Unconsciously, many favor Kucinich
Originally published in the Des Moines Register
Hansen: Unconsciously, many favor Kucinich
By MARC HANSEN
REGISTER COLUMNIST
October 23, 2007
Don't panic, but there's a chance you aren't supporting the presidential candidate you most agree with on the issues.
As we stumble toward the primary/caucus season, millions of voters (or at least dozens) are going online and taking surveys that match them with candidates. And they're not automatically matching up with their favorite candidates.
This happened four years ago when the Democrats were trying to figure out how to beat George Bush. Most of them wanted Kerry or Edwards or Dean.
But surprise, surprise. When they punched in their select-a-candidate surveys, Kucinich's name kept blinking back at them on the computer screen.
That's the Dennis Kucinich whose poll numbers were below sea level, the Kucinich nobody took seriously, the Kucinich who never had a chance.
Kathleen Ferguson of Des Moines says nothing has changed four years later. She found one of those surveys on the Web site of WQAD-TV in the Quad Cities. She answered the 11 multiple-choice questions and decided how important each issue was to her.
The topics were Iraq, immigration, tax cuts, stem cell research, health care, abortion, Social Security, a line-item veto, ethanol, same-sex marriage and the death penalty.
Ferguson clicked "select a candidate," and up popped Kucinich.
She had family members take the test. Kucinich came in first or second.
She wondered what was going on. A lot of Democrats like what he has to say on the issues. Yet only a small percentage like him as their candidate.
"We're not all that liberal," Ferguson said. "Several of us are former Republicans. It's astonishing to see what we want was labeled too far-out liberal."
A lawyer she knows took the test, and another friend. Kucinich, Kucinich.
"To paraphrase Kucinich himself," she said, "we can have a president who agrees with us on the issues and will work to institute the policies we want, or we can have a president who's tall."
It can't be just physical stature, but it's almost certainly a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Voters might agree completely with a candidate, but if they don't think the candidate has a decent shot, they'll vote for someone else.
Ferguson, a paralegal at the Principal Financial Group, fits that mold. She supported Kucinich in 2004. She volunteered for him. But now she's trying to decide between the two front-runners.
"I threw away my voice last time by supporting somebody who had no support," she said. "It's important to stand up for your beliefs, but if I'm reasonably certain it's going to be Obama or Clinton, don't I have the responsibility to decide which is the better candidate and support that person?"
Ralph Nader, George W. Bush's best friend in 2004, would say no.
Ferguson gives Kucinich good marks for his debate performances. His punch lines get positive audience response.
He's quick on his feet in the debates. When they asked him about prayer, Kucinich said he was praying somebody would finally ask him a question.
David Redlawsk, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, isn't surprised by the contradiction. Redlawsk and Rutgers University professor Richard Lau wrote the book on this subject: "How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns."
Redlawsk says you can't read too much into these computer-match programs. They sometimes oversimplify a candidate's positions. And even when they don't, issues aren't everything to the average voter.
"That isn't to say they aren't useful," he says. "People who go through them learn more about the candidates. But most people don't make decisions looking at every issue. They look at a limited set of issues, then they look at other things like personality, viability, who's the best overall fit."
Voting on a candidate's position on issues alone is a little like dating through the personal ads. You have to see the prospective suitor up close. Focus too much on content at the expense of context and you might miss the big picture.
Redlawsk then committed political science blasphemy. He said the voters with the most information don't automatically vote in their best interests anyway.
"People are efficient at taking small amounts of information," he says, "making good decisions with that information and moving on with their lives."
Speaking of small amounts of information, I took the candidate-match test. All I'll say is I like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul a lot more than I thought.
Subscribe to this blog's feed