Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 277908 times)

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2400 on: March 02, 2020, 12:09:10 PM »
Wow. Buttigieg is dropping out.

And Amy is out. Will endorse Biden.

Well then, the "moderate lane" has officially lost my vote.  Not even sure I could bring myself to vote for Biden or Bloomberg in November if they end up with the nomination.  Not like my votes going to matter anyways (living in Kentucky), so I'll probably just stay home if that happens.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3269
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2401 on: March 02, 2020, 12:19:58 PM »
So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

Would you say the same for religion too?

Trump chose Pence as a running mate not because of some incredible qualifications that Pence had that no one else did, but because he wanted to have an Evangelical on the ticket to win over conservative Evangelicals who might otherwise be queasy about Trump's obvious immorality. Same difference, different population.

I would argue that Republicans lean into identity politics way harder than Democrats do, they're just more dishonest about calling it that. How many Republicans are openly gunning for a (conservative Evangelical) Christian theocracy?

Except religion is a choice, unlike race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Choosing a running mate with a belief system similar to yours or that resonates with people you want to vote for you is much different than choosing a running mate on a characteristic they canít control.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2402 on: March 02, 2020, 12:32:21 PM »
So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

Would you say the same for religion too?

Trump chose Pence as a running mate not because of some incredible qualifications that Pence had that no one else did, but because he wanted to have an Evangelical on the ticket to win over conservative Evangelicals who might otherwise be queasy about Trump's obvious immorality. Same difference, different population.

I would argue that Republicans lean into identity politics way harder than Democrats do, they're just more dishonest about calling it that. How many Republicans are openly gunning for a (conservative Evangelical) Christian theocracy?

Except religion is a choice, unlike race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Choosing a running mate with a belief system similar to yours or that resonates with people you want to vote for you is much different than choosing a running mate on a characteristic they can’t control.

Nonsense: Religion is a "choice" exactly as much as you can simply "choose" to be a different religion if your current one is being discriminated against. Millions of people the world over live with horrible discrimination (or even are killed) because of their religion.

And if we're going down this path, I'd argue that the party that tries to represent the under-represented races, under-represented religions, and under-represented sexes is far less of a problem than the one that only tries to represent the majority race / religion / sex. The politically powerful majority unjustly treating the politically weak minority is much more of a realistic problem than the reverse.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5287
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2403 on: March 02, 2020, 12:33:22 PM »
Most of us "inherit" our religion, though.  And the penalties for leaving that religion can range from loss of family to loss of life.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2404 on: March 02, 2020, 12:59:26 PM »
"Positive" discrimination like affirmative action has not yet been fleshed out in terms of whether or not it's beneficial, or even acceptable.  The problem with affirmative action is that it compromises against the prior hierarchy; namely competence.

This assumes that before affirmative action people were chosen based on competence.  I'm pretty sure a strong case can be made against that statement.

Humans have always attempted to form hierarchies based on competence.  The west is the best example of this.  They have never been perfect at it.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6823
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2405 on: March 02, 2020, 01:14:23 PM »
Not like my votes going to matter anyways (living in Kentucky), so I'll probably just stay home if that happens.

Your vote matters. It always matters. If you don't vote, your media, your party and your candidates will never know you are there and will not take your electorate / state seriously enough try to flip it in future.

Even if you lose, if enough of you kick hard enough to turn it from red to purple. It might just sow a seed of change for the future.

Your vote matters.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15594
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2406 on: March 02, 2020, 01:15:43 PM »
"Positive" discrimination like affirmative action has not yet been fleshed out in terms of whether or not it's beneficial, or even acceptable.  The problem with affirmative action is that it compromises against the prior hierarchy; namely competence.

This assumes that before affirmative action people were chosen based on competence.  I'm pretty sure a strong case can be made against that statement.

Humans have always attempted to form hierarchies based on competence.  The west is the best example of this.  They have never been perfect at it.

Attempting to do something and actually doing it are quite different though.

If we were able to form hierarchies based upon competence, then there wouldn't be a need for affirmative action.  Unless your argument is that white men in the west are significantly more competent than everyone else.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2407 on: March 02, 2020, 01:20:09 PM »
"Positive" discrimination like affirmative action has not yet been fleshed out in terms of whether or not it's beneficial, or even acceptable.  The problem with affirmative action is that it compromises against the prior hierarchy; namely competence.

This assumes that before affirmative action people were chosen based on competence.  I'm pretty sure a strong case can be made against that statement.

Humans have always attempted to form hierarchies based on competence.  The west is the best example of this.  They have never been perfect at it.

