collective ideas and not for complaints from opposing party affiliations about the issues being discussed in this forum. To start the discussion I have provided eleven issues, which is not to say that there are not more, it just means I have put together 11-and would like to begin the discussion there, one issue at a time and see where it leads. Due to the length of the material it must be placed in blog format. If you would like to contribute, you can do so on the blog or, in the LinkedIn format. But each time you contribute, define the topic and then contribute with your opinion.
The eleven issues are:

1. Political:
2. Economics
3. Legal
4. Accounting
5. Military
6. Medical
7. Social economic
8. Scientific
9. Education
10. Movement Planning
11. Productivity

Please review the information for the beginning of our group movement here: http://davidtippie.blogspot.com/2009/12/creating-conservative-candidate.html
And welcome!

Can I nominate Palin?