Shopping for a Candidate? 5 Things NOT to Do.
Be warned! You may not know it, but if you have any of these five habits, you’re about to choose the wrong candidate.
By Amit Thakkar | LawMaker, Founder & CEO | February 27, 2019
The 2020 election cycle is ramping up and things are about to get loud.
More know-nothing pundits, more water-cooler punditry, and more people telling you that the candidate you like is a sell-out, a puppet, a bleeding-heart, a fascist — or even worse — a moderate. We’re facing months full of sound and fury — signifying nothing.
But this past week, there was one small refrain of responsibility cutting through the noise. It seems that Michelle and Barack Obama (she wrote a recent best-seller, and he’s married to her and likes to kite-surf) have indicated that they don’t plan to endorse any of the presidential candidates running for the 2020 Democratic nomination. Instead, according to The Hill, the author’s husband is “happy to speak privately with candidates seeking his guidance on the best way to lead the country.”
What a relief! It’s great that the Obama’s have resisted the pressure to take a side, and instead are offering experienced counsel to any of the hardworking patriots throwing their hats in the ring.
So Mr. and Mrs. Obama, I hope you don’t find me ungrateful when I say — CAN YOU PERHAPS DO THE SAME FOR THE REST OF US?!
Allow me a moment to be selfish for the rest of America. While I welcome the reprieve from another politician telling us who to vote for, perhaps the Obamas could honor the public with a little advice that can actually help us through the next 20 months. Mainly, how the hell does an average American choose from among 15–20 candidates for office?
Most of America could use some good suggestions right now. Not merely on how to parse the growing choir of left-leaning candidates, but solid suggestions on how any American can determine for which candidate it’s worth casting their vote, be they Democrats, Republicans, or none of the above (can I offer anyone a venti coffee billionaire?).
…how the hell does an average American choose from among 15–20 candidates for office?
But since the Obama’s aren’t taking my calls right now (I think they must be in a very long tunnel), allow me to provide some non-partisan advice to any of you who may not know how you’re going to navigate the next 20 months of politicking, exaggerations (lies), misstatements (more lies) and attack ads (lies with dramatic music). I present to you, LawMaker’s Oh-Crap-It’s-Election-Time Guide — Part I: 5 Things NOT To Do When Shopping for a Candidate.
1. Don’t choose based on the superficial: race, gender, how they eat pizza...
I’ll admit, I am still excited to one day have a female president. But choosing your candidate based on what they look like has got to be one of the stupidest ways to cast your vote. Someone like me, for instance, would be better served by voting for someone with a concrete plan to narrow the gender pay gap, to secure paid family leave for all families, and to, you know, protect our economy and national security from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Voting for someone because of their superficial identity is not a reliable shortcut to determine how they’ll govern. It’s like assuming a vegan president is going to do awesome things for the broccoli industry or napalm the meat industry (and only idiots would claim something like that).
Choose your candidates based on their concrete policy ideas, period.
2. Don’t worry about electability (for now).
Please, oh please, stop talking about a candidate’s “electability”.
Keep something in mind: by this point in the 2016 election cycle, Donald Trump hadn’t even announced his candidacy (and still wouldn’t for another 4 months). You, your Facebook friends, late night hosts, and the talking heads on TV have no idea who is and isn’t electable. If the 2016 election taught us one thing, it’s to judge electability by how many votes someone gets on Election Day.
If you like a candidate right now, don’t be dissuaded from donating time, money, or support just because they don’t fit someone else’s arbitrary metric for electability.
And stop, just stop, telling other people their candidate isn’t electable. Real political experts can’t determine electability at this stage in the game, and neither can you. And we’re all better served if we make that call just a week before a primary or an election, when reliable polls, concrete policy platforms, financial disclosures (ahem, tax returns), and rigorous debates have all been publicly consumed.
We could all do away with the electability debate once and for all, if the US would just adopt a small election tweak like ranked choice voting (aka instant run-off voting). It would ensure that all Americans could vote for who they wanted without worrying about effectively supporting a candidate they really don’t want to see in office. I you don’t know what ranked choice voting is, it’s time to learn about it by clicking here.
