Show all details, Hide all details
|
|
|
This is a classic example of "gaming the system". It's a problem with all multi-way elections: there's no way to get around the possibility of things like this happening. They gave a Nobel Prize to Ken Arrow in 1972 for proving that.
Another example: a Republican friend of mine in California voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 primary (you can do that in California). He knew that Jackson would lose to any Republican candidate, and he preferred any Republican to any Democrat. So he voted for his least-favorite choice to give his favorite choice a better chance.
The basics of game theory are pretty simple. You rank your favored results of all candidates. Then, for each move you make, assume that the other guys will do whatever gives them the best outcome in the end. Your next move is the one that leads to the least-worst outcome.
As for what Democrats "should" do... well, the primaries are a long way off, and it's too early to make a definitive answer. But if the primaries were today, game theory says that the best outcome for a Democrat is to vote for Obama, because he's preferable to any Republican candidate. (Assuming the like Hillary first, Obama second, and all Republicans after that). Voting for Hillary leads to a worse outcome, because she loses (if the polls hold) to the most likely Republican candidates.
A major word of caution here. Kerry was the Democrats' 2004 choice because people felt that his military record made him more electable against War President Bush. Kerry turned out to be a poor choice, partly because his military record was used against him since it seemed inconsistent with his later testimony against the Vietnam War. The Democrats would have done better with a candidate with a more consistent record, but they didn't realize how he'd be portrayed after the primaries.
This means you have to take the polls with a grain of salt. The Republicans haven't gotten a chance to work Obama over yet. Nor Clinton, for that matter, and the same people who created "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are now creating a new organization called "Stop Her Now", aimed at Hillary.
In other words, you know what the theory says, but you don't have to move yet and so it's too early to commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please
sign in to give a compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If every Democrat voted based on who they thought would be most likely to win, an extremely right-wing Democrat would be the nominee every time. By picking that person, the Democrats ensure that no liberal or moderate Democrat will ever be elected. That strategy's no good.
If, however, Democrats vote based on who they like best, a fairly liberal candidate is likely to win the primary every time. However, if very liberal candidates regularly lose in the general elections, this strategy makes an even MORE conservative candidate win than the previous one. That's no good either.
However, voting for any candidate other than the one you most like trivializes your own views, especially if that's what you tell pollsters. If 50% of Democrats like, say, Hillary, but decide to vote for Obama because she's more likely to win the general election, that might be taken as a sign by others that Hillary and her political views are less popular than they really are. That's no good.
So what should you do? I'd say, vote for the person you'd most want to win the whole election. At the very least, they can make the general election a little bit about their specific issues, which might force the opposition to make some promises about the issues you care about.
I, however, fortunately favor Obama anyway, which makes my vote a bit easier. My vote may yet swing to Edwards, though. He seems like a smart guy. Hillary seems to have a problem admitting mistakes, which is one of the things I hate most about Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please
sign in to give a compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...people should vote for the candidate they want to win, so I'd say even if you're a Democrat and you like one of the Republicans, nothing should stop you from voting your conscience. However, having said that, I do firmly believe that Obama would be the best choice hands down of all candidates out there, and I believe the reason he is trailing Hillary at this point, even though he's got a better chance of winning in the general election than she does boils down to several factors. One is that Hillary has the name recognition, she was the first lady for 8 years, plus she's been a Senator for what is it, 6 years now, and she's been bandied about as the likely first female President for many years. Plus, she's very well connected to the political insiders...she's bound to be the first name that springs from the lips of the likely voter.
But the term likely voter belies another truth...opinion polls are taken of likely voters, who are pulled from the rank and file of past voters who say they'll vote again. Where Obama's strengths are going to lie is with the previous "non" voters who have been too disenfranchised to ever feel like voting was anything other than a waste of their time...these are the individuals who are going to fall off the radar screen when it comes to opinion polling, and their numbers are so great (every Presidential Election ever held has had more eligible voters who did not vote at all than eligible voters who voted for the winner...even in 2005, Bush got 60 million votes, but close to 90 million who could have voted did not).
The last thing Obama has going for him is that many Republicans who are fed up with politics as usual would rather vote for him than for any of the Republican candidates which they see as more of the same, and especially moreseo than any of the Democrats who are more of the same, but also on the "wrong" side. Obama might be on the "wrong" side for them, but he's not status quo, he's got the ability to shake things up.
So, if Obama can put forth that message before the primaries and caucuses, then it doesn't matter what the polls say, he'll grab the nomination. However much I'd like to say to the Clinton supporters, take one for the team and vote for the one who can win, I'd be far more comfortable saying, look at the candidates, look at what they've said, what they've written, what their stands are on the issues, and who you think is more likely to make your life and the lives of others better....become informed, and then vote for who you want to vote for. I think a lot of Clinton supporters haven't dug deeply enough, and had their minds made up before the ever heard of Obama, so the challenge from my point of view is not so much to get primary voters to vote strategically, but to get them to vote intelligently. And hey, it's very possible to like Clinton or any of the other candidates better than Obama, I'm not saying all Clinton supporters have done no research, some come by their opinions honestly, but as far as I can tell, from a purely logical standpoint, and knowing where I believe the Democratic base to be, I'd say your people who turn out for the primaries and caucuses that are going to decide who we get to vote for next November are by and large going to be people who are very involved, who know what they think, know who they support, and aren't just going to on a whim go out and vote for Hillary...I think primary voters and caucus attendees are more engaged and as such more tend to vote their conscience, and the general election is more of a popularity contest. That is perhaps why the system works.
|
|
Sources: my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please
sign in to give a compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking as a loyal Democrat I will say that I really want us to pick somebody who can win back the White House even though I plan to vote for Kucinich. I know what the polls say now but Obama hasn’t impressed me in the debates and I’m afraid that his lack of experience is beginning to show through in those debates. In the long run I think that Hillary would be a stronger nominee than Obama but I’m not sure that either one of them is electable. I had high hopes for Bill Richardson but he has bumbled and stumbled his way out of contention so right now I’m really worried that in an election that Democrats ought to win in a landslide we are going to end up with a nominee who costs us the election.
|
|
Sources: my opinion
|
|
KingofRandomCrap's Recommendations
|
|
|
Amazon List Price: $11.95
Used from: $0.01
Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5
(based on 43 reviews)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please
sign in to give a compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming that you believe the polls ...
It is absolutely possibly that Hilary could win the nomination and lose the Presidential vote. But it will be very difficult if not impossible to stop Hilary given her support and momentum in the party.
At the current time, it looks like a very difficult decision, but all is not lost. Assuming that Hilary wins the nomination, appoint Obama as her VP candidate. Not ideal, but should win enough votes to capture the Presidency. Run a campaign that very much focuses on a joint deal, not just Hilary. This will help to win over those who are not Hilary's biggest fans.
g
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please
sign in to give a compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
