2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Victory is what defines a "better candidate".
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. Let's say the goal with a 6 sided die is to roll a six. And let's say we have a die with two sixes on it and another with only one. The first die is obviously better. But in a one off contest against the other die, it still has a chance of losing.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is ridiculous. Let's say the goal with a 6 sided die is to roll a six. And let's say we have a die with two sixes on it and another with only one. The first die is obviously better. But in a one off contest against the other die, it still has a chance of losing.
Click to expand...

Elections are not games of chance.
 
Ziggurat said:
Victory is what defines a "better candidate", in cases where victory can be/is determined (it becomes messier for hypothetical matchups). But it's a mistake to conclude that whether a politician is a better candidate is the only thing that matters about them. It obviously isn't.
Click to expand...
Candidate A polling at 90%, candidate B polling at 10%. B shoots A dead and wins the election. B is not a better candidate than A.

I agree that Clinton was a poor candidate. However, I'm pretty sure she would have won had not the Ruskies illegally meddled, combined with Comey's weird gyrations.
 
theprestige said:
"Dear bookies, guessing the outcome of an election in advance is a game of chance. Actual elections are not. I hope this helps. Have a nice day!"
Click to expand...

But isn't that true of everything people bet on? Horse races, football games, boxing matches. They're not games of chance yet they can be bet upon as if they were.
 
TragicMonkey said:
But isn't that true of everything people bet on? Horse races, football games, boxing matches. They're not games of chance yet they can be bet upon as if they were.
Click to expand...

In the interest of having a fair and transparent election, I demand to check Trump's teeth up close and observe him during exercises.
 
varwoche said:
Candidate A polling at 90%, candidate B polling at 10%. B shoots A dead and wins the election. B is not a better candidate than A.
Click to expand...

Oh, but he is.

Presumably in this scenario people don't vote for candidate A because he's dead (not sure it matters that B shot him). That's not how elections with dead candidates actually play out (dead candidates often win, and A would almost certainly win), but no matter, we'll go with your hypothetical scenario. And in this scenario, living candidate A may have been a better candidate than B, but dead candidate A is a worse candidate than B. And the election happens between dead candidate A and candidate B, not between living candidate A and candidate B.

varwoche said:
I agree that Clinton was a poor candidate. However, I'm pretty sure she would have won had not the Ruskies illegally meddled, combined with Comey's weird gyrations.
Click to expand...

Comey's weird gyrations wouldn't have been possible if not for Hillary's own bungling.

And your belief that the Russians tilted the election isn't supported by any real evidence.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
But isn't that true of everything people bet on? Horse races, football games, boxing matches. They're not games of chance yet they can be bet upon as if they were.
Click to expand...

The game of chance is the betting, not the thing being bet upon. Excepting, of course, specific games which are based on taking risks against chance, such as blackjack and roulette.

Poker is something of a hybrid. It has elements of chance and risk, but is actually a game of social engineering.

Elections are games of popularity, with a lot of hidden information, so they lend themselves to games of betting on the outcome. Horse racing is a test of physical prowess, again with hidden info, etc.
 
theprestige said:
Half of these sound like Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

He is the Lowest Common Denominator of mainstream Democrats so he fits in under a lot of things. I think his creepy handsiness is his most identifiable personal trait, the thing that really sets him apart from the crowd. He should play that up to generate more spotlight. "I have smelled the hair of Lady Liberty and it smells like a moderate tax increase on capital gains" and so forth.
 
TragicMonkey said:
He is the Lowest Common Denominator of mainstream Democrats so he fits in under a lot of things. I think his creepy handsiness is his most identifiable personal trait, the thing that really sets him apart from the crowd. He should play that up to generate more spotlight. "I have smelled the hair of Lady Liberty and it smells like a moderate tax increase on capital gains" and so forth.
Click to expand...

Creepy Malarkey might be a better name, because his creepiness is a manifestation of his out-of-touch persona.
 
Ziggurat said:
And your belief that the Russians tilted the election isn't supported by any real evidence.
Click to expand...

Do you consider the Mueller investigation "real evidence" because if you do, his report concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law".
 
Ziggurat said:
Comey's weird gyrations wouldn't have been possible if not for Hillary's own bungling.
Click to expand...
True. For this reason and others, I think she was a poor candidate.

And your belief that the Russians tilted the election isn't supported by any real evidence.
Click to expand...
ANY drip-drip-drip that lasts for weeks down the stretch of the general is huge. The margins in PA, MI and WI were small. "Real evidence" isn't feasible no matter if I'm right or wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom