The case for being genuine - or is it the case against?

[oportet.livejournal.com]

A genuine person isn't necessarily someone whose bullshit you believe - it's someone who believes their own bullshit. And maybe it isn't subjective - maybe it stands out - even though it's a formula we can't write down - our subconcious recognizes it.

Usually, it's viewed as a positive trait, something we should strive to be - and if you're electing a leader for your HOA, or tuesday night book club - it may be the first thing you consider.

We're talking politics though, we're talking about the President - it's a little more complicated.

I never considered voting for Bernie Sanders or John Kasich - I'm not really close to the former on the political seesaw, and I doubted either would be an option by the time I got the chance to vote anyway.

But they are genuine, the only two in the race - I'll give them that - although it doesn't seem to be helping at all. Sanders loses when he ties, ties when he wins, and has started going downhill. Kasich could be the safest pick of all - but safe isn't exciting, and 'isn't exciting' may be good enough for 4th place (if the field is narrowed down to 4 contenders).

So for those who like Sanders or Kasich - would you continue to like them if they stepped up the bullshit some more? If they, in a moment of desperation (which I think we're at) - got down in the mud with the rest and became a little less genuine? Would it be worth losing some of your respect to pick up some votes (and does your answer depend on what 'some votes' means?).

You're the campaign advisor, for either - or both. What is your advice?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My advice to both of them would be to drop out of the race.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

A bow out - that's respectable, and not a bad idea - if you have a friend or like-minded candidate in the race you could throw support behind (which neither have), or if you're auditioning for VP (which neither are), or if you want to give it another shot in 4 or 8 years (which is out of the question for Bernie, but possible for K?).

I also think that's best, but if I was them - I'd probably be stubborn and ride it out another month or two at least.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Gee, your very first sentence makes it official: you're totally dominating the DailyQuotes list! :-D

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I get a set of steak knives!?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

With a hammer & sickle on the handles.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

[Sanders] has started going downhill

Has he, though (http://www.ibtimes.com/democrats-ready-socialism-bernie-sanders-gaining-clinton-new-poll-suggests-voters-2317267)?

[oportet.livejournal.com]

If we're just talking about popular vote and delegates - sure, he's right there in it. But figure in super-delegates, however that shit works - and Super Tuesday, where she'll probably take 7 out of 10 - and the race probably isn't going to get any closer.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Not sure how super-delegates work either, to be frank. Or why they should exist at all.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Simple: the oligarchy determines who the nominee is, popular vote be damned.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I supposed so.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Well, you know, it's not mob rule democracy, after all. It's civilization's pinnacle a republic. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Can't trust people to know what's best for them, can we.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't presume to. I'm just commonfolk.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Well, "trust me, I'll fix this" is the platform that both populists currently running at the opposite sides of the spectrum seem to be running on. You may forgive me if I don't tend to trust someone who insistently refuses to go into details as to HOW they're going to "fix this", no matter how many times they're prompted to.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

You're forgiven, of course.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Has a Primary winner ever won by virtue of the Super delegates without winning the popular vote?

I know such a thing is possible in principle, but I was trying to research this the other day and was coming up empty.

Its made complicated by the fact that not every state has a primary. In the states with caucuses, you often don't know the popular vote.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Either it hasn't happened before, or it barely happened in Mondale vs. Hart (I'm getting different answers, and I was 2 at the time - so I don't know for sure).

I don't know how common it is fo SDs to change their votes, but the fact that so many decided so soon, makes me think it won't happen easily.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

It's a mess.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Between that, and coin flips, and cutting high card to determine a winner - I'd be pissed. Even if I took an oath or signed an agreement when entering the race that said I'd go along with it - I'd flip flop on that shit (I'd be a politician, so why not?).

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, coin flips, high cards, and such seem contrary to how we practice democracy in the US. If it's a tie, they should auction off the delegates to the highest bidder.

[garote]

Perhaps. I've learned not to underestimate the power of the millennial mob, and Sanders has a whole lot of youth support. It may be that the superdelegates start changing sides if he keeps performing - and by "performing" I mean just staying in a dead heat with Clinton.

I really do like the guy (in spite of the often obnoxious, self-satisfied fanbase that has sprung up around him) and it would be cool to see him or Clinton elected, so I think it's a win for everyone if he stays in the race as long as possible. Even if he doesn't make it all the way, Clinton will only gain additional support with additional work defining herself to the public, and I think that benefits from a contrast with Bernie, as much as they both benefit from a contrast with Donald Trump.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say the situation of the Super delegates can be called "starting to go downhill." That seems like a constructed narrative.

The SD's majority position has been known since before any of the primaries. Just as its been known that their positions can change in line with the popular vote, as happened in 2008.

Bernie has, from the beginning, had a tough row to hoe. I think he's done it in an honorable fashion so far, and I suspect South Carolina will tell the tale in a way none of the previous primaries have. (Fingers crossed!)

But, to get at your original question, if he "modulates" his message in a way that sets off my bullshit detector, my support for him will dwindle, because its his authenticity that has been the deciding factor for me, when choosing between Sanders and Clinton.

I'm not alone in this, and that being the case, it's likely that Sander's "positional calculus" is different from most politicians.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Bernie started at the bottom of the Mariana Trench and now he's at the halfway point.

That still means he's 750 miles below sea level.