So Obama “lost” New Hampshire. I have a difficult time feeling bummed about it — it was 2% percentage points and something like 7500 votes. A technical loss, but nothing that should actually slow him down. What is sad is that Clinton did so well, a fact that not only keeps her in the race but also prevents Edwards from being a truly viable candidate now.
Roxy is really into the politics right now. I had been holding off the last few months, until the primaries began. Now that they have, I am far more interested in following the results. We have talked to friends about it all several times, though it has become increasing clear that we are far more interested in outcomes right now than they are.
Some interesting things have been said, however. I have heard several times from friends and many more times from the media the notion of “electability.” And it gets my goat.
Firstly, this reminds me of the whole Red/Blue thing from the last several elections — it might have been bandied around prior to now, but it has already become this weird excuse when discussing favoring candidates.
A friend the other night said that he was in support of a candidate, but because they weren’t electable, he wasn’t sure who he was going to actually support. No offense, friend, as I know you’ll read this, but I have come to the conclusion that your reasoning on this one is bogus.
The media seems obsessed with the notion of Clinton as “inevitable,” though a little less so than before, I believe this feeling will re-emerge in the wake of New Hampshire. And this notion of a candidate’s electability is simply buying into this notion.
The reason is simple: if everyone based their decision (and vote) on guessing who everyone else would pick, the entire system fails. Spectacularly. What we need is everyone to go after the person they do like with intensity. You don’t have to become a propaganda machine, but engage in the process and do what you can to support the people you like.
Electability doesn’t exist. You can’t be frightened of being in the minority — and that’s all this notion revolves around. The only way we can move forward and make progress is to make informed decisions as individuals.
Ok, ok, I’m stepping off the soapbox. I just hate all this noise about second-guessing the population. And I’m bummed Obama was a few points shy of Clinton.
(And did you know that not only does every state have a primary/caucus, but Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands have primaries? And that Puerto Rico and Guam have delegates? Seriously, when are we going to finally make them real states?) [Wikipedia doesn’t list the Republican primaries for these territories, but this page does, as does the Democratic Party info on Wikipedia.)
Popularity: 1% [?]
Game Theory:
“In strategic games, agents choose strategies that will maximize their return, given the strategies the other agents choose. The essential feature is that it provides a formal modelling approach to social situations in which decision makers interact with other agents.”
And yet, the Prisoner’s Dilemma proves that it is indeed a sub-optimal way to make decisions. (I understand the notion of game theory — my point was less about the ‘why’ and more about the ‘stop it’.)
Minimizing loss is a fair motivator; however, it shouldn’t apply within the party at this stage in the game. The whole point of the primary is to pick a “champion.” If that picking is done by guessing what other people — on your team — might do, it defeats the purpose.
Or, to put it yet another way — I think that putting your ego about winning over supporting someone who matches your beliefs is a very bad idea.