2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[TurkeysGhost]

It's hard to imagine anyone running in the primary but Bernie having ads like this. This is the type of message that Bernie will bring to the general and it is 100% electable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Ikgh4JbAWUU&feature=emb_logo

 

[Belz...]

Is throwing out your principles really the best way to fight the unprincipled?

No one's suggesting voting for Charles Manson to defeat Trump. None of the Democratic candidates seem particularily bad.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What does "best" mean here?



I'm not hostile. I'm puzzled. I can't understand why people would knowingly pick the worst option.

I understand why you're puzzled: it's because you are apparently incapable of grasping that other people have different opinions of what is "best" and "worst". In other words, people disagree on the philosophical question of "the concept of the good".

Does this blindness of yours extend to realms other than politics? Do you eat anchovies and wonder in bafflement when other people say they don't like them? Do you assume everyone should like the same books and movies that you do? Do you marvel at how a singer can have a successful career if you don't like their music?

 

[Segnosaur]

Is throwing out your principles really the best way to fight the unprincipled?

A Sanders supporter deciding to back Biden or Warren in the primaries isn't necessarily "throwing out their principles".

Ok, they may not push for medicare-for-all like Sanders, but they will expand medical coverage (including, likely an expansion in government programs). They won't "eat the rich", but they'll still likely increase taxes. And they will still nominate left-of-center judges for the courts.

They would still be getting many/most of their principles fulfilled, and it sets the stage to getting more done in the future.

 

[theprestige]

No one's suggesting voting for Charles Manson to defeat Trump. None of the Democratic candidates seem particularily bad.

Exactly. No candidate is perfect. Everyone in the Dem field is located somewhere on the progressive spectrum. They're all probably better than Trump in every way that matters to progressives. How hard can it be to just pick one?

 

[Cabbage]

That's the point of the hypothetical, as that's what we're discussing right now.

Not really. What we're discussing right now is the fact that we can't predict who is a winner and who is a loser. It's a loaded question.

 

[Belz...]

I understand why you're puzzled: it's because you are apparently incapable of grasping that other people have different opinions of what is "best" and "worst".

It's the very fact that I understand the existence of other opinions that I ask the questions (in fact, given our mutual years of interactions on this forum, you're clearly aware of this, so the above can only be disingenuous fist-waving brought about by frustration.) So clearly, you don't understand at all.

Instead of getting personal for no reason, would you mind answering my question, which in fact specifically asks you to define what you mean by "best" in this context?

In other words, people disagree on the philosophical question of "the concept of the good".

I would think that losing to Trump again would be "bad".

Does this blindness of yours extend to realms other than politics? Do you eat anchovies and wonder in bafflement when other people say they don't like them? Do you assume everyone should like the same books and movies that you do? Do you marvel at how a singer can have a successful career if you don't like their music?

 

[Belz...]

Not really. What we're discussing right now is the fact that we can't predict who is a winner and who is a loser. It's a loaded question.

It's EXACTLY what we've been discussing. If you didn't notice the posts where this was brought up, it's not my problem. If it doesn't interest you, then you could simply have not responded.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that. Instead of getting personal for no reason, would you mind answering my question, which in fact specifically asks you to define what you mean by "best" in this context?

If everybody knows that why are you acting as if you don't?

The best candidate, in my opinion, is the one who would do the job we're considering them for in the manner most aligned with how I think they ought to do it. The best candidate will have goals I deem desirable, values I share, and as far as I can assess it the strength and intelligence to pursue these things. They should also not be too much of a jerk or *******. For me, the candidate who currently closest matches my requirements is Warren.

I would think that losing to Trump again would be "bad".

Such an outcome is not desirable to me, yes. Which is why I hope my preferred candidate wins instead.

 

[Belz...]

If everybody knows that why are you acting as if you don't?

It's possible that I'm not expressing myself very clearly, but when one tries to understand why another person does X, they must necessarily understand that they are, in fact, doing X. So your accusation that I don't understand that there are different opinions doesn't make sense in light of the fact that I am asking questions with the specific and stated intent to understand these opinions.

The best candidate, in my opinion, is the one who would do the job we're considering them for in the manner most aligned with how I think they ought to do it.

Ok, then. That's how I understood it.

Such an outcome is not desirable to me, yes. Which is why I hope my preferred candidate wins instead.

Which brings me back to the earlier question, then: if the "best" candidate is not expected to win, but the "meh" one, which is nowhere as bad as the "Trump" candidate, is expected to win, why cast your vote and lose to the worst outcome?

I understand standing by your principles. My point is that sometimes there are higher principles which have to be considered; in this case, beating the madman in the Oval Office.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Which brings me back to the earlier question, then: if the "best" candidate is not expected to win, but the "meh" one, which is nowhere as bad as the "Trump" candidate, is expected to win, why cast your vote and lose to the worst outcome?

I understand standing by your principles. My point is that sometimes there are higher principles which have to be considered; in this case, beating the madman in the Oval Office.

The point of the primary is to select a strong candidate. Trying to do 20-dimensional political game theory about "electability" is how you screw yourself out of a strong candidate.

Here's a crazy idea. The candidate most able to draw lots of support during the primary is probably one that can draw a lot of support during the general.

These people making the "electability" arguments just so happen to be selecting their preferred candidate. Makes you wonder about their motivation and if they are prognosticating in good faith.

 

[Distracted1]

If everybody knows that why are you acting as if you don't?