Attempting to do something and actually doing it are quite different though.

If we were able to form hierarchies based upon competence, then there wouldn't be a need for affirmative action.  Unless your argument is that white men in the west are significantly more competent than everyone else.

Its a chicken or egg situation, and the correlation vs causation is still a problem.  If someone is poorly performing and also a minority, it is not immediately evident that the cause is wholly their own negligence or that it's wholly some type of systemic cultural inadequacy.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

If the dems can't produce a candidate even remotely intersectional, and you're a cynic, you'd say it's because of corruption and privilege and racism.  If you're an optimist, you'd say it's because the best candidates happened to be old/rich/white etc.  But either way, you're going to lose some base support.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3269
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2408 on: March 02, 2020, 02:02:59 PM »
So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

Would you say the same for religion too?

Trump chose Pence as a running mate not because of some incredible qualifications that Pence had that no one else did, but because he wanted to have an Evangelical on the ticket to win over conservative Evangelicals who might otherwise be queasy about Trump's obvious immorality. Same difference, different population.

I would argue that Republicans lean into identity politics way harder than Democrats do, they're just more dishonest about calling it that. How many Republicans are openly gunning for a (conservative Evangelical) Christian theocracy?

Except religion is a choice, unlike race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Choosing a running mate with a belief system similar to yours or that resonates with people you want to vote for you is much different than choosing a running mate on a characteristic they canít control.

Nonsense: Religion is a "choice" exactly as much as you can simply "choose" to be a different religion if your current one is being discriminated against. Millions of people the world over live with horrible discrimination (or even are killed) because of their religion.

Except we are talking in the context of choosing a Presidential running mate in the United States, so thatís not exactly relevant. Hell, 50% of the 4 Dem candidates are Jews, and none of the 5 major candidates (including Trump) could be called serious Christians.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2409 on: March 02, 2020, 02:27:18 PM »
Except religion is a choice, unlike race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Choosing a running mate with a belief system similar to yours or that resonates with people you want to vote for you is much different than choosing a running mate on a characteristic they can’t control.

Nonsense: Religion is a "choice" exactly as much as you can simply "choose" to be a different religion if your current one is being discriminated against. Millions of people the world over live with horrible discrimination (or even are killed) because of their religion.

And if we're going down this path, I'd argue that the party that tries to represent the under-represented races, under-represented religions, and under-represented sexes is far less of a problem than the one that only tries to represent the majority race / religion / sex. The politically powerful majority unjustly treating the politically weak minority is much more of a realistic problem than the reverse.

Except we are talking in the context of choosing a Presidential running mate in the United States, so that’s not exactly relevant. Hell, 50% of the 4 Dem candidates are Jews, and none of the 5 major candidates (including Trump) could be called serious Christians.

It is extremely relevant.
1) We're talking about whether religion is a "choice" or not. If people can't just "choose" something different then it's obviously not "just a choice", it's obviously something deeper. Like part of their identity maybe?
2) Here is the list of protected classes in the US, of which religion is definitely one, which I would say is the whole basis of this conversation. "Choosing a running mate based on a protected class status is wrong" is at least a whole lot more of a coherent argument than "Choosing a running mate based on a choice/not-a-choice is wrong" is.

Also GTFO with your no-true-Scotsman nonsense. Biden shows every sign of being a committed Catholic and Warren is an open Methodist. Both Catholics and Methodists fell under the umbrella of "Christian" last time I checked. Both candidates have quoted scripture on the campaign trail. Just because you don't agree with Warren or Biden's politics doesn't mean you can call them "not serious Christians".

I might agree with you that Trump is not a "serious Christian", but he claims to be and neither of us have the authority to declare him otherwise. And Trump and the two Jews (Bloomberg and Sanders) are just examples that proves my other point harder (the one you edited out). If Republicans weren't playing hard into "Christians-only" identity politics then Trump wouldn't need to superficially be a Christian, would he? Jews won't almost exclusively be running for Democratic seats, would they?

Republicans are far more discriminatory / identity-politics-bound than Democrats are. And Democrats are sticking up for the little guys, where such a thing is maybe a little more morally permissible, Republicans are solely for crushing the minorities (until they become one!).
« Last Edit: March 02, 2020, 02:43:02 PM by sherr »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2410 on: March 02, 2020, 03:52:00 PM »
Not like my votes going to matter anyways (living in Kentucky), so I'll probably just stay home if that happens.

Your vote matters. It always matters. If you don't vote, your media, your party and your candidates will never know you are there and will not take your electorate / state seriously enough try to flip it in future.

