Cults (plural) of personality

He told me in quite plain langage that he admired McCain’s stance on abortion, energy and the war, among other issues of the day. This is all well and good, but I’ll confess I was still left wondering why he had been supporting Democrats all these years, and Hillary Clinton specifically this season. It really sounds as if McCain would have been a far better fit for him than Clinton right from the beginning.

You and I both, apparently. See my comment on your previous thread.

Noted, and I didn't disagree with you there, either. :-)

Excellent post Jazz. That's exactly what I was trying to get at with this comment.

I think it all comes down to basic consumer buying behavior. Why do some people buy lousy products and some buy great products, everything else being equal? It's because every person uses different criteria for making decisions that put weight on seemingly irrelevant features (at least to a third party looking at the decision).

There are four types of buying behaviors. Risk Averse, Amiables, Analyticals and Doers.

Some people are risk averse and use that aversion as the basis for making the decision. For those people its the risk of four more years of the same vs the national security protections that a McCain implies. In the case of Salazar, I suspect that that national security risk aversion led him to McCain, because McCain's positions on immigration, the economy etc are so contrary to the standard Democratic position. I think you will find that risk averse voters who are afraid for their jobs, the environment and their economic future shy away from McCain and will tend to be for Obama. In light of this It is not surprising that a retired manager would support McCain.

Other people make buying decisions based on who they like as a person. These people (called Amiables) will primarily use the recommendations of friends to make those decisions. Actual policy positions are almost irrelevant, it is group think that drives the decision. Capture a certain demographic (ie youth vote) and you get a majority of the group who thinks that way. Getting this type of buyer to move in a certain direction can be tough, because you need to tap into a social network. The brilliance of the Obama campaign is in using the internet to access these types of buyers. The problem that the McCain campaign has is that the strongest Republican demographic to fit this category (Evangelical voters) are at risk of not showing up this year. McCain's VP selection could really determine if he loses the social networked buyers that have been historically part of the Republican base.

What is funny is when a candidate attempts to appeal to amiable buyers by doing something out of charactor that is clearly phoney in order to show a sharing of similarities. Like if you were to see Obama going duck hunting. Or McCain at a rock concert (except for ABBA).


Only a small segment of the population are analytical buyers. Very few people analyze a situation to make buying decisions. If you want to know why people vote against their own best economic interest, this is the reason. Politicians who quote long policy positions and expect to win based on their views are only targeting a small segment of the population. Certainly a voter could point to a candidates views as the basis for their decision, but that is most usually smoke and mirrors. Silverio Salazar, in Jazz's prior post is a great example. It is clear that security is the key hot button for him and his national security risk concerns are paramount. The policy issues held by McCain (or Obama) are not specfically ennuciated-he just states that he liked them. I doubt he has a full comprehension or the nuances of those positions and how likely they are going to ever materialize. They just become an easy smoke screen.

The final buying style are doers---By definition they have already made their decision.

What is hilarious are those pundits who knock Obama for his supposedly "short" list of policy positions. Aside from the discussion of whether or not that is true, the reality is that most voters do not base their decisions on a long list of policy positions. It may be used as an excuse to rationalize a decision, but that is it.

The decision is actually alot simpler than that.

The polls are irrelevant primarily because the two biggest demographics that haven't made decisions (Amiables and Risk Averse buyers), tend to be the last to decide. Since Amiables use decision criteria that is already in the works and cannot be changed by the candidates, the only group at play are Risk Averse buyers.

This is why negative campaigning works. Expect alot of it as these campaigns work over the risk averse voters that are in play.

At its best it will be 4 more years of McBush vs the inexperienced Obama.

At its worst it will be the big bad black extremist who you can't trust vs. the early Alzheimers patient who can't keep track of how many kitchens he owns.

Very interesting analysis, joep. I'm going to have to think about that one for a while.

What is hilarious are those pundits who knock Obama for his supposedly "short" list of policy positions.

Supposedly is the key word. The policy section of his website seems far more comprehensive than McCain's.

Great comment joep.

One other thing to recognize is that everyone has a dominant and passive buying trait. For example, I am an amiable analytical. I will make my decision based on an analysis and after I have an idea of what I want, I will buy someone I like if they meet that criteria.