The best candidate, in my opinion, is the one who would do the job we're considering them for in the manner most aligned with how I think they ought to do it. The best candidate will have goals I deem desirable, values I share, and as far as I can assess it the strength and intelligence to pursue these things. They should also not be too much of a jerk or *******. For me, the candidate who currently closest matches my requirements is Warren.




Such an outcome is not desirable to me, yes. Which is why I hope my preferred candidate wins instead.

Funny, my preferred President (of the field) is Warren too.

Should Sanders win the nomination, and Warren decide to run as a third-party candidate- would you vote for her over Sanders?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Which brings me back to the earlier question, then: if the "best" candidate is not expected to win, but the "meh" one, which is nowhere as bad as the "Trump" candidate, is expected to win, why cast your vote and lose to the worst outcome?

Because I place more importance on my judgment than i do on anyone else's ability to predict the future. I don't care what in other people's guesses they "expect" to happen. That holds zero value to me and thus is not a factor in my decision-making. Unless they are time-travellers, of course.

I understand standing by your principles. My point is that sometimes there are higher principles which have to be considered; in this case, beating the madman in the Oval Office.

In my opinion mention of "higher principles" is only made when someone is attempting to persuade someone else into abandoning their actual principles. I don't believe "the ends justify the means" is a good principle, therefore I refuse to adopt it.

 

[Belz...]

Trying to do 20-dimensional political game theory about "electability" is how you screw yourself out of a strong candidate.

Opinions clearly differ on that. For now I'm more interested in situations where you've got good reasons to think your prefered candidate would lose the general.

These people making the "electability" arguments just so happen to be selecting their preferred candidate.

Not necessarily. Plenty of people hold their noses, so to speak.

 

[varwoche]

I can't believe you're not getting this. These are your choices:

A) Voting for your prefered candidate, whom you know is likely to lose*
B) Voting for an ok or lesser evil candidate, whom you know is likely to win
C) Voting for the other team's greater evil

Is it that difficult to accept that B is the better choice? People living in human societies have known this for thousands of years. We're rarely perfectly happy with the government, but so what? What's this "my way or the highway" mentality?

*For the purposes of this hypothetical.

To weigh these options properly, me must also weigh the possibilities of what A vs B might actually be able to achieve in office.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yup. Executive pay seems to be excessive. (I'm especially disturbed at the existence of "golden parachutes"... executives getting big payouts after getting fired.)

The question is... what do you DO about it. All fine for Sanders to rant about these big paydays but how do you step in to provide limits to just how much a person can get paid, without government overreach.

Use the world's largest soap box to advocate for unions

Not everyone is a member of a union. And even if he manages to increase union influence, there is no guarantee that executive pay won't continue to out-strip worker pay.

taxation on the rich

Good idea. I think every Democrat candidate supports that to some degree.

But Taxation is an after-income action. Plus, there is no guarantee that they won't simply increase executive pay to account for the greater taxation.

and other policies that would directly address extreme wealth inequality.

But that's the question I was asking... what other policies?

A law that sets a hard cap on total compensation? Some sort of percentage deal? And how does he plan to handle foreign-owned companies with subsidiaries in the U.S.?

Maybe Sanders does have a more comprehensive plan. It would have been great to see that in his tweet. "Executives are overpaid... see how I'd handle it by going to my website at 'sandersisgod.com/eat_the_rich'." Without that, it just seems like empty rhetoric.

 

[Belz...]

Because I place more importance on my judgment than i do on anyone else's ability to predict the future. I don't care what in other people's guesses they "expect" to happen. That holds zero value to me and thus is not a factor in my decision-making. Unless they are time-travellers, of course.

Fair enough.

In my opinion mention of "higher principles" is only made when someone is attempting to persuade someone else into abandoning their actual principles.

Well, you're wrong. For instance, someone could be strongly opposed to lying as a matter of principle, but could be driven to lie in order to, for instance, avoid causing serious harm or death to someone. That's not abandoning their actual principles; it's recognising that they're on a scale, and no principle can be seen as absolute all the time. Otherwise one would be Bobbing.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Funny, my preferred President (of the field) is Warren too.

Should Sanders win the nomination, and Warren decide to run as a third-party candidate- would you vote for her over Sanders?

I'd certainly think about it long and hard. It seems highly unlikely to occur. I wouldn't vote for Sanders in that scenario because I'd guess his chances were better, but I might vote for Sanders in that scenario because by acting in that fashion Warren would demonstrate a lack of judgment.

Which would please the unprincipled pragmatists amongst us as they don't care why someone votes the way they want, just so long as they do.

 

[Distracted1]

The point of the primary is to select a strong candidate. Trying to do 20-dimensional political game theory about "electability" is how you screw yourself out of a strong candidate.

Here's a crazy idea. The candidate most able to draw lots of support during the primary is probably one that can draw a lot of support during the general.

These people making the "electability" arguments just so happen to be selecting their preferred candidate. Makes you wonder about their motivation and if they are prognosticating in good faith.

Nonsense.
I prefer Warren for POTUS, yet, when the primaries come to Philadelphia, I will cast a vote for whomever seems to be most likely to be able to unseat Trump (and that is not currently Warren, so if it were tomorrow I would likely be voting Biden)

Edit to clarify. Should multiple options have the same (or very similar) chances of winning, I would vote Warren. Even if she were a point or three behind in a 10 point race.

 

[Distracted1]

To weigh these options properly, me must also weigh the possibilities of what A vs B might actually be able to achieve in office.

Why would consideration of what "A" could achieve in office be relevant in a scenario wherein "A" cannot get into office?