Do you consider yourself a populist voter?

[Alcon]

Hard to explain this.

But do you consider yourself a populist voter, or not?  Please forgive my vague terminology here.  You don't have to fit all items to be in one group or the other; if you're say a 60%+ match or so, choose that one; if it's virtually even, choose the third option.

Type 1 ("populist")
* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member)
* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent
* Believes that we need more common-man candidates
* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns
* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent

Type 2 ("non-populist")
* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it
* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack
* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you"
* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas
* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them

I know this is a weird and vague question, but maybe it will stoke some interesting conversation.  I dunno; let's see how it goes.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Type 2: Non-Populist, especially if you remove the last sentence there. The last thing we need is more "Ordinary bloke" type-candidates.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'm a #2 of course. Idiots who vote for "ordinary guy" type candidates are responsible for all of America's problems.

[MasterJedi]

Mix of both.

[Person Man]

I'm #2. I want to say #1, because that is the way to move forward but "Dubya" has ed us over using populism.

[Colin]

A mix of both.

However a candidate purporting to be just like me would be a person who acts like a know-it-all and reads to much as well as having a pretty good handle on world affairs. Not a horrible person to have in office.

[Democratic Hawk]

Probably a mix. Even if I do have populist leanings, I don't necessarily reject Type 2's out of hand. I am, of course, pretty fundamentalist and think that candidates for political office should ideally have 'solid' roots in the communities they seek to serve or represent

A case of embracing a Type 2 would be when we came to select the Labour parliamentary candidate back in 2004, when I supported a Northern Ireland-born academic, who lived in the constituency, over a Durham-born businesswoman. My reason? The latter was a Durham City councillor and given that Labour had lost control of the council to the Liberal Democrats in 2003, I thought it best that the parliamentary candidate have no association with the city council

Dave

[Alcon]

By the way, when I say "virtually identical," I really do mean 60-40 or less.  I don't mean that you are "balanced."  I realize most people have a balance, but I was sort of hoping that everyone would choose either the first or second category as the one they "lean" toward.  It doesn't mean you always have to be one of those characteristics. 

Thanks.

[Jake]

Type 2.

I would've voted for the incumbent in every national race since 2000 except for Specter in 2004 and in every local race except for County Commissioner this year (where the two in office were incompetent).

[Gabu]

Easily type 2.  "Folksiness" be damned; I want competent people in charge.  Seeing myself having a beer with someone does not exactly somehow make that person a better national leader.  You wouldn't choose anyone else for an important job using those criteria; why the heck would you choose someone for one of the most important jobs in the entire country on them?

[Verily]

* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member)
* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent
* Believes that we need more common-man candidates
* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns
* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent


* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it
* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack
* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you"
* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas
* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them


I don't think the first parts in each category are mutually exclusive. I would not consider myself populist.

[ilikeverin]

Type 1 ("populist")

* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member)
* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent (caveat: but if you ask me about a certain politician, I will 9 times out of 10 say they are innocent before proven guilty.  I have a much more negative view of "politicians", the abstraction, than any certain politician)
* Believes that we need more common-man candidates
* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns
* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent

Type 2 ("non-populist")
* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it
* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack (again, I have serious problem with "politicians", the abstraction)
* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you"
* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas (I oppose Obama because he has too little experience, but would almost certainly support Bloomberg if he ran.  So this obviously depends on the circumstance )
* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Type 1 ("populist")
* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member) Yes, the in the beltway types are seriously out of touch
* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent A large number of them are
* Believes that we need more common-man candidates
* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns I'm more interested in their views on the issues
* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent

Type 2 ("non-populist")
* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it
* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack
* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you"
* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas
* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them

[7,052,770]

* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member)
* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent
* Believes that we need more common-man candidates
* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns
* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent


* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it
* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack
* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you"
* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas
* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them

Mix of both, I guess.  I find my self agreeing or disagreeing with corresponding statements some.

[Sensei]

Definitely Type 2 in all the ways described, bar maybe the last.

[AkSaber]

Mix of both.

Same here.

[Everett]

Type 1 ("populist")

* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member)

Loyalty? What loyalty? I'm proud of always being the first person to eagerly ditch the party when there's a newer, bigger, hotter party next door, baby. Actually I really don't, but I find such paltry attempts highly entertaining. Usually the new kid on the block ends up being the new creep on the block anyhow. I don't support things merely because they are new and claim to be somehow different from the rest of the miserable balderdash already in existence.

* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent

Of course. I don't trust people in general. Why should I trust someone who practically makes a living through dishonesty? If they were honest people, then they wouldn't be politicians. And if people were honest, they wouldn't be people.

