In case there's any question: "moderate candidate" = Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar; "candidate who will energize the base" = Sanders, Warren.
I should have included that as a poll option.I will definitely vote for a Democrat. I personally favor a candidate whose policy proposals will coincidentally excite the base. I have no idea whether such a candidate is more or less likely to win and suspect the distinction to be largely irrelevant.
I appeal to you to see this election as not Republican vs. Democrat but as someone who will do whatever is best for their own interest, regardless of taking an oath to uphold the Constitution vs. someone who will uphold the Constitution? Can't you vote for the latter even though you don't generally support all their policies/party?I will probably vote third party but am considering a vote for Mayor Pete based not on his policies, but on his demeanor, intelligence and emotional maturity. I am extremely unlikely, by my history, to vote for any other democratic candidate.
The question isn't whether you care about electability or would vote based on it. The question is whether you can estimate it. "No, I can't estimate it" is a perfectly good answer that I neglected to include as an option. "I don't think it should matter" is a separate issue.i don’t care at all about electability.
It would be a boring forum if everyone answered yes/no and provided no context for their answersThe question isn't whether you care about it or would vote based on it. The question is whether you can estimate it. "No, I can't estimate it" is a perfectly good answer that I neglected to include as an option. "I don't think it should matter" is a separate issue.
The two party system has lead us inexorably to this moment in history. This was predictable years ago. The argument always exists, and always seems very compelling that just this once wont you set aside your objections and join the fray as today's crisis is unprecedented. The current election is always unprecedented, good against evil. No we need to break this cycle which will only bring us more of the same. The two current parties have each lost perspective. The are perpetuating the divide.I appeal to you to see this election as not Republican vs. Democrat but as someone who will do whatever is best for their own interest, regardless of taking an oath to uphold the Constitution vs. someone who will uphold the Constitution? Can't you vote for the latter even though you don't generally support all their policies/party?
Using just the money between his couch cushions, Bloomberg could singlehandedly make all the betting markets say he was the most electable.I question how wise the betting markets are. Gambling this way is not even completely legal. Also, unlike sports betting, the infrequencies of U.S. presidential elections makes statistical models they may employ less tested. I also question whether online political gamblers might be influenced by their own less diverse bubbles.
I don't think this is true unless he violates the rules. I think the amount any single person is allowed to bet is too small to have a sizable effect on the market (but I'm not really familiar with those kinds of details).Using just the money between his couch cushions, Bloomberg could singlehandedly make all the betting markets say he was the most electable.
Bloomberg already has like 1000 paid employees on his campaign staff.I don't think this is true unless he violates the rules. I think the amount any single person is allowed to bet is too small to have a sizable effect on the market (but I'm not really familiar with those kinds of details).
And I believe using them to make coordinated bets would violate the rules.Bloomberg already has like 1000 paid employees on his campaign staff.
I think the moderate candidates better represent the "base" of the democratic party. Office holders are generally moderates. The AOCs of the world are exceptions on the democratic side. Though demographics have been shifting left.In case there's any question: "moderate candidate" = Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar; "candidate who will energize the base" = Sanders, Warren.
The moderates will have a better chance against Trump. That is all that really matters. Warren will be dropping out soon so it will be the moderate group vs Bernie.In case there's any question: "moderate candidate" = Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar; "candidate who will energize the base" = Sanders, Warren.
Is it just a coincidence that the two that you put down as energizing the base are those considered farthest to the left, or do you think the two go together?In case there's any question: "moderate candidate" = Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar; "candidate who will energize the base" = Sanders, Warren.
Not a coincidence. In this context, "energizing the base" is a euphemism for being an extremist. But I wanted to use language that Bernie supporters would accept, so calling them extremists didn't seem exactly right.Is it just a coincidence that the two that you put down as energizing the base are those considered farthest to the left, or do you think the two go together?
Pete is a moderate compared to the candidates who aren't moderate.Pete is not a moderate.
Well when you put it that way....Pete is a moderate compared to the candidates who aren't moderate.
He doesn't want to prohibit private health insurance. He's against free college. He's against using divisive rhetoric to demonize the rich -- or even to demonize Trump supporters. He doesn't support a wealth tax. Ren dislikes him...
Pete's demeanor is moderate which is probably more important to appealing to voters than actual policies.I answered this poll completely wrong because I didn't read all the way through, but either way.
1. Will definitely vote for the democratic candidate.
2. Pete is not a moderate.
3. I believe the base of the party in this election is suburban women and non-white people that need to come out in droves in order to win in November and I don't think the person to make that happen is either Sanders or Warren.