Even if you lose, if enough of you kick hard enough to turn it from red to purple. It might just sow a seed of change for the future.

Your vote matters.

Eh, I'll probably still end up voting.  I can't not vote against Mitch McConnell after all.  I'll just write in Pete Buttigieg for president or something.  But this is the closest I've come to not voting since I became eligible.  Very disappointed with the state of our politics/government/society right now.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2411 on: March 02, 2020, 07:10:18 PM »
Quote
In my eyes it's the year 2020, there should no position filled based on anything other than the best suited person for the job... regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or "strategy".  But yet, for some reason it is the same people who openly discriminate when it comes to picking the VP of the USA that would be up in arms if they heard of discrimination in any other workplace.  Is this just another example of politicians getting to live by a different set of rules than the rest of us?

Politics is different because demographics determine who is best for the job.  It's all about voter turnout.  Race is just one aspect.  State/city of origin is another aspect.  Trump wanted Kasich as his running mate to lock up Ohio.  He went with Pence to calm the Evangelical voters.  Abrams might put states like Georgia and North Carolina in play.  Klobuchar could help solidify the upper MW.  A Republican-ish VP could shore up moderates and independents.  VPs are ONLY selected for political reasons.  There isn't really a VP meritocracy.  There aren't any objective qualifications for the VP role outside of being 35 and a natural-born citizen.  The VP role is about shoring up a segment of the vote.  All's fair. 

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2448
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2412 on: March 02, 2020, 07:39:25 PM »
Quote
In my eyes it's the year 2020, there should no position filled based on anything other than the best suited person for the job... regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or "strategy".  But yet, for some reason it is the same people who openly discriminate when it comes to picking the VP of the USA that would be up in arms if they heard of discrimination in any other workplace.  Is this just another example of politicians getting to live by a different set of rules than the rest of us?

Politics is different because demographics determine who is best for the job.  It's all about voter turnout.  Race is just one aspect.  State/city of origin is another aspect.  Trump wanted Kasich as his running mate to lock up Ohio.  He went with Pence to calm the Evangelical voters.  Abrams might put states like Georgia and North Carolina in play.  Klobuchar could help solidify the upper MW.  A Republican-ish VP could shore up moderates and independents.  VPs are ONLY selected for political reasons.  There isn't really a VP meritocracy.  There aren't any objective qualifications for the VP role outside of being 35 and a natural-born citizen.  The VP role is about shoring up a segment of the vote.  All's fair.

Did anyone, at any time believe that Sarah Palin was chosen because she was the best for the job :)

OzzieandHarriet

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2413 on: March 02, 2020, 09:29:03 PM »
Wow. Buttigieg is dropping out.

And Amy is out. Will endorse Biden.

Well then, the "moderate lane" has officially lost my vote.  Not even sure I could bring myself to vote for Biden or Bloomberg in November if they end up with the nomination.  Not like my votes going to matter anyways (living in Kentucky), so I'll probably just stay home if that happens.

You need to vote out Mitch at least.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3901
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2414 on: March 03, 2020, 08:40:14 AM »
Wow. Buttigieg is dropping out.

And Amy is out. Will endorse Biden.

Well then, the "moderate lane" has officially lost my vote.  Not even sure I could bring myself to vote for Biden or Bloomberg in November if they end up with the nomination.  Not like my votes going to matter anyways (living in Kentucky), so I'll probably just stay home if that happens.

That's ridiculous. For me personally, voting at the local, judge, congressional and senate levels are just as important if not MORE important than who you vote for President. You have Moscow Mitch running for senate, the person who decides what is heard in the senate, the person who told us what the outcome of the senate impeachment hearings was going to be before they were even held, and your are going to stay home?!?

I doubt either of my favorites will be on the ticket(one just dropped out in fact). I'm still going to vote. And where I'm donating money is to turn senate seats blue to stop this gridlock.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2020, 10:32:04 AM by partgypsy »

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2415 on: March 03, 2020, 12:16:47 PM »