When do political "arguments" happen? It's easy. You're an analytical buyer who is trying to convince your risk averse uncle why he should vote for Obama. You throw all of the "logical" policy arguments at him and it doesn't make a dent. You get frustrated and the discussion blows up. If instead you showed how risky the other candidate is based on their terms, then you can turn him. McCain is hot headed and likely to press the button (he so hot-headed that most Senators can't stand him), McCain goes around singing "bomb Iran", McCain's advisors are paid lobbyists of foreign countries that do their bidding. McCain is out of touch and unable to make a sound decision. No policy discussion because once you go there you get glossy eyes.

The unfortunate thing is that most people can only base risk on a personal level based on their own experiences. This is why politics is a gutter game, because it is fought in the trenches by people who really care to motivate people who don't.

Off topic for a moment here, but I saw Living Colour back in the 80s near Detroit. They put on a heck of a good concert! If my memory serves me, they were opening for the Stones on their Steel Wheels tour... we thought they were getting pretty ancient at the time, but they also put on a heck of the concert. OK, back to your regular program...

I was a Hillary supporter and now I am supporting McCain. I just think Obama does not have the experience to lead our country. I think he and his campaign crapped all over Hillary and her supporters. Obama does not just automatically get my vote after that. I had always said that McCain was the one Republican I could stomache voting for and that's what it will be. This will be my first vote for a Republican but according to the Obama supporters I was just faking being a Democrat for the last 15 years.

So am I picking a personality over issues? I don't think so. I think there's more to it than that.

Also I think it's worth noting that Biden is everything Obama held against Hillary. He voted for the war and he is a Washington insider. I guess the change mantra and Iraq pullout now goes out the window. And why is no one talking about the war anymore? Do you think they will even bring it up at the convention. Ack. I'm rambling.

Big Mac! [tm] Dynamic, energetic, powerful, transformative...

OK, back to the design center.

As for the sales analogy or metaphor: The GOP "brand," as is widely said, is old, dead, tired, and unappealing. As I've said, it's the GOP's as well as McCain's basic problem. There is no positive, attractive alternative that people want to "buy." It's simply a matter of it being normally less defective and unappealing than the Dem brand.

Hey, boudica, I think people are not talking about the war anymore, because Iraq is repeatedly demanding we leave by 2011 and even the Bush administration seems to be working themselves up to it. So Obama's timetable for withdrawal was already mid to late 2010. In the end, you are just left with a few months difference, and that's not going to cause a huge fight. The only things left are then 1) the size of the remaining training forces and bases after 2011, and 2) who made the right judgments in the past. That boils down to 1) the original decision to go and 2) the decision on the Surge.

I'm wondering what exact sorts of policies you liked about Clinton that McCain shares, which Obama does not? The reasons you mention in your comment are all personal/character: Obama doesn't have experience and was mean to Hillary. After all, if McCain uses his experience to crush Clinton's policy positions....

(By the way, if people respond to your comment, you may get attacked by some. I hope you will try to ignore that and respond back, as I'm genuinely interested.)

I was a Hillary supporter and now I am supporting McCain. I just think Obama does not have the experience to lead our country. I think he and his campaign crapped all over Hillary and her supporters

This is what we call rationalizing.

boudica, while it's true that Biden voted for the war resolution, he, unlike Clinton, has since said his vote was a mistake. Clinton never did that. As for Biden being a Washington insider, there's no doubt about that. However, except for the plagiarism problem (a mistake for which he admitted, apologized for, and never repeated, and which occurred 20 years ago -- back when Obama was snorting coke and well before the Clintons ever got to Washington), he has a clean record. I'm afraid the same can't be said about the Clintons.

It could be argued that except for the Lewinsky incident, none of the charges stuck -- and that was about Bill not Hillary. Nonetheless, it can't be denied that Bill and Hillary come as a package (and without him Hillary's own resume is pretty thin). So you know all the old charges would resurface -- travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, the various scandals associated with cabinet members, and of course Lewinsky and the rest of the bimbo brigade. I hate to sound like Sil, but this February Vanity Fair reported concerns that maybe Bill hasn't been entirely faithful to Hill in recent years. If more women came forward during the campaign it would torpedo her chances.

Speaking of rambling... lol! Anyway, the point is, whatever experience Hillary brings to the table it comes with considerable baggage.

So, let me get this straight- a bunch of white democrats would rather vote for a white guy who opposes them on nearly every issue over a black guy who agrees with them on nearly every issue, and we're really asking what the subtext is here? Seriously?

