If you like a candidate but you don’t vote for them because you don’t think they’ll win nomination, you’re being played.
This isn’t Oscar picks. The goal of voting isn’t to guess the winner. It’s to pick the one that best represents you.
This isn’t Oscar picks. The goal of voting isn’t to guess the winner. It’s to pick the one that best represents you.
Vote for who YOU think would be best. If someone else is more electable, that someone else will get the nomination without you. Vote for them in the general. If they don’t, they weren’t that electable.
See?
See?
Sure. There’s also such a thing as “aligning your strategy with your goals.” My strategy is to vote for a candidate who inspires me w/willingness to fight for my goals, rather than one who depresses me by being openly scornful of them.
If you vote based on how you think other people—people you have conjured in your head or the media has conjured for you—will vote, then you’re giving other people your vote. Imaginary people. You’re giving them your vote. Why would you do that?
The way somebody is "electable" is, they inspire people to vote for them. That's it.
Joe Biden is the electable one; so they say.
Let me ask you: does he inspire you? If so, vote for him.
If not, don't. Others will vote for him, if he's electable. He'll inspire them to.
Joe Biden is the electable one; so they say.
Let me ask you: does he inspire you? If so, vote for him.
If not, don't. Others will vote for him, if he's electable. He'll inspire them to.
If Joe Biden is the most electable one, he'll win the nomination.
Unless—*unless*—he wins the nomination on the power of people voting for him not because he inspires them, but because they imagine he'll inspire somebody *else* ... and that "somebody" turns out to not exist.
Unless—*unless*—he wins the nomination on the power of people voting for him not because he inspires them, but because they imagine he'll inspire somebody *else* ... and that "somebody" turns out to not exist.
Thus, this sort of savvy pundit strategic voting actually strikes me as unstrategic.
Parties have primaries because it's pretty hard to tell who the most electable candidate is. The idea is that primaries will prove it on an actual electoral testing ground.
So ...
Parties have primaries because it's pretty hard to tell who the most electable candidate is. The idea is that primaries will prove it on an actual electoral testing ground.
So ...
...if you vote for somebody for your ultra-savvy reasons, not based on your actual preference, you're creating noise.
Your vote says, quite simply THIS PERSON INSPIRES ME.
It can't ever say I THINK THIS PERSON WILL INSPIRE WHITE DUDES IN WISCONSIN.
Vote for who inspires you.
Your vote says, quite simply THIS PERSON INSPIRES ME.
It can't ever say I THINK THIS PERSON WILL INSPIRE WHITE DUDES IN WISCONSIN.
Vote for who inspires you.
There are candidates who tick my "not Donald Trump box," and for me that will be enough inspiration to get my vote in a general.
But in the primary at least, I'm going to vote for somebody who inspires me by representing me far better than just that utter baseline.
But in the primary at least, I'm going to vote for somebody who inspires me by representing me far better than just that utter baseline.
As for those who tick my "not Donald Trump" box and little else ... I don't know what else they're offering that would inspire typical non-voters to come out—and we'll need them, because if "not Trump" is all they're offering? We know which way White Dude in Wisconsin breaks.
This utterly misunderstands what elections are.
Yes, pick the candidate that would be best for office. To lead this representative government.
Which is another way of saying the one who best represents me and my needs, in this representative government.
Who, because it is a leadership role, will do it by inspiring us. See?
Which is another way of saying the one who best represents me and my needs, in this representative government.
Who, because it is a leadership role, will do it by inspiring us. See?
An election is literally a popularity contest. Candidates become more popular by presenting a vision, through oratory, through policy, through tenacity, through personality—usually it takes all of those.
But ultimately the winner is best at inspiring people to vote for them.
But ultimately the winner is best at inspiring people to vote for them.
"Electability" was the reason to not vote for Obama. The country wasn't ready, remember? Middle name Hussain? Are you kidding me?
But he won. Because he was most electable. Because he inspired people to vote for him.
That's how it *works.*
Vote for who YOU like.
But he won. Because he was most electable. Because he inspired people to vote for him.
That's how it *works.*
Vote for who YOU like.
If somebody has inspired you—for whatever reason—it's likely they have the quality that inspires people to vote for them. Electability.
A chess move isn't wise, if the game is checkers.
Sure, you're playing a more sophisticated game, but you're still about to lose at checkers.
A chess move isn't wise, if the game is checkers.
Sure, you're playing a more sophisticated game, but you're still about to lose at checkers.
Vote for who YOU like.
Good morning, by the way. How is everybody.
Good morning, by the way. How is everybody.
