If not Biden, who?

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, painfully I know you have a point. It does not quite enable me to understand the Trump movement, however. I think I have seen all ages represented amongst his followers but boomers appear to be the larger group. As boomers my friends despise Trump so my sample of boomers gives me no insight into the process. I hear more from the board participants here than people in person. I think of Atlantic Mike whom I much doubt to be a boomer.

Is there a remaining incoherent infection of conspiratorial anti-establishmentism from the 60s in the boomers? As a member of that 60s movement I remain shocked both by the establishment hostility to change and the sort of crazies that inhabited portions of the movement. Those crazies might be thinking in any sort of direction; paranoia breeds mental chaos.

A little formula came to my mind and might help. People of all ages suffer from more ignorance than they like or want to admit to. Around age seven people know they are ignorant and want to learn. By age 18 they imagine they have become wise. By age 26 they again realize they need to learn to get closer to wisdom. By 50 they start thinking they know more than they do again and resist evidence that they don't know.

Gadianton, your proposal that we boomers are just a bad lot does not explain anything about Trumpism. It is a sort of throwing up your hands. But I do not have the explanation either. Are there cycles of destructive spiritual energy which come like hurricanes building on ever-present human weakness and desire for power?

My parents are Boomers and they both voted for Trump. By the way, on that 50 thing. I resemble those words. I do think I am becoming more small c conservative as time goes by. By that, I do not mean more inclined to vote Republican, but I am perhaps less excited to jump on board somebody's shiny new wagon to whatever promised land. Honestly, I am not a big fan of identity politics, be they the Republican version or the Democratic version.

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen, painfully I know you have a point. It does not quite enable me to understand the Trump movement, however. I think I have seen all ages represented amongst his followers but boomers appear to be the larger group. As boomers my friends despise Trump so my sample of boomers gives me no insight into the process. I hear more from the board participants here than people in person. I think of Atlantic Mike whom I much doubt to be a boomer.

Is there a remaining incoherent infection of conspiratorial anti-establishmentism from the 60s in the boomers? As a member of that 60s movement I remain shocked both by the establishment hostility to change and the sort of crazies that inhabited portions of the movement. Those crazies might be thinking in any sort of direction; paranoia breeds mental chaos.

A little formula came to my mind and might help. People of all ages suffer from more ignorance than they like or want to admit to. Around age seven people know they are ignorant and want to learn. By age 18 they imagine they have become wise. By age 26 they again realize they need to learn to get closer to wisdom. By 50 they start thinking they know more than they do again and resist evidence that they don't know.

Gadianton, your proposal that we boomers are just a bad lot does not explain anything about Trumpism. It is a sort of throwing up your hands. But I do not have the explanation either. Are there cycles of destructive spiritual energy which come like hurricanes building on ever-present human weakness and desire for power?

My parents are Boomers and they both voted for Trump. By the way, on that 50 thing. I resemble those words. I do think I am becoming more small c conservative as time goes by. By that, I do not mean more inclined to vote Republican, but I am perhaps less excited to jump on board somebody's shiny new wagon to whatever promised land. Honestly, I am not a big fan of identity politics, be they the Republican version or the Democratic version.

Kishkumen, there is a move towards more conservatism from age 50 or so on which is almost universal I think. One has seen enough foolishness and blind enthusiasm that some caution and suspicion is a natural result. If I think of the reform impulses of the 60s and 70s I see important positive change. I also see confusion, foolish extremes, chaos, and self destruction.

And empty posturing with lots of rhetoric rather like identity politics.

[Analytics]

I imagine Gavin Newsome would have a great chance to beat Trump.

I think Republicans have so thoroughly and effectively given California the "Hillary Clinton" treatment, to where anything or anyone associated with California would have a hard time overcoming the negative connotation propaganda taint. Feelings > Facts.

All it would take is a "do you want America to become California," and it'd probably solidify every Republican, and sway enough Independents to move the needle fairly significantly.

In my (often flawed) opinion, that is.

I'm not sure about that. I saw the debate between Newsom and Sean Hannity, and Newsom kicked his ass and defended the hell out of California. He made me feel proud to have been born there, and made me want to go back. If Newsom debated Trump, he could go with him toe-to-toe, and he'd paint a picture of America that people would want to believe in. He'd be the most positive morning-in-America presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. He would be the opposite of Trump's message that everyone in America is a corrupt idiot, except of course for him.

Sure, the rightwing media would paint Newsom and California as Commies while they simultaneously paint Putin and Russia as the darlings of American values, but whatever. Those votes are already hard R's.

I just can't imagine what kind of person would vote for Biden over Trump, but wouldn't vote for Newsom over Trump.

I just found an article at The Hill (from June, 2023) that claims there are three Democrats that Republicans fear most in 2024. They are:

• Gavin Newsom
• Michelle Obama
• Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

I understand from a game theory perspective why the Democrats would nominate Biden. But that doesn't mean he's the most likely to beat Trump.

[Dr. Shades]

I understand from a game theory perspective why the Democrats would nominate Biden. But that doesn't mean he's the most likely to beat Trump.

I'd like more insight into this, if you will. Doesn't game theory dictate that you choose the candidate most likely to beat Trump?

[Billy Shears]

I understand from a game theory perspective why the Democrats would nominate Biden. But that doesn't mean he's the most likely to beat Trump.

I'd like more insight into this, if you will. Doesn't game theory dictate that you choose the candidate most likely to beat Trump?

I would say correct strategic thinking indicates you choose the best candidate who is likely to win in the general election. However, as has become painfully obvious the last few election cycles, neither party does this. The question is why?

Game theory is a newish way of approaching economic problems and helps explain why individuals (or individual political parties) making the rational choice don’t necessarily lead to the optimal final outcome.

The classic example of this is called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The police arrest two members of the mafia for whatever, but they don’t have enough evidence to prove their guilt in court without a confession. The two suspects are both held in isolation, and are each given the opportunity to confess and testify against the other. They both realize these are the possibilities:

1. One confesses but the other doesn’t. The one who confesses is given a deal of time served and probation, while the one who doesn’t confess gets 10 years in prison.
2. They both confess, and are both sentenced to 5 years in jail.
3. Neither confesses. Both are sentenced to 30 days in jail for a lesser crime.

What should they do? The optimal solution is for both to remain silent. But the logical solution is to confess. Why? If you don’t confess, the logical thing for me to do is to confess and get out of jail immediately. But if you do confess, the logical thing for me to do is to confess also--going to jail for 5 years as a contrite and repentant criminal is better than going to jail for 10 alone.

This is a clear example of how making the logical choice leads to suboptimal outcomes.

In America’s two party system, some strange inter-party dynamics cause the majority of democrats to want somebody other than Biden on the democratic ticket, but cause them to nominate Biden anyway. I think some sort of game theory model could explain why that is.

Here is an article that I skimmed through that might explain this in more detail:

https://thepostrider.com/how-game-theor ... elections/

[Moksha]

Pete is marvelous, but I don't think he would beat Trump. I would like to see President Pete someday, but I don't know that the day has yet arrived.

It's like the Voice of America is calling out, "Give us something slimy and awful. A creature who will lie every time he opens his mouth. Give us Trump. He can lead us into war."

[Kishkumen]

It's like the Voice of America is calling out, "Give us something slimy and awful. A creature who will lie every time he opens his mouth. Give us Trump. He can lead us into war."

Why anyone would choose Trump for anything but a minor buffoon on local television is beyond me. Guy is stupid, vulgar, venal, and twisted. I paid no attention to him in the past because I would have never thought to. I always thought he was a bad joke. I haven't changed my mind on that. Unfortunately, some people out there think a bad joke is a good bet for ruling the world's most powerful nation.

[Doctor Steuss]

It's like the Voice of America is calling out, "Give us something slimy and awful. A creature who will lie every time he opens his mouth. Give us Trump. He can lead us into war."

Why anyone would choose Trump for anything but a minor buffoon on local television is beyond me. Guy is stupid, vulgar, venal, and twisted. I paid no attention to him in the past because I would have never thought to. I always thought he was a bad joke. I haven't changed my mind on that. Unfortunately, some people out there think a bad joke is a good bet for ruling the world's most powerful nation.

I was recently reminded of "Ronald Grump," and 80's and 90's Sesame Street parodies, of a conniving evil and dishonest landlord.

This was while Trump was a Democrat. New Yorkers have known he's a dishonest grifting scumbag forever. Who would've thought that a huge chunk of America could be taken in so easily into such a blaringly obvious con cult, and drink willingly from the trough of anti-democratic authoritarianism.

[Gunnar]

This was while Trump was a Democrat. New Yorkers have known he's a dishonest grifting scumbag forever. Who would've thought that a huge chunk of America could be taken in so easily into such a blaringly obvious con cult, and drink willingly from the trough of anti-democratic authoritarianism.

That such a large chunk of American citizens were so easily deluded into supporting him is even more astounding to me than the number of idiots who adamantly insist that the world is flat.

[Kishkumen]

That such a large chunk of American citizens were so easily deluded into supporting him is even more astounding to me than the number of idiots who adamantly insist that the world is flat.

I can't believe how foolishly I overestimated my fellow Americans, even my own family members. I would have never imagined we would see people calling for the dictatorship of a gameshow celebrity who "shags" pornstars.