Well after considering this I have to admit that it is about personality not policy. I can't and won't support Obama though. He does not have the experience to be President. He is a great big pander bear. He is a flip flopping flip flopper. He is condescending and pretentious. He is sexist. I just flat out don't like him.

His present votes bother me. His "bitter" comment bothered me. His church's philosophy bothered me. I honestly don't think he even likes our country. I think his candidacy is all about personal aggrandizement not about serving our country. His socialist leanings worry me.

So the question is do I vote third party, stay home, write in Hillary or vote for McCain.

I'm not white but you find me out I'm a big racist. My problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin and everything to do with the content of his character.

boudica,

If you want to claim to be a Democrat you have some problems. Unfortunately all of your claims about Obama's characters are falsehoods. Out and out lies. Show us where Obama did or said anything sexist. Show where he actually made a complete 180 degree turn on an issue. Tell me what socialist leanings he has that were not shared by Senator Clinton. In other words, if you're going to make horrendous accusations against Senator Obamba, PROVE IT!!

I am just so sick of hearing this kind of stuff from the PUMAs or people who claim that's what they are. Especially when they claim to be Democrats of such long standing and then their entire post reads like the daily dose of Limbaugh, Hannity and the RNC. The socialist line really breaks it open, BTW. Somehow I never heard an actual Democrat accuse another one of being a socialist. Ever. Yet what word shows up in your post?

Boudica, I was responding to the post- not to you or your comment. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your problems with Obama.

Jim Satterfield -

Sexist - calling a reporter sweety, saying Hillary "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

180 degree turn - saying he wouldn't run for President when he won his Senate seat, accepting public campaign financing, FISA,

Socialist - “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and oganizations.”

I'm no longer a Democrat. I now consider myself an independent or a reasonable if there only were such a party.

rufus - It just seems to be a common refrain that if you have any objection to Obama, well you must be racist. Like there is no other reason a person could have to not support Obama.

Boudica--

Instead of attacking just Obama, why don't you tell us what's good about McCain?

Make a positive case.

Sexist - calling a reporter sweety, saying Hillary "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

Pretty f'ing weak there. Come back when you got some real dirt.

180 degree turn - saying he wouldn't run for President when he won his Senate seat, accepting public campaign financing, FISA

I'll grant you FISA and the Senate thing...

Socialist - “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and oganizations.”

This is truly asinine. By this definition supporting ANY part of government is socialist.

Sorry ChrisWWW - I tried. I still think he's sexist. Calling the reporter sweety was condescending and the Hillary thing was definately belittling.

Maybe the socialist thing was pushing. I do think his idea of change will be to make the country more socialist and I don't think that's a good thing.

Boudica, I for one thank you for posting what you really think. I've been perplexed as others on this site about the lack of support for Obama by former Clinton supporters. I suspected that a lot of it was personality, but people like Holly have really only been able to repeat one sentence montra's about Obama not being qualified/competent.

I also think that you are perfectly valid for feeling the way you do. I might disagree with you on some aspects and maybe on the overall assessment, but I disagree with a lot of people about their various beliefs and choices. I don't think that you should be attacked for being wrong-headed or incorrect in your decisionmaking process. You don't like Obama, fair enough. Nothing anyone says on this site is going to make you change your mind, I think.

That's it? Two questionable instances where he had a bad choice of words? You were making it sound like a veritable flood of sexist vitriol. You'd better come up with more than that to justify the kind of reaction that the PUMA types have had.

And words just fail me if thinking that there are some things we just need to work together on makes someone a socialist. That kind of attitude is just plain nuts.

George Sorwell - Vote for McCain - he's not Obama. lol. Okay seriously, he is willing to cross party lines and take the unpopular stance if he thinks it's the right thing. A definate positive in my book. McCain is definately the more experienced candidate, another good thing. That's all I have for tonight. I'm really not a rah rah McCain supporter. I just think he's the better choice of the two. Maybe I'll just vote for Nadar.

Boudica--

If you're going to go all third party on us, why not support Jazz's choice, Bob Barr.

Come on--make somebody on this thread happy! ; )

“The Republican party has failed them. It didn’t cut spending. It wasn’t honest. It hasn’t controlled immigration. On issue after issue it didn’t do what these voters expected.” Mr Luntz says that this political remigration of Reagan Democrats — which if realised next month would represent a profound change of the American political landscape — is occurring across the Midwest, where the economy is arguably an even greater issue than Iraq.

