Matt_W
3838
Except that voting is a collective action, and the results depend on what other people are doing. If I have reason to believe that a significant number of my fellow voters are going to act on bigotry the only tool I have to counter that is my own vote. I say it’s even more imperative to have “voting affirmative action” in that context.
The Mike Gravel campaign is just fucking weird, and I feel icky for clicking his links.
Gravel will be 90 years old by election day, 2020. His campaign apparently is basically a bunch of snarky-meme generating students and young people who are essentially given free reign to do as they please in Gravel’s name, while the candidate just sort of remains…un-present.
It all seems really creepy. Try to find a picture of Gravel that isn’t a staged photograph – just one where he’s doing campaigning stuff. This just feels like a bunch of people doing a Weekend at Bernie’s shtick.
The one line that ad draws that seems particularly unfair to me is showing the death of Eric Garner after his “Predators” clip from the 90s crime bill. I’m not sure you can draw that line.
I also thought that that was a little over the top. But the rest of it is a reasonable taste of what Biden is going to have to endure for the next many months. I personally don’t see how he makes it through the primary on top but the will of the many is a powerfully broad and stupid truncheon.
I’m guessing you cannot even define ‘electability’ other than to describe candidates of the past, when the question has largely been answered for you.
Just the details listed there make him an amazing candidate.
If you are going to discuss reparations at all (which I think is a losing proposition for Democrats) then the idea of what amounts to a Small Business administration plus college funding seems a good way to do it.
If he’s running on the idea that we’re going to amend the constitution, you’re going to be disappointed even if he does manage to win.
This is a form of pandering to voters, this business of pretending that an impossible thing will suddenly become possible if we just wish it hard enough.
Timex
3845
But the problem with this line of thinking is that even if you believe that they are acting on bigotry and not voting for the best candidate… your “counter” to that is to… not vote for the best candidate.
Your solution doesn’t logically work.
Again, in the case where you perceive two candidates to be equally qualified/electable/whatever… then sure, do whatever. But we’re talking about the specific situation where you have a candidate who you, personally, believe is better qualified/electable/whatever… but who you aren’t voting for, because of their race/gender.
Instead, you’d voting for someone who you believe is actually worse, but who you think isn’t being fairly considered by others (despite the fact that the result of their consideration in this case may be the same as yours, which did not stem from bigotry).
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
They’re all black and white.
Oh I realize that, but it doesn’t make the points themselves less appealing. No President manages to accomplish even a substantial part of what they propose–and that’s the ones who even MEAN what they say, let alone the pandering ones.
For me, a candidate who even floats the idea of a Constitutional amendment that would do things Dems want comes across as extremely naive. While his intentions may be good I’d consider it a negative.
Matt_W
3848
This is the trolley problem: a situational conundrum intended to tease out a moral principle by isolating it from context. When has it ever been obvious (except in the case of Trump) that a leading primary candidate has been “less qualified”? In the current field, who is less qualified and who is more qualified? Would I vote for Sarah Palin over Joe Biden? Of course not. But Warren vs. Bernie? I’m choosing Warren. Biden vs. Harris? No question, I’m choosing Harris. Even in 2016, Clinton vs Bernie, I voted for Clinton mostly because she’s a woman. Even though my policy preferences align better with Bernie’s, the differences aren’t big enough that they override wanting that historical example for my daughter.
LMN8R
3849
IMO it’s pretty much impossible to determine the “objectively most qualified” person for anything. Whether for politics, job hiring, or otherwise. Sometimes it’s worth intentionally prioritizing diversity - on gender lines, race, etc - because those people will often have very different life experiences which give them different ideas worth hiring/electing for even if those people aren’t as objectively “qualified” by traditional metrics.
And besides - some of the “harder” skills people learn through traditional qualifications are quite easy to learn on the job (political procedures, rules, etc.) while “soft” skills (which tend not to be considered when calling someone “qualified”) built up through decades of lived personal experiences are next to impossible to grow into later in life (empathy, true understanding of the struggles of underprivileged people, how to connect with people in a genuine way)
I bet 400 quatloos that @Timex will continue pontificating about who is ‘electable’ without ever offering any objective criteria for electability.
Timex
3851
Sure, the decision is not always gonna be black and white.
But imagine the case where you DO in fact have a candidate who is clearly better. As a hypothetical, imagine someone who is essentially Trump, but was a woman. You obviously wouldn’t vote for them over someone else, just because they were a woman.
I’ll accept though, that in the case of the current field of candidates, the distinction wouldn’t be nearly as clear. At the same time though, I can’t imagine myself considering something like gender or race as a factor in who I vote for. Although I also have a really hard time understanding why people would pay women less… when I hire engineers, the women make the same as the men when they start out. Because that’s what the pay for the job is. I know that this isn’t how it works other places, but I can’t really wrap my head around why an employer would do that.
LMN8R
3852
Well of course :-) that’s why I’m saying sometimes we consider diversity as a more prioritized criteria than traditional qualifications, not the criteria.
Matt_W
3854
That’s not how pay discrimination works. Women get promoted less, get fewer raises, are less likely to be put in positions of leadership, are less likely to be hired in the first place.
But can you understand why people voted for Bush because he seemed like a guy you could have a beer with? Or didn’t vote for Clinton because she seemed fake and ambitious? Or voted for Obama because he was cool? (I know part of my choice for Obama was the coolness factor.) I mean maybe you wouldn’t vote for those reasons, at least not explicitly, but you’re sure that kind of thing isn’t part of your decision process?
RichVR
3855
I think you have these reversed. :)
Timex
3856
As I said, I fully understand such things happen, frequently.
I’m just saying that I can’t understand why an employer would do that. I suppose that if the employer has a more antagonistic attitude towards their own employees, that might be the underlying reason.
Again, it’s just hard to square with my own experiences and motivations. It would never occur to me that someone’s gender would result in paying them less, or not promoting them, etc. Our CEO’s a woman though, so perhaps it’s just not part of our overall culture.
Maybe, but those things you listed there are actual qualities of the candidates as individuals. Someone’s race or gender is… not really that, right?
It seems like bundling race or gender into the same kind of individual characteristic such as personality, , “coolness”, or perceived corruption is problematic.
Matt_W
3857
All those things I listed are gender or race coded. Not definitively, but not unsubtly either.
Women might interrupt their career to raise children. They just aren’t a great “fit” for that group. They never asked for a raise, so they never got one. They just don’t seem like a leader. They never come out after work for a drink. They might file a harassment complaint or be a distraction.
