What do you do if the candidate you like is "unelectable"?

Question

I'm not in anyone's camp yet, but I'm trying to decide how to spend both my money and my time in the coming election. My ideals seem out of the mainstream, and my candidate-of-choice is likely to be someone other than a front-runner.

What do you do when the candidate you chose seems to be "unelectable." Do you support him or her and fight the good fight? Do you withdraw from the field and send your contributions to the party and hope for the best? Do you throw your support to the front runner in the "anyone but the other guy" politics?

I don't want "bash the con or lib candidate" answers. The question is about how you personally handle the quandary. If you feel no quandary, then answer a different question, please.

Sherilyn...read the last line of the question. Why did you bother? Surely the two points are worth your intellectual integrity. Sorry - another question for another time. But feel free to edit.

Am the B - no, not a particular candidate. I AM NOT IN ANY CAMP YET. Read the question, dear.

Answer 1

I can see 2 choices:
1. Select a candidate that most closely matches your beliefs and stick with that candidate. If they don't get their party's nomination or do not run as an independent, then you'll have to decide whether to support the nominee of the party they represent.
2. Vote your conscience, regardless of whether they have a chance of winning or not. Your vote has a tremendous impact on our country, though the effects may not be seen for years. For example, Bill Clinton would not have been elected in 1992 or 1996 if it hadn't been for Ross Perot. Same with Al Gore and Ralph Nader in 2000. Did the people who voted for these candidates throw away their votes? I don't think so. It made the major parties that lost re-evaluate their policies and, in some cases, made changes for the better.

If there is one candidate that you feel it's imperative to vote against, then you don't have much of a choice: you must vote for the most electable candidate in the 'other' party. However, I say vote your conscience. Your candidate may never win, but you'll be doing what you feel is right and you may have a long-term positive impact on the country.

Answer 2

I say go ahead and support the candidate who you think is the appropriate one for the position. If the person stands strong on the issues that you support, then stick with him/her until they are no longer in the race. People say that the person they want to support is "unelectable," but at the same time, they don't try to drum up support in their area, nor do they send a check, even for $5 or $10 to help support.

I would say, go ahead and support them, whether that's going to their website and throwing them a small donation, going to websites and showing your support and backing it up with actual facts, look for groups of people who DO support the person who you support. Yahoo has many groups that you can join, as well as I have seen some at meetup.com. There's probably also something through the person's website where they have their supporters.

Remember, until just the last Republican debate, Mr. Mike Huckabee was stated to be a "second-tier" candidate. Well, the last debate, he's the one that is said to have done the best and moved towards being a "first-tier" candidate. He would not have been able to do this.

Also, as far as the last Democrat debate goes, remember that Mr. Mike Gravel wasn't there? Do you remember the reason that they said he wasn't there? It was because he didn't raise enough funds, therefore wasn't allowed in the debate. If there were enough people that did support him and sent him a small donation (and I can't tell you what that "small" amount is), then he may have been there at the debate.

Answer 3

When a candidate isn't electable they typically stay in the race for a while to have there voice heard, to try to obtain a cabinet position and to influence the direction of the party. Eventually they end up dropping out of the race and throwing there support, (including money, time, and influence) to one of the front runners.

In both parties we have tight races among the front runners and the support of the second tier candidates could be crucial.

If I were supporting a second tier candidate I would continue to show my support for that candidate as ever bit of support the candidate obtains make his voice a little louder.

When it comes down to voting time, I want my vote to have an influence, So I take into account electability, especially in close races.