Politics is different because demographics determine who is best for the job.  It's all about voter turnout.  Race is just one aspect.  State/city of origin is another aspect.  Trump wanted Kasich as his running mate to lock up Ohio.  He went with Pence to calm the Evangelical voters.  Abrams might put states like Georgia and North Carolina in play.  Klobuchar could help solidify the upper MW.  A Republican-ish VP could shore up moderates and independents.  VPs are ONLY selected for political reasons.  There isn't really a VP meritocracy.  There aren't any objective qualifications for the VP role outside of being 35 and a natural-born citizen.  The VP role is about shoring up a segment of the vote.  All's fair.
[/quote]
Redbirdfan is exactly right. I would add one more criteria to picks for running mates. MONEY. Who can raise or contribute the most money to the campaign. Al Gore, Senator, son of a Senator, wealthy family, etc. There was all the hand ringing about two southerners on the ticket. But, ultimately, it was about the money. Biden is going to need a lot of money cause he is nearly running out of it and we are still in primary season. Who brings in more cash? Kamala Harris? Stacey Abrams? One of the other primary candidates? He has to find the money somewhere.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2416 on: March 03, 2020, 12:33:59 PM »
Politics is different because demographics determine who is best for the job.  It's all about voter turnout.  Race is just one aspect.  State/city of origin is another aspect.  Trump wanted Kasich as his running mate to lock up Ohio.  He went with Pence to calm the Evangelical voters.  Abrams might put states like Georgia and North Carolina in play.  Klobuchar could help solidify the upper MW.  A Republican-ish VP could shore up moderates and independents.  VPs are ONLY selected for political reasons.  There isn't really a VP meritocracy.  There aren't any objective qualifications for the VP role outside of being 35 and a natural-born citizen.  The VP role is about shoring up a segment of the vote.  All's fair.
Redbirdfan is exactly right. I would add one more criteria to picks for running mates. MONEY. Who can raise or contribute the most money to the campaign. Al Gore, Senator, son of a Senator, wealthy family, etc. There was all the hand ringing about two southerners on the ticket. But, ultimately, it was about the money. Biden is going to need a lot of money cause he is nearly running out of it and we are still in primary season. Who brings in more cash? Kamala Harris? Stacey Abrams? One of the other primary candidates? He has to find the money somewhere.

Ok, so just to be sure, we are OK with candidates strategically choosing people for their positions based on race, gender, age, religion & sexuality.  So when the theoretical e-mail emerges that Biden's people tell him not to choose Buttigieg because of his sexual orientation, that's fine because demographics decided he was not best for the job.  Serious question that I have been struggling with as I hear all of the pundits discussing what would be the most strategic running mates based straight up on discrimination, and to me, it just feels wrong?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15594
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2417 on: March 03, 2020, 12:55:29 PM »
Politics is different because demographics determine who is best for the job.  It's all about voter turnout.  Race is just one aspect.  State/city of origin is another aspect.  Trump wanted Kasich as his running mate to lock up Ohio.  He went with Pence to calm the Evangelical voters.  Abrams might put states like Georgia and North Carolina in play.  Klobuchar could help solidify the upper MW.  A Republican-ish VP could shore up moderates and independents.  VPs are ONLY selected for political reasons.  There isn't really a VP meritocracy.  There aren't any objective qualifications for the VP role outside of being 35 and a natural-born citizen.  The VP role is about shoring up a segment of the vote.  All's fair.
Redbirdfan is exactly right. I would add one more criteria to picks for running mates. MONEY. Who can raise or contribute the most money to the campaign. Al Gore, Senator, son of a Senator, wealthy family, etc. There was all the hand ringing about two southerners on the ticket. But, ultimately, it was about the money. Biden is going to need a lot of money cause he is nearly running out of it and we are still in primary season. Who brings in more cash? Kamala Harris? Stacey Abrams? One of the other primary candidates? He has to find the money somewhere.

Ok, so just to be sure, we are OK with candidates strategically choosing people for their positions based on race, gender, age, religion & sexuality.  So when the theoretical e-mail emerges that Biden's people tell him not to choose Buttigieg because of his sexual orientation, that's fine because demographics decided he was not best for the job.  Serious question that I have been struggling with as I hear all of the pundits discussing what would be the most strategic running mates based straight up on discrimination, and to me, it just feels wrong?

Intent matters.

There's a difference between not picking someone as running mate because you dislike that person's sexual orientation, and not picking someone as running mate because polling has showed you that the person's sexual orientation will cost you a large number of voters.  At least in my mind.

