In Choosing a Candidate, the Heart Wins
by
Suzanne Hadley
on Feb 6, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Last night I attended the caucus in my neighborhood. Besides the sheer excitement of taking part of a grassroots government process, I enjoyed hearing various people stand up and speak on behalf of their candidates of choice. Something that stood out to me was the personal identification each speaker shared with his or her candidate—military involvement, values, issues supported or spurned, faith and even personality and appearance.
According to Newsweek, science has found that when a person is deciding which candidate to support, anxiety, enthusiasm and whom the voter identifies with counts more than reason or logic.
Because voters are not computers, willing and able to remember and analyze candidates' every position, they rely on what political scientist Samuel Popkin of the University of California, San Diego, calls "gut rationality," which provides one of the most powerful of the heuristics Lau cites. In his now classic 1991 book "The Reasoning Voter," Popkin uses an example from the 1976 Republican primaries, which pitted President Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan. While campaigning in Texas, Ford ate, or tried to eat, a tamale without first removing its corn-husk wrapper. He nearly choked on it. Mexican-American voters inferred from this—reasonably, Popkin argues—that Ford didn't know much about them or their culture, and that it therefore made sense to pull the lever for Reagan. The Gipper carried Texas overwhelmingly, winning 96 delegates to Ford's zero, thanks in part to the Latino vote.
Even when voters research the issues, they are still likely to make decisions based on feelings:
Voters evaluate how a position makes them feel. To a struggling ranch hand in Wyoming, it may well feel right to vote for a candidate who opposes gun control even if the candidate also favors tax breaks for the wealthy—even though, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, a candidate who wants to raise taxes on the rich is the more rational choice.
The article points out that fear and anxiety are the strongest human emotions and therefore most likely to override rationality. Fear -- over the war, terrorism and the economy -- did seem to mark many of the speeches I heard last night. Additionally, the "human" moments make a bigger impact than a candidate's stand on issues. For example:
Clinton's misty-eyed moment right before the New Hampshire primary tapped into another factor that shapes voters' decisions, namely, whom they identify with. Her display of emotion brought her gender front and center. That led more women to identify with Clinton. "When Hillary, who has played against gender stereotypes, suddenly tears up, women flock to her because she seems like them," says political scientist Pippa Norris of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
The article speculates that a lack of enthusiasm for any one candidate in this year's pack has led voters to become more involved -- and informed -- in this race: "Unenthusiastic voters are still actively seeking more information about the candidates." I know that's been the case for me. And whatever I may feel, knowledge is a good thing.
1. Jason had the following to say on Feb 7 at 11:30 AM:
Hillary Clinton is a master politician. Whether it's the big, sweeping statements she makes or the subtle, tear-falling-from-the-cheek/lip-quivering/exhausted-from-the-fight posturing, she knows how to work people over. I'm scared of an America that is in her (and Bill's) charge once again. If for no other reason than a change of guard (if she becomes president that will make 32 consecutive years of either a Bush or Clinton in the White House), she needs to be voted out of this race.
2. DannieA had the following to say on Feb 7 at 11:55 AM:
The truth of the matter is, You can do your research and know facts about the candidates and sometimes something on the surface will just propell you to support them even more.....
3. John D. had the following to say on Feb 7 at 1:52 PM:
Actually, Hillary Clinton is a terrible politician. Bill is the master politician -- probably the best natural politician America has seen in a long time.
Hillary, by contrast, is a wooden and clunky campaigner. When she tries to pander, it's obvious, as when she spoke at a black church and affected, unsuccessfully, a black preacher-type cadence. It was painful to listen to. Hillary appears, at heart, to be a bitter ideologue who doesn't really connect with people. At her best, she can be charming, but she will need Bill to give her advice on how to sell her ideas.
PS Ron Paul comes across as a shriveled-up old man with a whiny West Texas accent and all the charisma of creamed wheat. He still has a decades-long record of voting for limited government and traditional values.
4. BDB had the following to say on Feb 7 at 2:04 PM:
I'll admit that at first I wasn't pleased to see McCain gaining ground. Then I looked up his web site and that of some others...and I realized McCain was pro-life and anti-deficit, and seems to have been pretty consistent.
Immigration and the Environment are policy questions we can argue about. There's more than one approach to these questions.
5. Lana had the following to say on Feb 8 at 4:22 PM:
I think that Jason and John D.'s posts speak to the article's point - emotion-based decisions. They don't prefer how she performs, and they don't say anything about what they know of her ideas or political track record.
Only one person has spoken about actual issues.