Emsworth vs. Cosmo Kramer

[Beet]

Emsworth is probably too libertarian to win any states, assuming he sticks by all of his positions and the voters fear that he actually would have the chance of carrying them out into policy. He'd do very well in a forum election though

[Emsworth]

You're telling me there is a place in America where people are overwhelmingly secular, people don't believe in objective morality, AND oppose just about every aspect of government?

Why would anyone care about a candidate's views on the nature of morality? Normally, axiology and philosophy are not the defining issues of a campaign.

[John Dibble]

I would vote Emsworth, and I think he could win.

First off, assuming that Emsworth is the Republican, and Preston is the Democrat, a fair number of people will simply vote on that factor alone. Second, while Emsworth does have some views that could be considered extreme, I think he's also a pragmatist - he'd probably moderate his message by focusing on what he thinks he can do rather than stating everything at once, thus increasing his odds of winning. There's some other reasons too, but I don't want to go through the trouble of explaining them at this moment in time.

[CheeseWhiz]

I would vote Emsworth, and I think he could win.

First off, assuming that Emsworth is the Republican, and Preston is the Democrat, a fair number of people will simply vote on that factor alone. Second, while Emsworth does have some views that could be considered extreme, I think he's also a pragmatist - he'd probably moderate his message by focusing on what he thinks he can do rather than stating everything at once, thus increasing his odds of winning. There's some other reasons too, but I don't want to go through the trouble of explaining them at this moment in time.

Actually, I agree, it just depends on how they run their campaigns.  If Preston starts going after Emsworth's crazy libertarian ideas, Emsworth would probably win.  If Preston stays with being pragmatic and doesn't attack Emsworth a lot, then Preston would win.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Preston in a landslide; Emsworth's views on a lot of issues are just too extreme to come even close to being electable. Even if he moderates some for the campaign. He'd have some other problems too... and it's a real shame that the biggest would be a problem at all, but that's people for you... all Preston would have to do is control his mouth a little better (and he's been doing that recently so...)
As for where he'd do well... maybe not in places that immediately come to mind. He'd do very *badly* in most of the mountain West; it's "libertarianism" is seriously over-rated (it's more a case of being irritated at being so damn remote from the centres of political and economic power. The only genuinely libertarian attitude seems to be towards cannabis for some reason...) partly because his style of politics would go down like a lead balloon over there. I'd go so far as to say that he would poll a high % in New Jersey than Idaho or Montana. Win more counties in New Jersey than in those two as well.

More interesting would be Emsworth against someone else with not-exactly-moderate views.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

I'm going to strip away the two ideologies for a moment.

Emsworth is always very eloquent in his delivery, but often shows little passion.  That's not meant to be an insult.  I'm reminded of Mike Dukakis being labeled an 'Iceman' after he answered a debate question about his wife's hypothetical rape and murder in a very cold, yet intelligent, way.  I personally wouldn't have held anything against him for it, but the apparent lack of emotion was damaging.

Whereas Preston is the complete opposite.  His posts are usually very passionate, and I suppose you could say emotional, even if his argument is not always very well delivered or informed.  I suppose it's an odd comparison, but GWB's style seems fitting here.

These are often the issues that really matter to the ordinary voter in modern presidential elections.

[Cubby]

Yes Idaho would go for Emsworth

Okay, well then, mentally change it

CT pro-life??! You're funny   We're Catholic but pro-choice, thats why we liked John Kerry.

At least you don't think I'm on crack   I may have been thinking of RI, is it pro-life?  I really don't know a lot about state politics.

My question is why would Utah go for Preston so strongly? Is he/Are you Mormon? Somehow I doubt it.

No, but he's very religious, and I think that would make Utah go for him very strongly.

And Wisconsin would go for Preston over Emsworth

Okay, that was one of the ones I was least sure about.

There's really nowhere in the Northeast that is pro-life outside of Pennsylvania. Possibly some Upstate New York counties but no other places at the state level. New Hampshire's Senators and Reps are pro-life but they vote on economic issues, not abortion.

And I'm very glad to hear that Preston isn't Mormon

[CheeseWhiz]

There's really nowhere in the Northeast that is pro-life outside of Pennsylvania. Possibly some Upstate New York counties but no other places at the state level. New Hampshire's Senators and Reps are pro-life but they vote on economic issues, not abortion.

And I'm very glad to hear that Preston isn't Mormon

Well, thanks for telling me that, it will improve my future maps

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

a lot of people do oppose most aspects of the Government, why do you think the Libertarians are one of the largest third parties in America?

Yeah, a whopping 0.32% of the population supports them. Pretty damn mainstream!

