Of the top three, who is running the most substantive, issues-based campaign?

[JohnLocke]

Poll question: Of the top three, who is running the most substantive, issues-based campaign?

(Of the three candidates polling in double-digits nationally.)

(Yes, I like Kucinich too, but I'm interested in these three specifically).

[Le Taz Hot]

1. You are aware that there are

6 candidates you left out, right?

This was a waste of time.

[JohnLocke]

2. Yes.

But I did it intentionally because the odds are that one of these three will be the nominee.

Yes, Kucinich is great--I heard him speak this weekend, and he is passionate, inspiring, and surely issue-focused. But I limited this particular poll to those polling above 10 percent

[calteacherguy]

3. Explain what you mean by "issues based"

and why you think that should be the #1 criteria in selecting a nominee.

[JohnLocke]

7. It is intentionally vague, but essentially what I'm asking is this:

Of the three candidates that are polling above 10 percent nationally, who has run the campaign most focused on policy issues--real plans and position papers and such (as opposed to a personality-driven campaign or a campaign based on generalities?)

[calteacherguy]

8. I don't believe detailed plans are important in a primary campaign.

The campaign shouldn't be primarily about who has the most detailed plans. Not that there is anything wrong with detailed plans, but there are plenty of ideas and time to craft legislation. The campaign should be about vision, goals, ideology, and leadership ability.

Any political hack, if they work at it hard enough, can put out the most detailed plans and policy papers faster than the other guy (or gal). The primary shouldn't be that kind of a contest. We need to be more thoughful when selecting out leaders.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. We need to vote on substance, not marketing and rhetoric

I understand your position but strongly disagree with it. Exhibit A for my case: Bush, George W.

[calteacherguy]

11. We absolutely need to vote on substance, not marketing and rhetoric.

I couldn't agree with you more. Where we disagree, possibly, is what is the strongest evidence of "substance." I don't believe policy papers and plans (while important) are the strongest evidence of substance.

I believe the strongest indicators of substance are demonstrated experience, leadership; a liberal, progressive vision, integrity, and courage.

In fact, ironically, a campaign that seems to be in a kind of race to be first at every policy paper and detailed plan strikes me as an indicator that the candidate is trying to compensate for a lack of something else.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Yes, that is where we disagree

I look at details and platforms. Vision and leadership are also important but their positions on the issues come first for me. The reason I prefer those over vision is because vision is limited to vague (and poll-tested) rhetoric and perceptions of leadership is often based on marketing, not actually leading on issues (see: Bush, George W. and Reagan, Ronald).

Bush kept it close enough in 2000 to be selected because he "won" on the things you pointed out, leadership, vision, integrity, etc. These were not in sync with reality but this is what the perception was of voters. On the issues Gore creamed Bush (another reason to promote issues-based voting!) but lose on those things.

[calteacherguy]

14. Positions on issues is not the same as having a 50-page health care plan before everyone else.

There are lots of good ideas for health care (to use one example), and I have no doubt that any Democratic candidate will sign a progressive health care plan. There are lots of ideas, the most important thing is to elect a Demcoratic Congress and President. The details of each candidates plans (especially 7 months from the first caucus) are not as important as their character and leadership ability to get things done. Plans change in committee; character, leadership, and integrity are more lasting.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Health care is a prime example of why policy should trump rhetoric

Obama's rhetoric spoke of universal health care. The policy? When it came out it was an incremental Third Way plan that will leave at least 15 million people uninsured. If people accepted his word and he had not proposed a plan many people would have been in for a rude awakening. He continues to use the same rhetoric about universal health care. If people limit themselves to that and do not look at his actual policies they, too, will be in for a rude awakening. Unfortunately, that is a risk at least 15 million people cannot afford to take. :(

[calteacherguy]

17. What we need is a Democratic President commited to health care reform and a Congress

that will pass health care reform.

I am certain any of the our candidates will sign whatever health care reform the Democratic Congress in their wisdom passes, so the details of and specifics of their plans NOW are not, in my opinion, the most important factors to consider when choosing the best nominee to lead the Party and win.

There are plenty of good ideas out there, and it's still years before any plan in it's final form will get a cloture vote. There is plenty of time for things to evolve, and I think the diversity of ideas among the candidates is great, but I'm not going to base my vote by studying the details of their health care proposals, since Congress will have the final say anyway and the specifics of any plan can and will change and evolve over time.

[JohnLocke]

10. I disagree.

The campaign shouldn't be primarily about who has the most detailed plans. Not that there is anything wrong with detailed plans, but there are plenty of ideas and time to craft legislation. The campaign should be about vision, goals, ideology, and leadership ability.

Well, inspirational ability and vision--which are definitely connected to leadership ability--are certainly important.

Ideology, to me, is probably close to what I mean by "issue-based"; ideology sort of implies an overarching values system linked to some plans for what a candidate will push for in office.

I place a high premium on specificity and the act of taking a specific, principled position. Some people place a lower value on this and a higher value on other qualities. Both are understandable views.

[calteacherguy]

12. Any hack can be specific.

It doesn't mean they would make a good president. It's a very narrow view to focus only on how many detailed policy papers a candidate has, especially 7 months from the first caucus.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. People seem to voting for their candidate, not answering the OP thus far

Edwards 5
Obama 4
HRC 0

There is no way Obama would have 4 votes and HRC 0 if people were honestly answering the OP. They are both vague. The difference is one has a record which this candidate is running on which we can examine while the other has no record and is running on personality and image.

JohnLocke, how editing the OP to ask people to name the reasons for their vote. My guess is many will not be able to provide any. ;)

I voted for Edwards. Why? He, as luminaries such as Mario Cuomo and Bill Bradley have said, has been the most specific of the candidates on the issues. He has offered the most plans, most details to his position papers, and he covers the widest range. For instance, he has plans to eradicate poverty in America, revitalize rural America, and a national security plan. These are three important issues. The other two candidates ignore the first two issues and have not offering a comprehensive vision to secure America yet.

[calteacherguy]

5. I'm waiting for a definition of "issues based" nt

[eridani]

6. Yes, Kucinich n/t

[Inspired]

16. There's really only one answer here.

It is Edwards. Whoever says that issues don't matter in a primary is probably supporting someone who hasn't put out many. Too many politicians talk but when you pay attention to what they actually say, you find they said nothing.

[TrogL]

18. Other

[Forkboy]

19. Out of the three,Edwards.

I think Kucinich has him beat in that regard,but of these three Edwards has been the best.

Hillary picked a campaign song though!