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2418 on: March 03, 2020, 01:05:25 PM »
It feels wrong because it's true? Or it feels wrong because you don't think it's true. The world has been racist, ageist, sexist, bigoted, etc., since it began. We can't pretend it doesn't control our emotional reaction to candidates and our assumptions as to how they will govern, how they will decide certain issues. I assumed at first that Buttigieg was a typical young person and would want free healthcare, free college, free this and that (cause that's what old people think, right?). Mayor Pete turned out to be an old man in a young guy suit. We all have our prejudices and assumptions. Not everyone does their homework to find out the truth about candidates. They simply consume what they are fed, hold tight to their prejudices, and vote their gut.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2448
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2419 on: March 03, 2020, 01:11:45 PM »
Politics is different because demographics determine who is best for the job.  It's all about voter turnout.  Race is just one aspect.  State/city of origin is another aspect.  Trump wanted Kasich as his running mate to lock up Ohio.  He went with Pence to calm the Evangelical voters.  Abrams might put states like Georgia and North Carolina in play.  Klobuchar could help solidify the upper MW.  A Republican-ish VP could shore up moderates and independents.  VPs are ONLY selected for political reasons.  There isn't really a VP meritocracy.  There aren't any objective qualifications for the VP role outside of being 35 and a natural-born citizen.  The VP role is about shoring up a segment of the vote.  All's fair.
Redbirdfan is exactly right. I would add one more criteria to picks for running mates. MONEY. Who can raise or contribute the most money to the campaign. Al Gore, Senator, son of a Senator, wealthy family, etc. There was all the hand ringing about two southerners on the ticket. But, ultimately, it was about the money. Biden is going to need a lot of money cause he is nearly running out of it and we are still in primary season. Who brings in more cash? Kamala Harris? Stacey Abrams? One of the other primary candidates? He has to find the money somewhere.

Ok, so just to be sure, we are OK with candidates strategically choosing people for their positions based on race, gender, age, religion & sexuality.  So when the theoretical e-mail emerges that Biden's people tell him not to choose Buttigieg because of his sexual orientation, that's fine because demographics decided he was not best for the job.  Serious question that I have been struggling with as I hear all of the pundits discussing what would be the most strategic running mates based straight up on discrimination, and to me, it just feels wrong?

A Christian voter assumes that a Christian politician is more likely to focus on issues that are important to them. A female voter assumes a female politician will better represent her needs. It may not always be true, but these are reasonable assumptions. So voters make decisions based on these characteristics, not to discriminate but to be represented in their government.

In turn, politicians give voters what they want. In a representative democracy, shouldn't it work that way?

I get where you're coming from, it feels a bit wrong. But elections aren't about being fair to the individual politicians, they're about choosing leaders who will act in our best interest.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2420 on: March 03, 2020, 02:07:02 PM »
Ok, so just to be sure, we are OK with candidates strategically choosing people for their positions based on race, gender, age, religion & sexuality.  So when the theoretical e-mail emerges that Biden's people tell him not to choose Buttigieg because of his sexual orientation, that's fine because demographics decided he was not best for the job.  Serious question that I have been struggling with as I hear all of the pundits discussing what would be the most strategic running mates based straight up on discrimination, and to me, it just feels wrong?

This is a surprisingly good counterfactual to grapple with the question.

It definitely does feel different at a gut level. I think because in this case we're imagining a scenario where we're saying "don't choose this potential VP because he's gay and as a result we don't think people will vote for him" rather than "do choose this potential VP because she's a PoC [Person of Color] and as a result we do think people will vote for her."

Now ethically I'm not sure I can construct a rational argument for why selecting to be vice president someone because of their demographics should feel okay (or at least less bad), while choosing not to select someone to become video president because of their demographics feels wrong.

If you're picking someone because of their demographics, by definition you're not picking other people, also because of their demographics.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2421 on: March 03, 2020, 07:46:02 PM »
Ok, so just to be sure, we are OK with candidates strategically choosing people for their positions based on race, gender, age, religion & sexuality.  So when the theoretical e-mail emerges that Biden's people tell him not to choose Buttigieg because of his sexual orientation, that's fine because demographics decided he was not best for the job.  Serious question that I have been struggling with as I hear all of the pundits discussing what would be the most strategic running mates based straight up on discrimination, and to me, it just feels wrong?

This is a surprisingly good counterfactual to grapple with the question.

It definitely does feel different at a gut level. I think because in this case we're imagining a scenario where we're saying "don't choose this potential VP because he's gay and as a result we don't think people will vote for him" rather than "do choose this potential VP because she's a PoC [Person of Color] and as a result we do think people will vote for her."

Now ethically I'm not sure I can construct a rational argument for why selecting to be vice president someone because of their demographics should feel okay (or at least less bad), while choosing not to select someone to become video president because of their demographics feels wrong.

If you're picking someone because of their demographics, by definition you're not picking other people, also because of their demographics.

