2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

au1929 wrote:

c.i
Quote:
Completely different scenario between voting for a pres and a job applicant for a specific job. In most professions, we can test all the applicants to see how their knowledge meets expectations. Whether you "like" the applicant is not a consideration.

I disagree, whether you like the individual meaning he displayed a favorable image is very much a part of an interview. People do not hire people they are uncomfortable with or for some reason dislike.

I agree. I know of at least one instance where I was hired over more qualified (or at least better educated) competition (a good friend interviewed for the same position) and believe this was largely if not completely due to the fact that I tend to be fairly relaxed and affable in interviews. While some of you will undoubtedly find this difficult to believe, I'm a fairly likable person (in person, at least Shocked

).

Sometimes the people hiring are more concerned about whether or not they think they'll enjoy working with you--be able to interact with you comfortably--than whether or not you have the best CV. Likewise in electing anyone for any office, people will factor in their gut feelings; do I like this person? do I trust this person? And those are very valid questions for a voter to ask, not indicators that something is amiss among the electorate.

0 Replies

tres, "Likeable" is not a consideration. However, the ability to work with associates is a major consideration. Most people show a good front during an interview. How can the interviewer know the applicant is not a Dr Jekle and Mr Hyde? We don't. That's the reason why most job offers are contingent upon a "test" period, and subsequent performance evaluations. c.i.

0 Replies

c.i.
From someone who has over the years hired over 100 people and been involved in many more interviews. First impressions count. They are not the do all and end all but they certainly can caste the candidate in a good or bad light. We are all human and therefore our emotions play a large part in how we think and conduct our every day business.

0 Replies

Gee, au, I worked in management positions most of my working life, and I've been involved with many hirings too. I didn't say "first impressions didn't count." I said "likeable is not a consideration." I usually looked for people with the necessary skills to do the job: by verifying their job references, skills, how long on the job(s), and if they would "rehire," and first impressions. Everything else followed in their "test" period and job performance evals. c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

tres, "Likeable" is not a consideration.

That may be your experience, but I can only tell you it is not mine. I have interviewed people, and whether I found them likeable was a primary measure. I can also tell you for certain that I owe my current position to hitting it off with one of the primary interviewers. We barely discussed the position at all. He had my CV, and I don't doubt that most if not all the other candidates could have done the job, but there is no question in my mind that I got the job because I was perceived to be "likeable" (to use your term).

0 Replies

Don't get bogged down in the analogy, people.

A significant part of the electorate (commonly called "swing voters", but my preference is 'Moron-Americans') doesn't make up their mind who to vote for, for President, until the last couple of weeks or so prior to the election. Some estimates of the number of these voters count them as much as 15-20% of the total.

They haven't spent a lot of time prior to that studying the issues and the candidates' positions, I assure you.

Their decisions are made on those all-important leadership qualities like, "He seems like a nice guy" and "I'd like to have a beer with him".

We're still about a year or so away from the Iowa caucuses, so only us political junkies will be paying attention until then.

Sort of like the parade of horses 20 minutes before the race is run.

0 Replies

The "party of nonvoters" is 120 million strong. Whoever corrals them will hold the key to future elections
"Politics is who gets what, when, and how..."
—Harold Lasswell

A merica's largest political party, in Walter Dean Burnham's phrase, is "the party of nonvoters"—120 million strong. Barring a realigning event on the order of the Great Depression, today's "fifty-fifty" tie in American politics can't be broken with current voters. The electorate needs to expand. The first party to mobilize a significant fraction of nonvoters will become the new American majority.

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2002-11-27.htm

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

A significant part of the electorate (commonly called "swing voters", but my preference is 'Moron-Americans') doesn't make up their mind who to vote for, for President, until the last couple of weeks or so prior to the election. Some estimates of the number of these voters count them as much as 15-20% of the total.

They haven't spent a lot of time prior to that studying the issues and the candidates' positions, I assure you.

This is a very good point. In light of this, how do you feel about the McCain/Feingold limitations on issue advertising close to* election day?

*(Within 6 weeks? or am I remembering wrong?)

0 Replies

Are we coming to some sort of concensus? Smile

c.i.

0 Replies

It would be a valuable thing to put up here (or new thread to begin) on that topic, t.w.

I don't know enough to give you an opinion, candidly, so I would request more information, please.

0 Replies

McCain-Fiengold[/size]

Here is good for a discussion of that, I figure. It impacts the 2004 Elections.

timber

0 Replies

timber, HOw will McCain-Feingold affect the 2004 elections? c.i.

0 Replies

Its provisions of McCain-Finegold will become very hot topics of coversation, as will the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which became Public Law 107-155.

timber

0 Replies

timber, Any topic can become hot in politics. What exactly will McCain-Feingold do to change the elections of 2004? c.i.

0 Replies

Do you really think it will make any significant difference?

0 Replies

mama, That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. c.i.

0 Replies

CI - If PDiddie is correct that many voters don't decide or even pay attention to the issues until a few weeks before the election, and campaing finance reform disallows spending on issues advertising within a few weeks of the election, doesn't that suggest that many more voters will be going to the polls with less information?

And that's not even considering the blatant first amendment problems inherent in telling anyone they can't put a political message out during an election cycle.

0 Replies

Good point, tres. However, that's only if they stop the character assassinations, and stick to issues. c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Good point, tres. However, that's only if they stop the character assassinations, and stick to issues. c.i.

I'm inclined to agree that the quality of campaign ads and campaigning could be raised, the condition you suggest here still amounts to a breach of the freedom of political speech. I hate mud slinging, but it the mud is factual mud, it has to be fair game. Otherwise you are removing from play information that might sway some voters one way or the other.

Whether candidate X stole $100 ten years ago might not have any direct correlation to his or her ability to be effective in office, but it might mean he or she is not someone for whom I would want to vote.

0 Replies

tres, That may be true, but we end up not knowing what the candidate is for or against. Only that they stole $100 when they were young and immature. This same person may have had a change of heart, and may be the most generous and ethical person of all the candidates. Who's to know? I'd still want to learn about the issues and where they stand. c.i.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know