The facts are that in 1980 Regan Democrats migrated to Reagan on promises of economics and not on social issues. As the GOP failed them the last 8 years they have indeed returned to the fold.

I am a Reagan Democrat. There are many like us. Many who do not care for social issues but are much more concerned about other issues that are of concern to most Americans. Many of us have Left the GOP and returned to the Democrats only to find that...................Listen to me...............Listen.

We dont give a flying flip about abortion, Gay rights, seperation of church and state, Religion or all of these emotionally charged issues.

We care about food, and gasoline, and paychecks and trade barriers. We care about our lawns, our houses, our hometowns, our families. We care about immigration and keeping our jobs safe from Illegals.

We care. We just dont care about the same things that you care about. That is what makes us Reagan Democrats and its what has betrayed us.

Both parties have run off on a tangent about social and emotional issues when what we really care about is bread and butter. Not Hope and faith.

Hope and faith doesnt feed the family.

Neocon--

I hear you loud and clear.

But I'm sure you know that on all those issues you don't care about, there are plenty of other people who care. And they've chosen sides. And they're loud about it .

And they're not gonna go away.

Any more than you are.

Sure, there are lots of reasons that a person could have not to support Obama. And I have no intention of arguing about your reasons.

But the flip side of this is that a common refrain among *some* NObama democrats is that Obama falls short of a standard that they are simply not holding McCain or Clinton to. He alone can't change his positions, attack his opponents, or misspeak without it revealing some fatal flaw in his character that it does not when McCain or Clinton do the same. So, I don't think it's pushing the limits of plausibility to suggest that the reason that the black candidate has to work twice as hard to convince *some* white democrats that he is as deserving as the white candidates he's running against might have something to do with race.

But, yes, of course, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to find him wanting.

Boudica's rationale for supporting McCain and specifically not support Obama fits into the buyer behavior patterns I discussed earlier in the thread. He bases his decisions as an Amiable. He could recite "reasons" for not supporting Obama, but they really are a smoke screen. The real reason is that on a visceral level, he just doesn't like Obama. No discussion of policies, positions, viewpoints will change that. Any poster that tries to reason logically with him to convince him that Obama is the better candidate will fail.

Of course he has heard all of the rightwing crap that has given him a somewhat distorted view of Obama. Half of it is lies and the other half are gross distortions, but it is an opinion shaped by that information.

Would it change his mind if he knew that McCain cheated on his first wife numerous times even though she was disabled. Would him help him understand the charactor of John McCain to know that he lied to Cindy about his age when they first met. Would it help him understand John McCain's charactor to know that he was engaged to Cindy before he divorced his first wife. Would it help him better understand John McCain better to know that the tourchers he endored in Vietnam are the same enhanced interrogation techniques that he is allow the Bush administration to practice in Guantanomo (something he should know better about). Would it help him to know that Cindy McCain stole drugs from the non-profit she was on the board for, and the only reason she avoided felony charges is because of her family contacts? Would it help him to know that McCain's staff is so full of paid off lobbyists representing countries other than ours, that his chief international advisor has received $800,000 over the past 4 years representing the country of Georgia? Gosh, if he had been president, his swagger during the crisis could have led us to a world war over a punk state. Would it help him to know that a majority of his senatorial colleages (while they acknowledge his service) understand what a flaming hot head he is and wouldn't want him being able to press the red button. Would it help him to know that McCain has flipped on every single major issue over the past 8 years. He actually had the audacity to vote agains his own immigration legislation when it came onto the Senate. Would it help him to know that this Maverick actually voted with George Bush 95% of the time during last year's congress. Would it help him to know that this environmentally sensitive Senator has 0% rating from the League of Conservation voters. That's right, not one environmentally favorable vote during the whole Congress. Would it help him to know that he voted down the tax credit for alternative energy. Would it help him to know that this veteran wouldn't support bi-partisan legislation updating veterans benefits? Even when there was enough bipartisan support to overturn a Bush veto?

I could make up stuff too, if you wanted to measure up to the unverifiable standards set by the righwing hack 527 jobs. But John McCain is such a target rich opportunity. You see Amiable buyers don't buy based on logic, they base their decisions on a gut decision on who they like. That is why 30% of the population still thinks W has done a great job.

This is not to knock Boudica's decision. It is his and he has a right to it. It is just to recognize that he is part of the 30% of the population that bases their decision on who they like as person. You can argue the facts until you are blue in the face and it won't change a thing. Fortunately, these people are statistically split between the two parties equally, so they weigh each other out.

I don't see why anyone should be ashamed to admit that personality plays a huge role in their choice. I'm not talking about the likability factors, but the character issues and personality traits that affect the way that a candidate will govern.

After all, I could easily list at LEAST half a dozen personality traits of GWB that have proven to be detrimental, and could probably even give a plausible explanation of how certain traits of his have led him to make certain policy decisions that no one could have foreseen in 2000 (anyone remember that he said that he wouldn't do any nation building?)

So these things are hugely important. You can't just assume that you're voting for the platform if you don't know if the candidate has any likelihood at all of achieving any of its planks, or even if he really intends to try (vs. just saying certain things to appease parts of the base or to pander.)

Of course if there's one or more issue on which you disagree strongly with a candidate, then those might be dealbreakers even if you prefer his/her character and feel he/she is a more skilled or experienced leader; but most people tend to favor a mix of some of the center left positions and some center right, and have to compromise on some of them anyway (since no one candidate or party will exactly match up with each voter's views.)

Very well said, CStanley. Indeed, Bush' inability to learn (as I would characterize it) is perhaps his greatest weakness. Ironically or perhaps naturally, it is the flipside of one of his greatest strengths as a politician, namely the ability to stay on theme, on task, on message, forever and ever without seeming to lose genuine interest.

I guess I'm trying to base my vote on my best guess for what may follow in an Obama or McCain presidency. I've been batting it around in my head and come up with a few things.

1) With both McCain and Obama, you will get some sort of comprehensive immigration package through. There would be differences between the two, but something will happen with either administration and a Democratic Congress. Indeed, compromising on increased border security in order to get a deal done is exactly the sort of compromise I expect from Obama, which would put him close to the current McCain position.

2) McCain will continue the antagonist type of foreign policy that Bush has set with us vs. them and good vs. evil. I just hear far too little from him about other ways to handle foreign relations other than threatening and cajoling. A couple of his bad guy picks will be genuine bad guys and therefore it will be the best approach for them. However, such local successes will come with continuing longterm drawbacks as the next administration deals with the inevitable backlashes; i.e., he will deal well with some enemies and create new enemies in the process. I expect Obama's foreign policy to be more comprehensive and only reveal its true merit in 10-15 years.

3) McCain will continue to appoint SCOTUS judges, should he have the opportunity, that will erode Roe v. Wade. This seems a fairly stark difference between the two.

4) Both candidates would move in the direction of alternate energy, but I expect Obama to be far more aggressive. McCain will make some moves in that direction, but generally think of it as the long term plan for several decades. Obama will attempt to make it the medium term future.

5) Obama's health care changes will not be truly national coverage as he is still trying to work with the current system and this is the sort of area where he will compromise for some positive gains. But this expansion of health care will be greater than with McCain.

6) Taxes will go up on the wealthy in the short term with Obama, and perhaps in the long term with McCain after he has to do the numbers himself and is forced to pull a Bush, Sr. As a result Obama will do a bit better with the deficit since he's already facing reality. I really have no ideas on how each will attempt to control spending. I guess I don't expect large cuts from either.

7) Both candidates will withdraw the majority of forces from Iraq by 2011. McCain will fight to keep several large bases in Iraq with many thousands of troops with which to threaten other countries in the area. Obama would keep just one or two smaller presences if he could cut the deal because some generals will tell him how useful such a base would be and he will go with a small presence.

And that's my best guesses on what the Presidencies would mean on a practical level. Overall, I prefer the scenario with Obama, so he will get my vote. As I think through it, Obama's (guessed at by me) scenario is far closer to what Clinton was fighting for and so it makes sense to me for a Clinton supporter to cast their vote in Obama's direction.

After all, the value of experience is in knowing how to accomplish goals. Experience in and of itself is not a great value in a political leader. It's like courage in a terrorist. A good thing put to horrible purposes. Similarly, it is the way such experience can be used to make dreams into reality that is of great value. So choosing a McCain who would use his experience to hold back most of Clinton's very goals values experience with no purpose.

(It'll be fun to see how completely wrong my guesses above are in 4 years time.)