In that context, pragmatism is simply a euphemism for political establishmentarianism*. If you're voting for your non-preferred candidate, then you're voting against your interests. Simple as that. It's not pragmatic when you undermine your self-determination.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
In that context, pragmatism is simply a euphemism for political establishmentarianism*. If you're voting for your non-preferred candidate, then you're voting against your interests. Simple as that. It's not pragmatic when you undermine your self-determination.
Maybe, but all or nothing isn't political discourse, it's idealism and it isn't helpful. Political gains are found slowly and through compromise. It's the very definition of pragmatic to vote for the candidate with the best chance of getting the most closely aligned desires.
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
In that context, pragmatism is simply a euphemism for political establishmentarianism*. If you're voting for your non-preferred candidate, then you're voting against your interests. Simple as that. It's not pragmatic when you undermine your self-determination.
Your not voting against your interests because if you are a 'true believer' you are at least half wrong, you just don't know it yet.
The best course is always somewhere down the middle.
Trump is out of next weeks debate, which was promptly cancelled. I think mercifully this is the end of the GOP debates, Trump has no upside to going to them anymore.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I get the "idea" of delegates and super delegates in so much as allocating votes in the nomination process based on the electoral results. However, if it comes to a contested convention who actually are the delegates? Are there actual people who have the job of representing each state? Who are they? How does one get this position? If they are going to vote against the states' wishes to reach a consensus decision who are they accountable to?
Thanks in advance, and sorry if its a stupid question.
I get the "idea" of delegates and super delegates in so much as allocating votes in the nomination process based on the electoral results. However, if it comes to a contested convention who actually are the delegates? Are there actual people who have the job of representing each state? Who are they? How does one get this position? If they are going to vote against the states' wishes to reach a consensus decision who are they accountable to?
I get the "idea" of delegates and super delegates in so much as allocating votes in the nomination process based on the electoral results. However, if it comes to a contested convention who actually are the delegates? Are there actual people who have the job of representing each state? Who are they? How does one get this position? If they are going to vote against the states' wishes to reach a consensus decision who are they accountable to?
Thanks in advance, and sorry if its a stupid question.
It varies greatly by state. In one state, they are picked by state party officials. In another state, their name appears on the ballot beside the candidate name, so you're voting for Joe Smith, delegate for Donald Trump. In another state, they are elected, not on the ballot, but at a separate state convention, or at a meeting after the caucus vote. In another state, the winning candidate directly picks a slate of delegates. In some states, delegates are elected without declaring for a candidate. etc.
The delegates are accountable to the rules that dictate their voting, both in terms of the rules of the convention and the rules of their state. If Joe Smith is bound to Donald Trump on the first ballot but says he's casting a vote for Cruz, his vote will likely be ignored and counted as a vote for Trump. But beyond that, they're only accountable to themselves and not to anyone else's wishes. If Joe Smith, delegate for Donald Trump, decides he wants to vote for Mitt Romney on the second ballot and the law in Joe's state says he's unbound on the second ballot, there's nothing stopping him from doing so.
It's important to note there's different terminology. On the Democrat side, it's pledged delegates and super delegates, pledged being those that are appointed with loyalty to a certain candidate, and super-delegates being party officials who have votes but no voting restrictions.
On the Republican side, the term super-delegate is not used and each state has 3 party officials, who are bound to the state's winner. But there are unbound delegates who have no allegiance (although they may be pledged, meaning that they've expressed support for a particular candidate but are not bound to him.) These unbound delegates might be because of the rules in the state they were elected in, or it might be because their candidate dropped out and their state rules make them unbound in that circumstance.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Trump is out of next weeks debate, which was promptly cancelled. I think mercifully this is the end of the GOP debates, Trump has no upside to going to them anymore.
After the first two it's just a money grab for the networks, same questions and answers. at least the republicans threw some mud and made them comical but otherwise why bother.
I would however like to see a debate with all the dems and reps together though.
It's not a false compromise, it's just a compromise, an averaging of two positions.
It is a false compromise, also called the "Argument to Moderation" and it is absolutely a logical fallacy.
A classic example: if one person takes the position that slavery is always wrong, and another that it is always legitimate, the 'averaging' of those positions: that slavery is acceptable in certain circumstances, is clearly wrong.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
If Donald Trump somehow falls three delegates short of reaching the magic 1,237 delegates needed for the Republican nomination, he may be haunted by an obscure outcome from the primary voting in Illinois on Tuesday. There’s clear evidence that Trump supporters in Illinois gave fewer votes to Trump-pledged delegate candidates who have minority or foreign-sounding names like “Sadiq,” “Fakroddin” and “Uribe,” potentially costing him three of the state’s 69 delegates.
God I hope he goes into the convention with 1236 delegates, and loses.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
God I hope he goes into the convention with 1236 delegates, and loses.
From a pure entertainment perspective the dream is to see Trump walk into the convention with an overwhelming plurality (but not majority) of delegates and walk out the loser to a white knight candidate, with all sorts of "dirty tricks" allegations with delegate selection shenanigans and rule committee gaming culminating with multiple declarations of independant candidacies.
I wonder if say Kasich or Rubio or Romney or whatever establishment guy steals the nomination through a convention, if that means not just Trump supporters rioting but Ted Cruz supporters rioting as well. Cruz supporters are pretty close to as angry as Trump supporters, so I could see it.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I wonder if say Kasich or Rubio or Romney or whatever establishment guy steals the nomination through a convention, if that means not just Trump supporters rioting but Ted Cruz supporters rioting as well. Cruz supporters are pretty close to as angry as Trump supporters, so I could see it.
Whatever leads to the destruction of the current Republican party as we know it, I'm all for
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
I wonder if say Kasich or Rubio or Romney or whatever establishment guy steals the nomination through a convention, if that means not just Trump supporters rioting but Ted Cruz supporters rioting as well. Cruz supporters are pretty close to as angry as Trump supporters, so I could see it.
And then they unite as an independent Trump/Cruz ticket? Somebody get the popcorn.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Maybe, but all or nothing isn't political discourse, it's idealism and it isn't helpful. Political gains are found slowly and through compromise. It's the very definition of pragmatic to vote for the candidate with the best chance of getting the most closely aligned desires.
Under this formulation, people voting for Obama in 2008 were engaging in idealism. Rather, they should have acted pragmatically to vote for Hillary.
Had they voted for Hillary, they could have left healthcare reform and significant civil liberty expansions on the table. All in the name of pragmatism / not voting for your candidate of choice.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