3. Don’t fall for negative campaigning.
When I was in elementary school, Amanda Fleming ran for student government on the platform that her opponent, Ian Boning, ate paste. I’d like to believe she lost that election because she was the first to go negative, and not because the majority of the electorate were avid paste-eaters. The takeaway from this story is that every moment a candidate spends attacking their opponent is an active choice they’re making not to talk about what makes them good for our country.
If a candidate has so few compelling attributes to tout that they have to spend vital time and money attacking someone else, then perhaps they don’t have enough of what it takes to be president. Always remember a phrase I keep trying to get quoted for: Attack ads are the refuge of the politically ill-equipped.
Catchy, right?
If you don’t believe me, there’s also been plenty of research on negative campaigning, but the crux is this: negative campaigns tell people, “vote for me, I’m not as bad as the other guy!” Shouldn’t we all expect more than that?
4. Don’t hate on incrementalism.
I know, WE WANT CHANGE AND WE WANT IT NOW! Change is good. But promising that radical change will be fully enacted RIGHT NOW is the language of a simpleton or a snake oil salesman. I’ve worked in professional politics my entire adult life, and the one truth I can tell you is that big policy change happens slowly.
That doesn’t mean that plans for radical change are bad. Ambition is awesome, especially when it takes aim at huge problems. But candidates that want to make dramatic changes to our country should publicly acknowledge and strategically plan for an incremental approach. And we voters should reward, not punish, them for that.
No one in this country has the power to snap their fingers and make drastic change by themselves (as we’ve been seeing with the US-Mexico border wall). Candidates who offer you quick fixes to complex problems are offering you a fantasy. And voters who demand that radical changes be made immediately, are asking to be lied to. Whether it’s the Green New Deal, immigration reform, or a Middle East peace plan, even the most ambitious plans should be accomplished in strategic steps, and we all need to accept that.
Candidates who offer you quick fixes to complex problems are offering you a fantasy. And voters who demand that radical changes be made immediately, are asking to be lied to.
5. Don’t let other people dictate what you care about.
Now is about the time everyone starts telling you what you’re supposed to care about. It’s the Wall, Medicare, the deficit, the environment, the terrorists, the fill-in-the-blank issue of the moment. STOP LISTENING. Right now, you need to ask yourself what you really care about.
First, what are the brass tack issues that impact you every day? Is it how you’re going to pay for college? Is it the success of the stock market, or the local factory closing down? Is it the exorbitant cost of child care or housing? Your immediate issues are actually important, and should be a huge factor in the candidates you support.
And after you’ve asked these tangible questions, ask yourself what you believe. Should everyone pay low taxes and rely on themselves as much as possible? Or are there some basic things that government should provide all people, no matter how much they make? Is worrying about the climate an economy-killing fear tactic of the radical fringe, or is it a necessary safeguard for a successful future? Should we build alliances with as many countries as possible, or does collaboration with other nations weaken us domestically?
And if you find your choices more similar than different, figure out how you prioritize fixes to day-to-day struggles like health care, child care, and gas prices. Our government can only handle a couple big issues at a time (whether for financial or political reasons), so voters have to decide which policies are most important. Prioritizing good ideas may be challenging, but it is a necessary step when deciding among closely aligned candidates. And if you don’t decide how you really feel on these issues, you may just end up voting for the tallest candidate, the richest, or the one with the most catchy catchphrase. Sure, that’s one way to vote, but it’s not a smart way to do it, and will almost always leave you with the wrong candidate.
Now, if you’re sitting there telling yourself that you don’t do any of the above five things, you’re either a liar or a non-voter, and I’m not sure which is worse.
But once you’ve taken the time to acknowledge these five bad political habits in your life, come back for our next article for five concrete actions you can actually take to choose the the right candidate, or what we like to call, LawMaker’s Oh-Crap-It’s-Election-Time Guide — Part II: 2 Many Candidates, 2 Little Time.
