Nathan vs Vosem

[Aurelius]

Might be the two posters whose worldviews are the furthest apart. Who do you vote for and who wins? Discuss with maps.

[Goldwater]

I would vote for Vosem, though I imagine that Nathan would win in a close election that goes something like this:

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Amongst the Forum, Nathan would win.

In the real world, Vosem would win.

[Mr. Smith]

Nate beats Eight. 

[Schiff for Senate]

Might be the two posters whose worldviews are the furthest apart. Who do you vote for and who wins? Discuss with maps.

What *are* their worldviews? I'm aware that generally Vosem leans to the right and Nathan to the left, but that's obviously a very vapid and un-nuanced way of looking at it, and that way a bunch of posters could beat them. So on a deeper level, out of curiosity, what are their worldviews?

[Kamala's side hoe]

Might be the two posters whose worldviews are the furthest apart. Who do you vote for and who wins? Discuss with maps.

What *are* their worldviews? I'm aware that generally Vosem leans to the right and Nathan to the left, but that's obviously a very vapid and un-nuanced way of looking at it, and that way a bunch of posters could beat them. So on a deeper level, out of curiosity, what are their worldviews?

For those unaquainted with the Leipverse Discord servers or AAD: Nathan = weeby Catholic left, Vosem = ex-Soviet right-libertarian

They’re both very high-quality veteran posters, which gives us a lot of material to work with.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The ultimate battle. Far-right (Nathan) versus far-left (Восемь). The stakes have never been higher. What will America face? Continuity and stagnation as a provincial agrarian backwater, or bloody upheaval as midwife to a Great Leap Forward into the capitalist future? You, the voter, will decide that.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm biased, but I just don't think openly running on dismantling the welfare state would play too well. Nathan's lack of a clear abortion stance worries progressives and gives one opening for Vosem to attack Nathan from the left, but is ultimately unable to stave off his characterization (notably among seniors) as an out-of-touch elitist who doesn't care about the poor or lower-class and would dismantle Social Security forever.

[Vosem]

The ultimate battle. Far-right (Nathan) versus far-left (Восемь). The stakes have never been higher. What will America face? Continuity and stagnation as a provincial agrarian backwater, or bloody upheaval as midwife to a Great Leap Forward into the capitalist future? You, the voter, will decide that.

I love this characterization. (I did not vote in the poll, for the record, because I am obviously biased.)

~~

One of the most salient differences has been left out of this thread, which is that purely by coincidence Nathan and I both have extremely non-average social groups (not just on political questions, but to the point of seeing totally different behavior as culturally normative). "Who would win" would end up coming down to "which of us can come off as normier". (We are also both attracted to incredibly different aesthetics, to the point that in exchanges where we've dug deeper these differences come off as maybe larger than, or at least as large as, the political ones.)

I just don't think openly running on dismantling the welfare state would play too well. Nathan's lack of a clear abortion stance worries progressives and gives one opening for Vosem to attack Nathan from the left, but is ultimately unable to stave off his characterization (notably among seniors) as an out-of-touch elitist who doesn't care about the poor or lower-class and would dismantle Social Security forever.

Well, my campaign would of course promise that Social Security benefits would increase under a privatized system. However, it would almost certainly try to focus on criminal-justice issues, just because that's an issue where I think I have positions that ordinary voters find sympathetic and Nathan does not. My success would depend on how successful the campaign is at centering those issues in the national conversation.

A pretty solid roundup of the political differences between me and Nathan comes from this exchange where we both try (and both fail, though me moreso) to characterize ourselves as 'Chad Centrists' holding positions from every part of the political compass:

A: Abortion Bad
B: Several types of sexual behavior that currently fall under the "consenting adults" bromide for most politically intelligent people, such as adultery, should be tortious (but not criminal). More generally, the fact that I used the phrase "the 'consenting adults' bromide" probably falls somewhere around here in and of itself.
C: Inheritance is, on the individual level (I'm not talking about social harms here), probably one of the least immoral ways to make a whole boatload of money.
D: The famed litigiousness of American society is a good thing and should be strategically encouraged in situations that all too often fall apart into interpersonal violence instead. (See B. for an example.)
E: Life with possibility of parole after twenty or so years should be the maximum criminal sentence, and executives should have minimal authority, if any, to overrule parole boards' decisions--no more cases like Gavin Newsom keeping Sirhan Sirhan in prison and explicitly saying in public that it was partly because of his personal admiration for RFK. Solitary confinement should be used extremely sparingly and in most circumstances is a human rights abuse. More nonviolent crimes, including property crimes that don't involve violence against other people, should be punished with house arrest and/or supervised release rather than conventional imprisonment.
F: In certain fields, descriptive representation concerns are valid, actually. We need more women and gay people in economics, more black and Asian people in fashion design, WAY more people who aren't straight white men in military history, more disabled people in medical ethics (in fact, I think we've heard about all on this subject from people who AREN'T disabled that any society could possibly need to), and ideally more Native Americans in every academic and arts-and-culture field with the possible exception of mood music.
G: All employed people should have a constitutional right to collective bargaining, as should people in certain vital non-employed categories like homemakers and Social Security recipients.
H: I'm open to soaking elite private college endowments and using them to reboot state universities with a back-to-the-basics social-leveling mandate.

I'm not picking on you in any way, Nathan, but almost all of these are so opposite of my views (I think H is the only one where I don't have a 180-degrees-opposed position, and even there while I think I sympathize with your point of view I find it aesthetically very ugly) that I think I can use this as a sort of guide to coming up with my own "Chad Centrist" compass.

A: We should hugely expand the use of the death penalty, and it should be the default option for any crime where there is no realistic expectation of a prisoner ever being released. The use of slave labor through the prison system is one of the most abhorrent things about modern America, particularly when you consider the vast amounts ordinary Americans spend to support it. I support some leniency for very young offenders, but otherwise death should be the usual penalty for essentially any violent crime without really serious extenuating circumstances (murder, yes, but also rape/burglary with threat of deadly force/any destruction of property that seriously endangered anyone), and probably also for most large-scale white-collar crimes, too.

B: Descriptive concerns are not valid outside of the makeup of legislatures and juries (government bodies explicitly meant to reflect the entire population). People coming from different cultures or biological backgrounds -- even quite subtly different cultures or biological backgrounds -- will be drawn to different things, and that's OK. Trying to force interest in people will just make the thing worse; as society becomes richer more people should be able to make a living doing what they love.

C: Public-sector unions are fundamentally anti-democratic and serve only to give more power to those who already have it.

D: I mean, the vast majority of my beliefs go in this quadrant, but I'll repeat one that sums most of them up: things should never be banned just because they are dangerous.

E: Abortion is good most of the time. Raising a child is an enormous responsibility that, in an ideal world, would not be forced on anyone because of a momentary poor decision.

F: Consenting adults can do pretty much whatever they want, and this is a principle that extends beyond sex (to things like euthanasia/medical experimentation/most contracts). This might be a lib-right opinion but whatever.

G: Inheritance is generally bad; inheritors often spend money in ways that the original entrepreneur would not have liked. (Divorcees getting half of a fortune tends to be even worse in this regard). More generally -- once again this might be a lib-right opinion but whatever -- societal tastes should be set by the nouveau riche and those who have come to money recently, since their example can be used as guidance by others, and never by inheritors who have lived their whole lives comfortably. TikTok culture is a positive good. (A different way to put this is that one of the books whose messages I found most distasteful is The Great Gatsby, because every social instinct I have suggests that it should be Tom looking up to Gatsby and trying to ape Gatsby's mannerisms, and having it be the other way around is ridiculous).

H: (This is another lib-right opinion generated by just contradicting Nathan, but again, whatever). We as a society have overvalued safety far too much, and this is substantially because suing someone has become far too easy. (Although actually the peak of litigiousness was in the 1990s and since then the number of interpersonal lawsuits has actually hugely declined; still). There should be large penalties for suing someone unsuccessfully (up to significantly more severe than "the punishment they would've gotten goes to you"), and there should be a social norm that lawsuits are a last-resort option before literally embarking on some kind of Hatfield/McCoy or Capulet/Montague feud.

[Make America Grumpy Again]

I'd vote for Nathan but Vosem probably wins.  Nothing against Vosem but Nathan's Christian Left is more appealing than Vosem's right libertarianism.

[Ferguson97]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Regardless of the economic effects (which are up for debate), nobody will care. Privatizing social security is a political third rail. As is privatizing Medicare and public education.

Combined with Nathan's extremely inoffensive demeanor and lack of insane views on hot-button social issues (He's admitted to playing 'both sides' often on culture war issues) means the map is not going to be good for Vosem...

[Vosem]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

...George W. Bush already did! (Here's a source showing Republicans campaigning on the issue in the 2002 midterms: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/us/bush-renews-push-to-partly-privatize-social-security.html). The third rail is cuts to net benefits, but it's easy to show privatization wouldn't cause this (and even easier to just confidently assert it).

And the country's gotten significantly more fiscally conservative since then.

(But also I would try to center my campaign around criminal-justice issues, because I think that's where Nathan is most out-of-step with ordinary people).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

...George W. Bush already did! (Here's a source showing Republicans campaigning on the issue in the 2002 midterms: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/us/bush-renews-push-to-partly-privatize-social-security.html). The third rail is cuts to net benefits, but it's easy to show privatization wouldn't cause this (and even easier to just confidently assert it).

And the country's gotten significantly more fiscally conservative since then.

(But also I would try to center my campaign around criminal-justice issues, because I think that's where Nathan is most out-of-step with ordinary people).

I didn't know that Nathan had CJ views that were in any way stand out, all the moreso compared to what you've implied (not said) about your own views.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I like them both.  But in this poll, Nathan.  He's certainly among the best to post in this place.

[Vosem]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

...George W. Bush already did! (Here's a source showing Republicans campaigning on the issue in the 2002 midterms: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/us/bush-renews-push-to-partly-privatize-social-security.html). The third rail is cuts to net benefits, but it's easy to show privatization wouldn't cause this (and even easier to just confidently assert it).

And the country's gotten significantly more fiscally conservative since then.

(But also I would try to center my campaign around criminal-justice issues, because I think that's where Nathan is most out-of-step with ordinary people).

I didn't know that Nathan had CJ views that were in any way stand out, all the moreso compared to what you've implied (not said) about your own views.

More just where my views most decisively 'beat' the views of a generic Democrat; even quite blue states like California have voted in favor of the death penalty, and by trying to raise the salience of lurid and exciting crimes and make the top question 'how can we best fight criminals' I can try to control the media narrative and prevent cracks which might harm my campaign (sort of similarly to the GHWB campaign of 1988). I expect us to have a successful Republican campaign over the next two decades or so to take this tack, actually.

On 'fiscal' issues ordinary voters have a strong, though not insurmountable, status-quo bias. I don't think something along the lines of the 2000s Bush plan for Social Security, or Obamacare repeal, are really any particularly red lines, but I think the more either side campaigns on specific plans to reform entitlements, or for that matter regulation (whether by making it stricter or laxer!), the more that side is probably generally losing. I'm not sure whether, in practice, Nathan or I have a more extreme position here (and in a campaign manifesto I would only publish what I thought could be done with a realistic congressional majority and what I thought society could handle; moving in the right direction rather than 'instant hyperlibertarian utopia', a fast transition to which would go very poorly), but it would be possibly/maybe easy to argue that I do, and that's probably too risky of a conversation to have unless I'm way down and looking for a Hail Mary.

(My suspicion is that the way to win such a contest -- and maybe the way anybody wins any election ever, actually -- is by being the more cynical candidate.)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

...George W. Bush already did! (Here's a source showing Republicans campaigning on the issue in the 2002 midterms: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/us/bush-renews-push-to-partly-privatize-social-security.html). The third rail is cuts to net benefits, but it's easy to show privatization wouldn't cause this (and even easier to just confidently assert it).

And the country's gotten significantly more fiscally conservative since then.

(But also I would try to center my campaign around criminal-justice issues, because I think that's where Nathan is most out-of-step with ordinary people).

I didn't know that Nathan had CJ views that were in any way stand out, all the moreso compared to what you've implied (not said) about your own views.

More just where my views most decisively 'beat' the views of a generic Democrat; even quite blue states like California have voted in favor of the death penalty, and by trying to raise the salience of lurid and exciting crimes and make the top question 'how can we best fight criminals' I can try to control the media narrative and prevent cracks which might harm my campaign (sort of similarly to the GHWB campaign of 1988). I expect us to have a successful Republican campaign over the next two decades or so to take this tack, actually.

Oh, okay. I had thought based on previous statements you were implying a heavily libertarian/anti-police view of criminal justice issues, and I was curious how you would differentiate or market that. This makes a lot more sense.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

...George W. Bush already did! (Here's a source showing Republicans campaigning on the issue in the 2002 midterms: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/us/bush-renews-push-to-partly-privatize-social-security.html). The third rail is cuts to net benefits, but it's easy to show privatization wouldn't cause this (and even easier to just confidently assert it).

And the country's gotten significantly more fiscally conservative since then.

(But also I would try to center my campaign around criminal-justice issues, because I think that's where Nathan is most out-of-step with ordinary people).

W wanted partial privatization. You want complete elimination of public schools, medicare, medicaid and social security and replacing it with 'your on your own'.

[Archon]

Vosem

[Vosem]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

...George W. Bush already did! (Here's a source showing Republicans campaigning on the issue in the 2002 midterms: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/us/bush-renews-push-to-partly-privatize-social-security.html). The third rail is cuts to net benefits, but it's easy to show privatization wouldn't cause this (and even easier to just confidently assert it).

And the country's gotten significantly more fiscally conservative since then.

(But also I would try to center my campaign around criminal-justice issues, because I think that's where Nathan is most out-of-step with ordinary people).

W wanted partial privatization. You want complete elimination of public schools, medicare, medicaid and social security and replacing it with 'your on your own'.

I want this eventually, as a long-term goal of society, but it obviously wouldn't be achievable in 4 years even if the US was some sort of absolute dictatorship, which it isn't. I would of course run my campaign by focusing on popular things like making it harder to enact regulations (...or other popular positions such as on criminal justice), and I would try to steer in a direction that makes all of this more achievable later (including by partially privatizing Social Security, still a common GOP position embraced by, eg, Blake Masters), but you don't run in a democratic election in a First World country on Revolution Tomorrow.

Inasmuch as this is literally me rather than a politician with basically my views running, I would probably try to characterize Internet message-board writing as 'utopian scribbling' and move on from there. Some candidates running this year actually have a history of being active in communities like this one and being quite extreme (ie, Masters may be economically to my right, or at least was at my age; John Gibbs was apparently against women having the vote in college, although that was maybe trolling), and it actually doesn't seem to be a huge campaign issue. I think it could be dodged.

[Orwell]

Might be the two posters whose worldviews are the furthest apart. Who do you vote for and who wins? Discuss with maps.

What *are* their worldviews? I'm aware that generally Vosem leans to the right and Nathan to the left, but that's obviously a very vapid and un-nuanced way of looking at it, and that way a bunch of posters could beat them. So on a deeper level, out of curiosity, what are their worldviews?

For those unaquainted with the Leipverse Discord servers or AAD: Nathan = weeby Catholic left, Vosem = ex-Soviet right-libertarian

They’re both very high-quality veteran posters, which gives us a lot of material to work with.

Weebs aren't electable.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

Trump came super close to winning re-election in 2020 after making noises in support of social security privatization.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nathan would clearly win by a landslide in Great Britain, despite a very nasty campaign from certain newspapers. I cannot comment on the United States.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

America is not ready for a male Liz Truss presidency.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I vote for Nathan and he wins in a landslide. Frankly, no other issue matters here - no candidate who utters the phrase "privatize social security" is going to ever step foot in the White House.

...George W. Bush already did! (Here's a source showing Republicans campaigning on the issue in the 2002 midterms: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/us/bush-renews-push-to-partly-privatize-social-security.html). The third rail is cuts to net benefits, but it's easy to show privatization wouldn't cause this (and even easier to just confidently assert it).

And the country's gotten significantly more fiscally conservative since then.

(But also I would try to center my campaign around criminal-justice issues, because I think that's where Nathan is most out-of-step with ordinary people).

I didn't know that Nathan had CJ views that were in any way stand out, all the moreso compared to what you've implied (not said) about your own views.

More just where my views most decisively 'beat' the views of a generic Democrat; even quite blue states like California have voted in favor of the death penalty, and by trying to raise the salience of lurid and exciting crimes and make the top question 'how can we best fight criminals' I can try to control the media narrative and prevent cracks which might harm my campaign (sort of similarly to the GHWB campaign of 1988). I expect us to have a successful Republican campaign over the next two decades or so to take this tack, actually.

Oh, okay. I had thought based on previous statements you were implying a heavily libertarian/anti-police view of criminal justice issues, and I was curious how you would differentiate or market that. This makes a lot more sense.

I have a pretty weird fundamental approach to criminal justice—explicitly Beccarian despite my allergy to utilitarianism in almost all other contexts, as well as the usual leftist rehabilitative focus—but I don't think my views On The Issues are that out-there. I don't think a complex society could literally abolish policing or incarceration and I think it's dishonest and politicaly suicidal to insist on pretending otherwise. It's probable that Vosem could successfully bait me into some sort of emotional outburst about the subject if it became a debate issue, but he could probably do that with other issues where his views are much further outside the Overton window too, so it might balance out depending on how the public responds to those.

America is not ready for a male Liz Truss presidency.

I didn't realize Vosem was a pain pig.