Answer 4

I advise that the top shrink for contributions be performed away with, and that the optimum payouts in retirement nonetheless stay as they're, adjusted for inflation. Social protection isn't a "provide away" application yet one which all of us make a contribution to love a discount charges plan, and could be shielded from different makes use of by using the government. Do you compromise or disagree and why? in case you're so anxious approximately it then why do no longer you; first placed it decrease back into the deepest sector and make to have been no can take out money from it for his or her very very own pastime, 2d pay decrease back each and every penny you have borrowed from the two Social protection and Medicare, third take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over right here yet on no account paid a penny to it, and finally have it the comparable for each individual; in different words government officers are to take area in it and in the event that they % some thing greater they do it on their very very own with out the tax payers investment it?yet, the financial stytem feeding the imbalances had on no account been fairly replaced. They, a team of pupils, reported that each and all and sundry charges of pastime could be 3% or much less for each individual to grow to be prosperous if needed (that would desire to be authentic additionally to taces). the superb financial project could be, they pronounced, whilst there have been no charges of pastime. Why no longer attempt this answer? the wealthy could nonetheless be prosperous. My query is: whilst soial protection will become a project related to federal expenses, why no longer artwork with a balanced or benefit value variety and spend no greater advantageous than is attainable in, as any family participants has to try for? Why no longer ban all loobying presents so as to get regulations that serve the rustic? God bless united statesa..

Answer 5

You should support the candidate you chose, "unelectable" or not, for as long as it is feasible. Then, when it becomes clear that your candidate doesn’t have a chance, or if your candidate loses the nomination, you choose the best candidate that you can under the circumstances.

I would be very careful of denigrating the opposition, during the primaries and prior to the nominee being chosen, because that may be the person you wind up supporting for the presidency, unless you want someone to win who is totally antithetical to any of your political beliefs.

Answer 6

Do you think your candidate is unelectable in the primaries or the general election? If primaries, I would fight to the end. If general election, that would be a tougher call for me because I cant stand any of the candidates on the other side.

Answer 7

If you have an "unelectable" candidate and are okay in sacrificing your vote for such a candidate, you might end up with someone you really disfavor winning the election, but at least your candidate may have made a big enough splash for your views to be recognized.

Answer 8

I voted for Ross Perot both times he ran. He actually had a workable plan to fix the major problems the other candidates merely pointed out.

Good candidates with actual plans to fix problems are only "unelectable" because the media has portrayed them that way.

If everyone who said, "Sure, Perot is the right guy but he's "unelectable" so I will cast my vote for the least bad of the two remaining candidates", actually would have voted for Perot, he would have won the election.

Vote for the person that you know is right and do your best to convince everyone you know to do the same.

Screw what the media says.

.

Answer 9

In the primaries I will vote for who I want despite low poll ratings and potential unelectability .
In the 2008 elections however , I will vote for the candidate closest to my ideology , and that means a mainstream candidate , not a third party one .
Voting for a third party candidate in the general elections will always be a vote wasted until third party candidates start early enough to build necessary support . Anything less will only result in the liklihood of damaging the chances of your second choice and likely will result in your least favored candidate winning .

Answer 10

GOOD QUESTION ARBY. TWICE I HAVE THOUGHT THAT RALPH NADER WAS THE BEST CANDIDATE BUT NEVER VOTED FOR HIM. I USED MY VOTE TO TRY KEEPING SOMEBODY I DETESTED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE (MY PLOY DID NOT WORK AND I HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO WON AN ELECTION).

I AGREE WITH "JIM D" - I GENERALLY VOTE FOR WHO WILL CAUSE THE LEAST HARM. HOW DEPRESSING THAT IS. IT INFURIATES ME THAT THE MAJOR PARTIES OFFER US SUCH POOR CHOICES MUCH OF THE TIME.

I AM NOT DISCOURAGED - BUSH CARRIED FLORIDA BY ONLY A FEW HUNDRED VOTES - SO EVERY VOTE REALLY DOES COUNT. BUT FLORIDA WAS ACTUALLY WON BY MANIPULATION (MANY VOTERS NEWLY ARRIVED FROM OTHER STATES FOUND THAT THEY WEREN'T LEGALLY REGISTERED AFTER THEY GOT TO THE POLLS). OH WELL, WE'LL TRY AGAIN.