I Dissent

dissent

This morning, pundit after pundit after pundit tells us that it’s either Biden or Sanders. For everybody else, that’s all she wrote. Go home. Go away.

I think they are clearly right about Amy Klobochar, and almost as clearly right about Elizabeth Warren. (And, right now, I have no patience for further debate about why that is. Many say it’s because Amy and Elizabeth are women. Some say it’s because Democratic voters are stupid. I don’t think either explanation grasps the nettle, but we will leave that for another day. Facts are facts. Amy and Elizabeth are done, stick a fork in them.)

And, of course, Mayor Pete is gone.

But what about Mike Bloomberg? He hasn’t been on the ballot before. He has spent wealth beyond the dreams of avarice buying ads in the Super Tuesday states. Those ads have been meaty, substantive, and, I believe, largely accurate. They paint a compelling case that he would be a competent president.

Though we may not like to admit it, voters are heavily influenced by their perceptions concerning which candidate is the most macho. At the end of the day, I believe Bloomberg would seriously out-macho Trump.

And a goodly number of voters are heavily influenced by wealth. Bloomberg is about ten or fifteen times as rich as Trump. And you can bet he won’t be reluctant to let you know that he has more money than God.

In short, Bloomberg hasn’t been on the ballot before Super Tuesday. Contrary to every other pundit on the planet, I think it’s premature to write him off. Why don’t we just let the voters vote?

Finally, there are good reasons to be concerned about Biden. I don’t mean Ukraine; I think that issue would blow up in Trump’s face. I mean the fact that Biden is gaffe prone, that he has had a hard time winning elections in the past, and that his age seems to be catching up with him.

In sum: there remain, in my estimation, three viable candidates for the nomination. And they are, in alphabetical order, Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders. If you vote for anyone else, you are pretty clearly wasting your vote.

In picking among them, it’s your moral duty and your patriotic duty to vote solely based on who you think is most likely to beat Trump.

In terms of electability, a strong case can be made for each of the three, and a strong case can be made against each of the three.

Now, you may differ with what I just said. You may think it’s beyond peradventure of doubt that candidate X is unelectable or that candidate Y is clearly the one who will appeal to the most voters.

If such is indeed your view, I would urge you very carefully to consider whether confirmation bias is affecting your judgment.

I have come to my own conclusion about which one of the three is most electable, but I won’t share it on the blog, nor should anything I say be taken to imply what my bottom line position is—in the remote event you care.

I say, just apply your reason to the known facts, and then vote your conscience.