I agree and I also think this is basically The Trolley Problem and its variants.  People are ok with doing something indirect (like pulling a lever) but less so with something more direct (like pushing a fat man onto the tracks) even if the two actions are effectively the same outcome.  So we feel more ok with someone actively choosing a running mate because of their desirable attributes and knowing implicitly what that probably meant for others, but less ok with us (or the candidate) saying something explicit about NOT choosing a running mate based on undesirable or not-quite-as-desirable attributes.  The latter is just too much like pushing the fat man onto the tracks.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2422 on: March 03, 2020, 08:09:39 PM »
I hadn't put it together, but yes, you're right it's very much analogous with the trolley problem!

We are (apparently) okay with someone making decisions that have the consequence of people being discriminated against based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

But we're not okay with someone making the direct decision to discriminate against a person based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

American GenX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2423 on: March 03, 2020, 10:15:57 PM »

I'm pretty happy to see Biden doing so well.  The pundits are all surprised how it's turning out.  He just took the lead in the count in Texas with 59% reporting.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2424 on: March 04, 2020, 05:14:04 AM »
Can't decide what was more problematic for Bernie yesterday: (1) the Democratic Establishment rallying behind Biden after his South Carolina romp, or (2) the media's deliberate failure to report on the fact that Biden consistently exhibits signs of significant cognitive decline.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3901
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2425 on: March 04, 2020, 05:27:05 AM »
I'm not going to belabor it but I am disappointed in the outcome of the Dem race. The more interesting competent energetic people dropped out early, most likely due to lack of funding and that it was such a wide field. The end result is a geriatric white male establishment candidate gets the nod. The only silver lining is he may? Win the election because old white folks won't be scared to vote for him? And he will at least pick people who are competent at their jobs/experts. But meh.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 05:28:38 AM by partgypsy »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2426 on: March 04, 2020, 06:06:34 AM »
I'm not going to belabor it but I am disappointed in the outcome of the Dem race. The more interesting competent energetic people dropped out early, most likely due to lack of funding and that it was such a wide field. The end result is a geriatric white male establishment candidate gets the nod. The only silver lining is he may? Win the election because old white folks won't be scared to vote for him? And he will at least pick people who are competent at their jobs/experts. But meh.

Yes. We started with the broadest field in living memory. Had our choice of competent, energetic, and exciting candidates like Booker, Yang, Castro and Inslee. Heck even Buttigieg and Harris would seem to meet those three criteria, as much as I disagreed with Harris on things like drug policy.

I think I could probably come up with at least ten candidates who were in the race at some point and made at least one debate who I would prefer to have as the democratic nominee in the place of the remaining two frontrunners.

I don't know if that just says that I am an extremely atypical democratic voter. Or if I'm not atypical and it is an indictment of our current process for selecting a nominee and we need to adopt things like instant runoff voting, and rules that force debate moderators to either distribute time equally or distribute it according to quantitative debate qualification criteria.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 06:13:43 AM by maizeman »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3901
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2427 on: March 04, 2020, 07:00:35 AM »
Either you are not atypical, or I'm atypical too. But, I also liked Warren, and she stayed in the race, but no traction.

We really need young people to come out in numbers this coming election. The Dem presidential candidate is not going to excite or mobilize that group, as well as some other groups. But, hopefully young voters, "bernie bros" (of which I now a few) will still show up at the polls, at the very least to vote "NO", vote out, the current Republican establishment. 

Pigeon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2428 on: March 04, 2020, 07:10:10 AM »
I'm also disappointed that we're ending up with two old white guys, when there were a lot of better choices initially.  I am deeply disappointed that we won't have a woman on the top of the ballot.  But I dislike Bernie, and am glad at least that Biden is doing better.  I like Biden, but he's just too old.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2429 on: March 04, 2020, 07:19:35 AM »
Interesting times. I've seen the arguments on social media between my different liberal friends. Pro-Bernie people are saying that Biden is the establishment/more of the same and Dems need more voter turnout of the base. Pro-Biden people say that Bernie can't win/he's too extreme/he has no history of actually accomplishing anything, so he would get nothing done and Dems need to reach across to Independents or Repubs that don't like Trump. I'm on the Biden side and for an anecdote of one, I will most likely vote for Biden but I would not vote for Bernie. It will be interesting to see what plays out.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15594
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2430 on: March 04, 2020, 07:31:41 AM »
Can't decide what was more problematic for Bernie yesterday: (1) the Democratic Establishment rallying behind Biden after his South Carolina romp, or (2) the media's deliberate failure to report on the fact that Biden consistently exhibits signs of significant cognitive decline.

