- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 555
- Reaction score
- 104
- Location
- New Jersey, United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
When it comes to primary elections, or even general elections, do you care more about ideology or electability?
Your beliefs on this can also determine whether philosophically speaking, you're a Deontologist or Consequentialist. More emphasis on the act itself regardless of consequence? Or less emphasis on the action itself and more on the consequence?
Personally, I care more about ideology rather than electability. I'm firm and confident enough in my beliefs that I would rather support an unpopular candidate that I believe in more, to challenge a popular candidate of an opposing party, than to simply settle for a candidate who I don't believe in who is perceived to have a better chance against the opposing party.
When it comes to primary elections, I'll support Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. Preferably on a Cruz/Paul ticket. But if Ted Cruz doesn't run, I'll support Rand Paul over Chris Christie. I don't care if Chris Christie does better against a candidate like Hillary Clinton. I don't care if he's leading her while Paul lags far behind. I would still vote for Rand Paul then.
I believe that if the right candidate is nominated, more passion and enthusiasm can be put in to the campaign efforts after the primary election & convention, and before the general election takes place.
In this decision making, one has to decide their own personal code of ethics, versus the most effective strategy at either preventing damage, OR creating the positive change we seek to have in the world.
Discuss your thoughts on this or if you want, discuss hypothetical scenarios and ask each other questions on this.
Your beliefs on this can also determine whether philosophically speaking, you're a Deontologist or Consequentialist. More emphasis on the act itself regardless of consequence? Or less emphasis on the action itself and more on the consequence?
Personally, I care more about ideology rather than electability. I'm firm and confident enough in my beliefs that I would rather support an unpopular candidate that I believe in more, to challenge a popular candidate of an opposing party, than to simply settle for a candidate who I don't believe in who is perceived to have a better chance against the opposing party.
When it comes to primary elections, I'll support Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. Preferably on a Cruz/Paul ticket. But if Ted Cruz doesn't run, I'll support Rand Paul over Chris Christie. I don't care if Chris Christie does better against a candidate like Hillary Clinton. I don't care if he's leading her while Paul lags far behind. I would still vote for Rand Paul then.
I believe that if the right candidate is nominated, more passion and enthusiasm can be put in to the campaign efforts after the primary election & convention, and before the general election takes place.
In this decision making, one has to decide their own personal code of ethics, versus the most effective strategy at either preventing damage, OR creating the positive change we seek to have in the world.
Discuss your thoughts on this or if you want, discuss hypothetical scenarios and ask each other questions on this.