Wednesday, July 26, 2006
I sometimes listen to "Northern Alliance Radio," a local program hosted by bloggers from "Powerline", "Fraters Libertas", "Shot in the Dark", "Captains Quarters", and "SCSU Scholars" blogs.
The Northern Alliance was named by Hugh Hewitt, and you can sometimes see the influence in the condescension toward opposing views apparent in some of the hosts. Usually, the radio studio is stuffed with three and sometimes four guys, so often the incredulity that anyone could disagree with the speaker melts away when someone in the room steps up to the mike to disagree.
Nonetheless, sometimes while there is disagreement, there is not an intelligent argument on either side, and last Saturday was one of those instances.
The interlocutor was asking how any conservative could not vote for a straight Republican ticket in November. After all, surely you can't vote for the Democrat.
Since the radio crew wasn't giving thoughtful answers, allow me.
The fallacy is that only two people are running. In fact, whoever wins a seat in the U.S. house or senate is likely to be re-elected over and over again, until he or she moves up, retires, or dies. Therefore, the candidates in this election are can be viewed as running against future candidates. A vote for a bad Republican candidate in this election is a vote against better Republican candidates in the future.
Many intelligent voters treat each election as a game. If I vote for Arlen Specter in this election and he wins, I am not likely to have a chance to vote for a different Republican for that seat for many years to come. Therefore, if I want to see a conservative in that seat, I should vote for the Democrat, if I believe that Democrat will be weak in the next election or will be too ambitious to run for re-election.
In Minnesota, holding out for a conservative Republican senate candidate is likely to be a disappointing move. However, Democrats in Minnesota play into the game theory by regularly nominating extremely liberal candidates (think Paul Wellstone). Minnesota leans slightly left so the Democrats see how liberal their candidate can be and still grab 50 percent of the vote.
This is how Minnesota got two-termer Rod Grams. The first time he ran, name recognition (he had been a local TV news anchor) put him over the top. The second time, the Democratic opposition was so laughably liberal that, despite his low popularity, Grams squeaked out a win.
While playing games with state-wide offices may be risky, in local races, including U.S. congressional races, districts are often sufficiently Republican that I feel safe in rooting for two years of a liberal Democrat rather than accepting twenty years of a liberal Republican.
The Northern Alliance was named by Hugh Hewitt, and you can sometimes see the influence in the condescension toward opposing views apparent in some of the hosts. Usually, the radio studio is stuffed with three and sometimes four guys, so often the incredulity that anyone could disagree with the speaker melts away when someone in the room steps up to the mike to disagree.
Nonetheless, sometimes while there is disagreement, there is not an intelligent argument on either side, and last Saturday was one of those instances.
The interlocutor was asking how any conservative could not vote for a straight Republican ticket in November. After all, surely you can't vote for the Democrat.
Since the radio crew wasn't giving thoughtful answers, allow me.
The fallacy is that only two people are running. In fact, whoever wins a seat in the U.S. house or senate is likely to be re-elected over and over again, until he or she moves up, retires, or dies. Therefore, the candidates in this election are can be viewed as running against future candidates. A vote for a bad Republican candidate in this election is a vote against better Republican candidates in the future.
Many intelligent voters treat each election as a game. If I vote for Arlen Specter in this election and he wins, I am not likely to have a chance to vote for a different Republican for that seat for many years to come. Therefore, if I want to see a conservative in that seat, I should vote for the Democrat, if I believe that Democrat will be weak in the next election or will be too ambitious to run for re-election.
In Minnesota, holding out for a conservative Republican senate candidate is likely to be a disappointing move. However, Democrats in Minnesota play into the game theory by regularly nominating extremely liberal candidates (think Paul Wellstone). Minnesota leans slightly left so the Democrats see how liberal their candidate can be and still grab 50 percent of the vote.
This is how Minnesota got two-termer Rod Grams. The first time he ran, name recognition (he had been a local TV news anchor) put him over the top. The second time, the Democratic opposition was so laughably liberal that, despite his low popularity, Grams squeaked out a win.
While playing games with state-wide offices may be risky, in local races, including U.S. congressional races, districts are often sufficiently Republican that I feel safe in rooting for two years of a liberal Democrat rather than accepting twenty years of a liberal Republican.