America has spoken and seems to want a leader who is enfeebled by age.  Trump, Biden, or Sanders . . . pick your poison.  They're all way too old.  Sanders is the only one who hasn't shown obvious evidence of mental decline (not to say he doesn't have serious age related problems).

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2431 on: March 04, 2020, 07:34:27 AM »
I think that Bernie will loose to Biden, and that that result plays directly into who is a stronger candidate in the general election.

Bernie's whole "electability argument" boils down to the idea that he motivates young people and independents to come out and vote when they otherwise wouldn't have. Which sounds good on paper, and is something I'm tempted to agree with. But clearly it's not actually happening, and if that doesn't happen then he's not electable (and also won't win the primary).

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2432 on: March 04, 2020, 07:36:43 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.

Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2433 on: March 04, 2020, 07:46:05 AM »
Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

Let's not succumb to defeatism just yet. I happen to think that either Bernie or Biden (or really any of the other major candidates, except Bloomberg) will win against Trump, and the hypothetical head-to-head polling seems to agree with me.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2434 on: March 04, 2020, 07:47:21 AM »
I'm not going to belabor it but I am disappointed in the outcome of the Dem race. The more interesting competent energetic people dropped out early, most likely due to lack of funding and that it was such a wide field. The end result is a geriatric white male establishment candidate gets the nod. The only silver lining is he may? Win the election because old white folks won't be scared to vote for him? And he will at least pick people who are competent at their jobs/experts. But meh.

Not even exaggerating, assuming Biden wins the nomination, the general election will probably come down to (1) whether Biden can keep his teeth from falling out, (2) whether Biden gets enough sleep before the debates, and (3) whether Biden can limit his appearances so his competency is minimally questioned.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2435 on: March 04, 2020, 07:50:56 AM »
It seems to me that Tuesday was really a testament to how much better Biden is at working the political machinery as compared to Sanders. Had Sanders been able to push Warren out of the race, or Biden not been able to push both Buttigieg and Klobacher out after a single successful  primary (following three disastrous ones), the day would have gone quite differently.

At this point Sanders should be offering Warren the sun and the moon to leave the race, but I get the impression that -- much like giving Clinton a pass on the email servers -- he's not going to use every political tool available to him.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2436 on: March 04, 2020, 07:55:20 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.

Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

I've heard this and half believe it, but I dunno. How do you, if you believe in Bernie's policies not vote for Biden over Trump...?

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2437 on: March 04, 2020, 07:58:48 AM »
It seems to me that Tuesday was really a testament to how much better Biden is at working the political machinery as compared to Sanders. Had Sanders been able to push Warren out of the race, or Biden not been able to push both Buttigieg and Klobacher out after a single successful  primary (following three disastrous ones), the day would have gone quite differently.

At this point Sanders should be offering Warren the sun and the moon to leave the race, but I get the impression that -- much like giving Clinton a pass on the email servers -- he's not going to use every political tool available to him.

I know that "Warren is taking Bernie's votes" is "common knowledge", but I'm not actually convinced it's true. Polling suggests that more Warren voters have Biden as a #2 pick, not Bernie. I think that fewer voters are driven primarily by policy than people like to think.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2438 on: March 04, 2020, 08:00:33 AM »
They will fall into line and vote for Biden.  They are just upset about losing right now.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2439 on: March 04, 2020, 08:02:05 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.
Which probably means we get Trump again either way.
I've heard this and half believe it, but I dunno. How do you, if you believe in Bernie's policies not vote for Biden over Trump...?

Tariffs and Trade. Sanders voted against NAFTA and still opposes it. Trump has his tariffs. Both have a protectionist slant on their trade policies.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2440 on: March 04, 2020, 08:09:44 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.
Which probably means we get Trump again either way.
I've heard this and half believe it, but I dunno. How do you, if you believe in Bernie's policies not vote for Biden over Trump...?

Tariffs and Trade. Sanders voted against NAFTA and still opposes it. Trump has his tariffs. Both have a protectionist slant on their trade policies.

I for one do not believe that most Bernie Bros are Bernie Bros because of anti-free-trade sentiments.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2441 on: March 04, 2020, 08:16:15 AM »
I for one do not believe that most Bernie Bros are Bernie Bros because of anti-free-trade sentiments.

I don't disagree. But, it doesn't take many rust-belt anti-free-trade Bernie Bros to flip the election.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2442 on: March 04, 2020, 08:31:00 AM »
Bloomberg is quitting the race. Mr. Bloomberg endorsed Joseph R. Biden Jr., saying that he had the best shot to beat President Trump.

