The O'Donnell thread had me thinking about this.

[Hayabusa Rider]

First, this is not an endorsement or condemnation of her or any candidate, but a hypothetical so don't say "but O'Donnell is" anything. It isn't about her.

Suppose you had the choice of two candidates.

The first was a politician who has a checkered past at best and there has been significant evidence of corruption, but operates just this side of the legal line, or what passes for it in DC. His or her past suggests that personal gain is an important component of why office is being sought. That person also has a strong scientific background. Evolution is fact.

The second has an exemplary record and has enacted public policies which you find agreeable. No hint of impropriety. The problem? This person has questioned evolution.

Given that you have to select one, which would it be?

 

[PJABBER]

Great poll! I voted the second because in the great scheme of things arguments that are irrelevant to the matters at hand are... irrelevant and distracting.

 

[SammyJr]

The second person doesn't exist - there's no way a person who questions evolution would enact policies that I agree with.

Questioning evolution goes along with being very religious and socially conservative. Further, I question if the person in question can keep his strong religious beliefs from interfering in policy decisions. Finally, for whatever reason, social conservatives align with the warmongers and the tax cuts for the wealthy/kill Medicare crowd.

 

[spidey07]

I've seen polls like this from news and research places. For 70-80% it doesn't matter.

 

[Red Dawn]

Would never vote for a Social Conservative.

 

[zsdersw]

Would never vote for a Social Conservative.

x2.

 

[Pens1566]

x2.

3x

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't do poles unless they are Polish women, but I would have to vote for person two under the strict limitations of your hypothetical. And while I agree with SammyJr that such a person is unlikely to exist why isn't it just as unlikely that a person with a strong scientific background wouldn't have ethical problems?

At any rate, I think my vote would be wasted because anybody who didn't believe in evolution would get few liberal votes and anybody who has agreeable policies would get none from conservatives.

 

[zsdersw]

First, this is not an endorsement or condemnation of her or any candidate, but a hypothetical so don't say "but O'Donnell is" anything. It isn't about her.

Suppose you had the choice of two candidates.

The first was a politician who has a checkered past at best and there has been significant evidence of corruption, but operates just this side of the legal line, or what passes for it in DC. His or her past suggests that personal gain is an important component of why office is being sought. That person also has a strong scientific background. Evolution is fact.

The second has an exemplary record and has enacted public policies which you find agreeable. No hint of impropriety. The problem? This person has questioned evolution.

Given that you have to select one, which would it be?

The fact that she questioned evolution isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is that she thinks there's evidence to support creationism; as much as if not more than there is evidence to support evolution, according to her.

Less bias in your scenario, by pointing out that the second candidate questioned evolution and believes there's significant evidence to support creationism would make your post more realistic.

 

[Carmen813]

Questioned evolution in what way? Are we talking about "life was created 6000 years ago" or "Evolution is a theory, and thus never truly proven. It is merely supported." .

The latter I'm okay with, the former, not so much. That said...I'd probably lean towards the latter...but I'd seek out third party candidates who were similar. Frankly, I believe a questioning and inquisitive mind is a strong point...but not one that merely uses confirmation bias to ignore any opposing views

The biggest problem I have with O'Donnell are her social conservative views and, more specifically, her efforts to force those views upon others. To me, that is a deal breaker.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Would never vote for a Social Conservative.

I purposefully said that the person has enacted or favored policies you would endorse.

 

[Kirby]

Would never vote for a Social Conservative.

Most of the time, but I really wouldn't care if my state treasurer or commissioner of agriculture didn't believe in evolution.

 

[zsdersw]

I purposefully said that the person has enacted or favored policies you would endorse.

Doesn't matter. If the price for those policies is a willingness or desire to legislate their socially conservative beliefs, I'll gladly vote against that candidate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The fact that she questioned evolution isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is that she thinks there's evidence to support creationism; as much as if not more than there is evidence to support evolution, according to her.

Less bias in your scenario, by pointing out that the second candidate questioned evolution and believes there's significant evidence to support creationism would make your post more realistic.

Well in the best possible worlds the positive qualities of both would be represented in one candidate. I have removed that choice intentionally.

 

[Mursilis]

I purposefully said that the person has enacted or favored policies you would endorse.

"But . . . but . . . religion is bad!! Bad!!"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Doesn't matter. If the price for those policies is a willingness or desire to legislate their socially conservative beliefs, I'll gladly vote against that candidate.

"He or she has enacted policies you agree with".

 

[MotF Bane]

It's a hypothetical and the OP is clear, stop crying about not voting for a social conservative, blah blah blah.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Questioned evolution in what way? Are we talking about "life was created 6000 years ago" or "Evolution is a theory, and thus never truly proven. It is merely supported." .

The latter I'm okay with, the former, not so much. That said...I'd probably lean towards the latter...but I'd seek out third party candidates who were similar. Frankly, I believe a questioning and inquisitive mind is a strong point...but not one that merely uses confirmation bias to ignore any opposing views

The biggest problem I have with O'Donnell are her social conservative views and, more specifically, her efforts to force those views upon others. To me, that is a deal breaker.

Think according to your profession and consider the way I framed the question and look at the responses in the thread so far. What do you see? This really isn't about O'Donnell.

 

[zsdersw]

"He or she has enacted policies you agree with".

Fine, they're enacted. Thanks. It's done. What he or she does next is what I'm concerned about.

 

[zsdersw]

stop crying about not voting for a social conservative,

No.

 

[woolfe9999]

I voted for candidate 2. However, a candidate's irrational beliefs are a relevant factor. If the two candidates were in other respects about equal, I would vote for candidate 1.

- wolf

 

[soundforbjt]

Depends on the office for which they are running.

 

[Carmen813]

Think according to your profession and consider the way I framed the question and look at the responses in the thread so far. What do you see? This really isn't about O'Donnell.

Main observation is a pretty quick rush to judgment and assumption that one of the candidates is O'Donnell (which, I can understand given that her name was mentioned in the OP). Another is that because someone questions evolution, they are unfit to elected office...more so than someone who is corrupt or at least very ambitious. That's an interesting position because all scientists should question evolution, despite the fact that it has support it is still a theory and must constantly be refined.

As for myself, I admit missing the "has implemented policies I'd endorse". That to me would imply that though this candidate personally believes in creationism, that they would not seek to implement their beliefs through the law. In which case, I'm fine voting for them...and have now actually voted in the poll

 

[daishi5]

It is strange, I find myself in this exact position. I don't like our current governor, our state is a disaster (IL, if it isn't apparent), and I don't like the way state politics have been playing out. However, our other choice supports a few policies that I like (the ones I know about so far), but he apparently believes in creationism. So far, I am going for candidate B, the creationist, but I am not thrilled about the lack of a good choice.

 

[Perknose]

I'd vote for a write-in.

Candidate #2 seems good otherwise according to your fantasy construct, but if they seriously and profoudly "questioned" evolution, just as if they questioned the holocaust or the theory of gravity, I would have my own "serious and profound" doubts about their judgment on any issue going forward.

They would be unqualified to hold public office, imho, just as if while having "an exemplary record" and having "enacted public policies which you find agreeable" and having a personal record with "no hint of impropriety" they nevertheless believed that aliens were responsible for 9/11 or "questioned" whether the earth really revolved around the sun.

OP, you have presented us with a FALSE dichotomy. Your poll is rigged unto irrelevance by the basic implausibility of its premise.

Get real.

A person is rarely a naysaying, retrograde, fundie-based idiot about just one thing, you know?