In fairness, Ren dislikes Warren too.Pete is a moderate compared to the candidates who aren't moderate.
He doesn't want to prohibit private health insurance. He's against free college. He's against using divisive rhetoric to demonize the rich -- or even to demonize Trump supporters. He doesn't support a wealth tax. Ren dislikes him...
Pretty solid post here.Juxtatarot said:I question how wise the betting markets are. Gambling this way is not even completely legal. Also, unlike sports betting, the infrequencies of U.S. presidential elections makes statistical models they may employ less tested. I also question whether online political gamblers might be influenced by their own less diverse bubbles.
I’m gobsmacked how demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are the central factors that would make you consider a for vote for Pete, but not a reason to do vote for *all other* alternatives to Trump.Ditkaless Wonders said:I will probably vote third party but am considering a vote for Mayor Pete based not on his policies, but on his demeanor, intelligence and emotional maturity. I am extremely unlikely, by my history, to vote for any other democratic candidate.
Yup.I will vote for whoever them democratic candidate is. If it’s Bernie, Joe or Liz I think we have 4 more years of trump
Well voting third party is a vote for other than Trump.I’m gobsmacked how demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are the central factors that would make you consider a for vote for Pete, but not a reason to do vote for *all other* alternatives to Trump.
Obviously do with your vote what you wish. It's a personal thing. But, a 3rd party vote, although a symbolic gesture that potentially makes us feel better about our participation in the process, has no practical value within the current system. If demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are supremely important to you, I would hope witnessing Trump and considering 4 more years of stupidity, emotional regression, and continued assault on the very agencies and norms that protect us citizens from authoritarians and dictators would be sufficient to vote for whatever viable alternative there is to Trump.Well voting third party is a vote for other than Trump.
Interesting question.Obviously do with your vote what you wish. It's a personal thing. But, a 3rd party vote, although a symbolic gesture that potentially makes us feel better about our participation in the process, has no practical value within the current system. If demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are supremely important to you, I would hope witnessing Trump and considering 4 more years of stupidity, emotional regression, and continued assault on the very agencies and norms that protect us citizens from authoritarians and dictators would be sufficient to vote for whatever viable alternative there is to Trump.
If the scenario were somehow that you were the last person to cast a vote in America and, at the point you made the vote, Trump was tied with another human being that has superior demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity compared to Trump, do I understand your position to be that you would vote for someone else entirely, leaving it a tie (and thus to Trump for 4 years)?
Underrated factor in politics. IMO it helped make both Bush and Obama more palatable to the center than they might have been based solely on their platforms. Trump is the counterexample. He used his immoderate tone to appeal to the base even as movement conservatives were warning he wasn’t a true conservative (remember National Review’s “Against Trump” issue?)jon_mx said:Pete's demeanor is moderate which is probably more important to appealing to voters than actual policies.
I agree with your logic, and seriously hope that DW reconsiders and votes for any Democrat against Trump, but the truth is that pretty much all votes in a presidential election (and really, any election outside of your local schoolboard) are for all intents and purposes symbolic acts. And that’s not even getting into the impact of the Electoral College (no idea where DW is voting, but the odds are it’s a non-swing state and therefore even less relevant)Obviously do with your vote what you wish. It's a personal thing. But, a 3rd party vote, although a symbolic gesture that potentially makes us feel better about our participation in the process, has no practical value within the current system. If demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are supremely important to you, I would hope witnessing Trump and considering 4 more years of stupidity, emotional regression, and continued assault on the very agencies and norms that protect us citizens from authoritarians and dictators would be sufficient to vote for whatever viable alternative there is to Trump.
If the scenario were somehow that you were the last person to cast a vote in America and, at the point you made the vote, Trump was tied with another human being that has superior demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity compared to Trump, do I understand your position to be that you would vote for someone else entirely, leaving it a tie (and thus to Trump for 4 years)?
Buttigieg is an extremist. He won't commit to cutting insane military budget, supports Trump's coups and regime change programs, apparently is open to drone assassinations on foreign leaders. Argues 'gun violence' case while ignoring expansive police state at home and mass killing abroad. He is endorsed by the national security swamp. He supports Israel's brutal apartheid state.Pete is a moderate compared to the candidates who aren't moderate.
He doesn't want to prohibit private health insurance. He's against free college. He's against using divisive rhetoric to demonize the rich -- or even to demonize Trump supporters. He doesn't support a wealth tax. Ren dislikes him...