I hope he still will help the eventual Democratic nominee.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2443 on: March 04, 2020, 08:36:20 AM »
Bloomberg is quitting the race. Mr. Bloomberg endorsed Joseph R. Biden Jr., saying that he had the best shot to beat President Trump.

I hope he still will help the eventual Democratic nominee.

Bernie's pre-emptively rejected his help, I believe.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2444 on: March 04, 2020, 08:37:14 AM »
Quote
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.

Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

I agree with the first two sentences and disagree with the third.  Bernie Bros didn't vote for Clinton but she probably would have won but for the combination of low black voter turnout, the Comey re-opening of the investigation just before the election, the 30 year anti-Clinton Republican machine and some degree of underlying sexism.  I think Biden actually cuts into Trump's support in key states i.e. Michigan and Pennsylvania and may put states like Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin in play.  Biden also seems to be genuinely respected by both Democrats and Republicans.  We'll see what happens when the Burisma/Hunter tropes ramp back up.


Credit where credit is due---the Democrats put ego aside to give Biden (and in my opinion their best option to defeat Trump) the clearest lane to the nomination.  Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, Steyer and Bloomberg have now dropped out and all but Steyer have endorsed Biden.  If the Republicans had done the same, Trump may not be in the White House.  I'm still hoping for the eventual resurrection of a fiscally conservative, pro-business, pro-inclusion, non-Trumpy Republican Party, but that's not going to happen before November.  I never need to hear Biden speak and I won't attend any of his rallies, but for 2020 I'm all in on Biden. 

Note: I mean absolutely no disrespect to Bernie or his supporters.  I admire the passion but I want a return to normalcy - not a revolution.  I can understand that there are large swaths of people for whom normal hasn't been ok...it just doesn't seem to be the same people supporting Sanders. 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2445 on: March 04, 2020, 08:42:42 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.

Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

I've heard this and half believe it, but I dunno. How do you, if you believe in Bernie's policies not vote for Biden over Trump...?

I've heard and seen many, many people voicing absolutely inconsistent and incomprehensible thought processes about who they pick. I've definitely seen people on the interwebs saying they'll vote for Bernie if he's the nom, and if not, they'll either not vote or vote for Trump.

Which tells me quite a bit about their critical thinking skills.


Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2446 on: March 04, 2020, 09:13:44 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.

Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

I've heard this and half believe it, but I dunno. How do you, if you believe in Bernie's policies not vote for Biden over Trump...?

Your forgetting their other option: spending their Tuesday doing anything other than voting.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2447 on: March 04, 2020, 09:16:46 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.

Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

I've heard this and half believe it, but I dunno. How do you, if you believe in Bernie's policies not vote for Biden over Trump...?

Your forgetting their other option: spending their Tuesday doing anything other than voting.

Right.

Which again, gets us Trump.

Sorry. I find that attitude of indifference reprehensible, to be quite frank. Feel free to disagree.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 09:19:10 AM by Kris »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2448 on: March 04, 2020, 09:22:53 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.

Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

I've heard this and half believe it, but I dunno. How do you, if you believe in Bernie's policies not vote for Biden over Trump...?

Your forgetting their other option: spending their Tuesday doing anything other than voting.

Right, I mean, I obviously get that that's an option, but as I asked how do you not vote for Biden over Trump. There's no hot button issue, I'm aware of that Bernie supporters could not ethically or whatever vote for Biden. Ages are similar. In terms of Biden's cognitive decline (one of my biggest worries), it can't be much worse than Trump. So I'm left with if they do it, it's totally a sore loser mentality on the biggest stage.

ETA: or as Kris pointed out, poor critical thinking

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2449 on: March 04, 2020, 09:31:23 AM »
Independents and Republicans will not vote for Sanders.
Bernie bros will not vote for Biden.

Which probably means we get Trump again either way.

I've heard this and half believe it, but I dunno. How do you, if you believe in Bernie's policies not vote for Biden over Trump...?

Your forgetting their other option: spending their Tuesday doing anything other than voting.

Right, I mean, I obviously get that that's an option, but as I asked how do you not vote for Biden over Trump. There's no hot button issue, I'm aware of that Bernie supporters could not ethically or whatever vote for Biden. Ages are similar. In terms of Biden's cognitive decline (one of my biggest worries), it can't be much worse than Trump. So I'm left with if they do it, it's totally a sore loser mentality on the biggest stage.

ETA: or as Kris pointed out, poor critical thinking

I'm skeptical that will happen too. Bernie bros are indifferent as to whether it's Trump or Biden? C'mon.

Biden does have one thing that Clinton doesn't -- African-American support.