[jokerman]

Good analysis, Al.  I keep trying to tell people that, especially with regards to Montana.

[CheeseWhiz]

a lot of people do oppose most aspects of the Government, why do you think the Libertarians are one of the largest third parties in America?

Yeah, a whopping 0.32% of the population supports them. Pretty damn mainstream!

Not all of them voted for Badnarik, you know.

[jokerman]

I'm going to strip away the two ideologies for a moment.

Emsworth is always very eloquent in his delivery, but often shows little passion.  That's not meant to be an insult.  I'm reminded of Mike Dukakis being labeled an 'Iceman' after he answered a debate question about his wife's hypothetical rape and murder in a very cold, yet intelligent, way.  I personally wouldn't have held anything against him for it, but the apparent lack of emotion was damaging.

Whereas Preston is the complete opposite.  His posts are usually very passionate, and I suppose you could say emotional, even if his argument is not always very well delivered or informed.  I suppose it's an odd comparison, but GWB's style seems fitting here.

These are often the issues that really matter to the ordinary voter in modern presidential elections.

Good analysis, Joe, though I would say I'm generally well informed, and back my beliefs up with facts whenever necesary.  I believe the bigger difference between Emsworth and me is he delivers his arguments with a kind of philosophical eloquence, and is much more abstract in nature.  I, on the other hand, speak with a more practical, down-to-earth style, both in tone and construction.

[A18]

Except your arguments suck as a practical matter too.

[jokerman]

Except your arguments suck as a practical matter too.

Only if all one cares about is the high-hats and the elite.

[A18]

No, they suck regardless.

[Emsworth]

Except your arguments suck as a practical matter too.

Only if all one cares about is the high-hats and the elite.

I do not support laissez-faire economics because I only care about the "elite." I care equally for everyone's right to own property.

Furthermore, I think that it is inaccurate to assume that right-wing economics only helps the rich. On the contrary, society as a whole tends to benefit.

I would say I'm generally well informed, and back my beliefs up with facts whenever necesary.

When it comes to economic issues, I would take an exception to this approach. Economics is not a natural science like physics or chemistry. One can isolate variables in a lab, but one cannot isolate variables in society. Thus, while drawing conclusions from observations and empirical data is valid in the natural sciences, it is inappropriate in economics. Instead, I would argue that economics is a purely abstract branch of knowledge.

[jokerman]

laissez-faire always perpetuates an economy that favors the elites.  It a basic sociological nature.  The only way to have a fair economy is to have government intervention to secure the natural rights and opportunities of man.

[Emsworth]

laissez-faire always perpetuates an economy that favors the elites.  It a basic sociological nature.

On the contrary, laissez-faire economies allow for social mobility. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, I consider liberty and property to be among the "natural rights" of man. When the government regulates the economy and takes away private wealth in order to redistribute it, it does not secure natural rights. On the contrary, it violates them.

Secondly, government intervention produces all kinds of economic problems. For example, governmental interference with the money supply led to the Great Depression.

[A18]

It certainly favors the 'elites,' and every other group for that matter.

No exchange ever takes place in the free market unless both parties believe they benefit. Opposition to the free market is opposition to the ability of people to make decisions for themselves.

[Emsworth]

It certainly favors the 'elites,' and every other group for that matter.

I definitely agree. Laissez-faire capitalism does not grant any special privileges to any particular group of people. Each person--rich or poor--can make his own decisions, rather than being told what to do by the government.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

It certainly favors the 'elites,' and every other group for that matter.

I definitely agree. Laissez-faire capitalism does not grant any special privileges to any particular group of people. Each person--rich or poor--can make his own decisions, rather than being told what to do by the government.

... as long as they have money.

[Emsworth]

... as long as they have money.

Firstly, those who don't have money can also make their own economic decisions.

Secondly, just because someone does not have money, it does not follow that he may take away someone else's rights.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

... as long as they have money.

Firstly, those who don't have money can also make their own economic decisions.

Oh yes, they can decide whether to pay their rent or eat this month.  Decisions decisions....

Secondly, just because someone does not have money, it does not follow that he may take away someone else's rights.

So because someone's great-grandfather stole the rights of another person's great-grandfather, the first person's decendants deserve to have a better lifestyle for the rest of time?

[A18]

They can decide where to work, where to live, what to eat, what else to buy, and what arrangements to make. But enslave another, that they can not do.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

They can decide where to work, where to live, what to eat, what else to buy, and what arrangements to make. But enslave another, that they can not do.

Yes we all know what the rich people can do, but we're talking about the impoverished here.