* Believes that we need more common-man candidates

I greatly look forward to the day when someone finally descends to the level of being sufficiently dumb to grovel at my feet for my habitually unspent vote because he or she is supposedly a revolutionary common-man (or common-woman, whatever) person just like me. A little too high most of the time, usually enchanted by some other nonexistent world, blatantly mordacious and critical of everything, quite disinterested in political matters to be honest... okay, that really sounds like someone whom everyone ought to vote for. Anyone else interested?

* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns

Sweet mother of Gabu, no.

* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent

Well they can continue wasting their time, but since no-one ever bothers with explaining why he or she even deserves to exist, there isn't anyone to give strong initial preference to. If you actually deserved to exist, you probably wouldn't be a politician.


Type 2 ("non-populist")

* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it

No, did you know that I actually don't like the political establishment?

* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack

Oh please. They never get enough criticism. Absolutely bloody never.

* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you"

See above. Again, you would have to be a complete idiot to claim that I should vote for you because you are just like me. Actually that doesn't even make sense. If you were like me, then you wouldn't be telling me to vote for you, seeing that I wouldn't tell other people to vote for me because I am apparently similar to them.

* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas

Meh. Don't even think about trying to appeal to my emotions to win my support.

* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them

Incumbents usually don't give convincing reasons to not get rid of them, and the opposition doesn't either, so who is left to vote for?

...

I am really enthusiastic about voting, as you can presumably tell. I voting.

EDIT: Wow, I couldn't even get the tags right. Fixed.

[Bacon King]

Type 1 ("populist")
* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member)
* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent
* Believes that we need more common-man candidates
* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns
* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent

Type 2 ("non-populist")
* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it
* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack
* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you"
* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas
* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them


type one seems to be closer.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I put "virtually equal" because I do not believe politicians to all be "guilty", especially on a local level.

I believe that politicians must be held accountable and if they are corrupt or not getting things done, they need to either clean up their act and go the extra mile to prove to constituents that they've changed, or be replaced.

I live in an area that is pretty populist, but in the traditional more left-wing way.  The two most recently elected state house and senate candidates mirror almost perfectly the process and way of thinking that people in my area have.

Frank Moe, our state house rep., was against a $.75/pack "health impact fee" on cigarettes to raise revenue for a plethora of state spending projects, because 1)  He smokes, and 2)  He believes that with a lot of poor people smoking, it unfairly burdens low income people with extra taxes.  He preferred raising the income tax.

He ran on a platform of lowering property taxes and tuition costs for college students, something his opponent agreed with him on, 100%.  He still won on those issues, because he went around personally door to door all over the district asking for support.

He is pro-guns, and is a sportsman.

He supports universal healthcare coverage that would include expansion of government health insurance programs to cover those that are currently uninsured.

He supports a high, progressive income tax to fund state and local institutions so that property taxes can be lowered.

I agree with him on nearly every issue, and he got 70% of the vote in 2006.

[Alcon]

I put "virtually equal" because I do not believe politicians to all be "guilty", especially on a local level.

I hate to keep pressing this over and over again, but the point was more to pick one that was a closer match, not absolute.  So if there was only one point of disagreement, I'd have preferred people put "type 1" instead of "virtually equal".

Maybe I should have discluded the third option and just told people not to vote if they were <60% a match.  Sorry for not being clearer.

[Јas]

Type 1 ("populist")
* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member)
* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent
* Believes that we need more common-man candidates
* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns
* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent

Type 2 ("non-populist")
* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it
* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack
* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you"
* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas
* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them

Agree
Disagree

[Frodo]

Type 1 ("populist")


* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member) Agree

* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before being proven innocent Disagree

* Believes that we need more common-man candidates I don't really care one way or the other

* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns Disagree -see Kucinich, Tancredo, and Alan Keyes

* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent Disagree
------------------------------------------

Type 2 ("non-populist")


* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it Agree

* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack Agree

* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you" Agree

* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas Agree

* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them  Agree
_________________________________

Given my answers: No. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

A mix of both

[Gustaf]

I agreed on all points. So I voted "virtually equal".

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Type 1 ("populist")
* Enjoys the idea of a new group that knocks sense into the establishment (not necessarily meaning not a loyal party member) - Depends
* Tends to assume politicians are guilty (of incompetence, greed, insincerity, etc.) before innocent - Not as a rule.
* Believes that we need more common-man candidates - I want the right person, so no.
* Tends to support candidates who run fiery, aggressive campaigns - No.
* Believes that politicians should justify their existences, or will give strong initial preference to their opponent - Yes

Type 2 ("non-populist")
* May not love the establishment, but tends to be wary of sudden efforts to topple it - Yes
* Believes that politicians, while largely flawed and marred by bureaucracy, sometimes get too much flack - Yes
* Is wary of candidates purporting to be "just like you" - No
* Tends to support candidates with greater credentials, even if the opponent is more personable and charismatic or has fresher ideas - The right person. So no.
* Tends to vote for incumbents unless the opposition can give convincing reason to rid of them - No