Is It Dickish To Support a Weaker Opponent?

[Free Palestine]

To me it seems like hoping the other team will pick the retarded disabled kid to pitch, or something.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No.

[fezzyfestoon]

Yes.  That's the type of childish crap that gives us such crap government.  We should be striving towards two good candidates (preferable more).  But really, it's just a game so it's more fun to root for the easier race for your team.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I hate to say it but fezzy is right here.

[Lief 🗽]

Not if you believe your candidate would be a better representative than both the stronger and weaker candidates.

[Dr. Cynic]

But really, it's just a game so it's more fun to root for the easier race for your team.

BIN-GO!

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I hate to say it but fezzy is right here.

Funny I though you supported Reid cause you wanted a weak majority leader.

Yeah it's kind of dickish, but I shouldn't throw bricks in my glass house. If I got a chance to switch Sahlin for a better more competent leader for the Swedish Social Democrats of course I wouldn't.

[The Mikado]

Wasn't it Emperor Napoleon I that said, "If your opponent is defeating himself, don't stop him?"

[Хahar 🤔]

No. If I desire the best candidate to win, then I should by all rights support the potential opponent who has less of a chance to win.

[Eraserhead]

Not if you believe your candidate would be a better representative than both the stronger and weaker candidates.

^^^^

[memphis]

Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. It's akin to bluffing in poker. You've got to play politics to win.

[fezzyfestoon]

Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. It's akin to bluffing in poker. You've got to play politics to win.

None of us are playing politics, that's the problem.  We're a bunch of dorks sitting behind a computer reading about it.

[Vepres]

Not if you believe your candidate would be a better representative than both the stronger and weaker candidates.

And what if your candidate loses? Wouldn't you want the winner of the race to be a Mike Castle instead of a Christine O'Donnell?

[Lief 🗽]

Not if you believe your candidate would be a better representative than both the stronger and weaker candidates.

And what if your candidate loses? Wouldn't you want the winner of the race to be a Mike Castle instead of a Christine O'Donnell?

Well, you look at the chances of your candidate winning and then decide whether or not it's worth it to support the weaker, worse candidate. For instance I'd have supported Murkowski over Miller in Alaska, because McAdams wasn't going to beat either and Murkowski is better than Miller, even if she would have been a stronger general election candidate.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not if you believe your candidate would be a better representative than both the stronger and weaker candidates.

And what if your candidate loses? Wouldn't you want the winner of the race to be a Mike Castle instead of a Christine O'Donnell?

Well, you look at the chances of your candidate winning and then decide whether or not it's worth it to support the weaker, worse candidate. For instance I'd have supported Murkowski over Miller in Alaska, because McAdams wasn't going to beat either and Murkowski is better than Miller, even if she would have been a stronger general election candidate.

In what way is Murkowski better than Miller?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Not if you believe your candidate would be a better representative than both the stronger and weaker candidates.

And what if your candidate loses? Wouldn't you want the winner of the race to be a Mike Castle instead of a Christine O'Donnell?

Well, you look at the chances of your candidate winning and then decide whether or not it's worth it to support the weaker, worse candidate. For instance I'd have supported Murkowski over Miller in Alaska, because McAdams wasn't going to beat either and Murkowski is better than Miller, even if she would have been a stronger general election candidate.

In what way is Murkowski better than Miller?

Murkowski will be able to siphon off a lot more federal pork for Alaska. Isn't that an important issue to you? It apparently is to Lief.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not if you believe your candidate would be a better representative than both the stronger and weaker candidates.

And what if your candidate loses? Wouldn't you want the winner of the race to be a Mike Castle instead of a Christine O'Donnell?

Well, you look at the chances of your candidate winning and then decide whether or not it's worth it to support the weaker, worse candidate. For instance I'd have supported Murkowski over Miller in Alaska, because McAdams wasn't going to beat either and Murkowski is better than Miller, even if she would have been a stronger general election candidate.

In what way is Murkowski better than Miller?

Murkowski will be able to siphon off a lot more federal pork for Alaska. Isn't that an important issue to you? It apparently is to Lief.

In fact it is, and that's a major reason I supported Miller over Murkowski.

[Lief 🗽]

Murkowski has voted for a lot of things (SCHIP expansion, Matthew Shepard Act, Stem Cell research) that Miller would never support.

And Miller will support pork for Alaska. He'd be an idiot not to.

[memphis]

Not if you believe your candidate would be a better representative than both the stronger and weaker candidates.

And what if your candidate loses? Wouldn't you want the winner of the race to be a Mike Castle instead of a Christine O'Donnell?

Again, it's like bluffing in poker. It's a gamble, for sure, but there's a strategy behind it.

[muon2]

Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. It's akin to bluffing in poker. You've got to play politics to win.

None of us are playing politics, that's the problem.  We're a bunch of dorks sitting behind a computer reading about it.

OK, I'm playing, and I voted yes. The public really hates the cynical games that result in weak candidates on the November ballot. For years I've read posts on this forum seeking to reform the system in one way or the other. Open primaries are one such reform, but the attitude that would try to put the weaker candidate over the top is exactly why reforms like this fail to pass.

My experience watching European elections is that the parties control the nominations to a degree that prevents this type of game. The American system has supported a more open system of nomination for almost 100 years, but I fear that it will continue to be limited as long as the parties see opportunity to game the system whenever a small measure of reform is introduced.