Apparently in Florida Democrat PACS and large contributors are posting their own pro-Gingrich anti-Romney ads. Two questions. First, do you think that is because the feel Mr Gingrich is a weaker opponent against Mr Obama or is it because they actually prefer him as a possible President. If you thought it was the former, and not the latter, why do you think that supporting a person who you think is less fit for office is your patriotic duty? If you think that it is likely that the answer was the former how do you then explain the lack of objections to this tactics on left leaning blogs?
Hmm. Interesting?- “Rep. Won’t Say Why She Opposes 5-Month Abortion Ban Even If It ‘Saves One Life’” June 19, 2013TweetThat would by Diana DeGette, a woman now infamous for not understanding that the magazines she was pushing to ban on firearms weren’t disposable. These are the kinds of “leaders” we pick, the kinds of people who we have given power of us as a de facto ruling class. But that’s all gravy. What’s nice here is that someone finally put the question to a Dem […]Jeff G.
- Billion-Pixel View of Mars Snapped By Curiosity June 19, 2013astroengine writes "If you were in any doubt as to Curiosity's photography prowess, this panorama of Gale Crater should allay your concerns. In this billion-pixel photo from Mars, NASA's Mars Science Laboratory snapped nearly 900 separate images that were then stitched together to create a wonderful high-definition view from the robot's m […]Soulskill
- How Removing Trees Can Kill You June 19, 2013Trees are good for your health: There’s been some famous research showing that people recover faster from surgery and take fewer drugs if their hospital room has a view of trees. Other research — including some of my own — has shown that mothers with more trees around their homes are less likely to have […]Isegoria
- Vanishing Snow: Should There Be A Law? June 19, 2013By Steve Goreham Originally published in The Washington Times Last month, more than 100 ski resorts joined the Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP) Climate Declaration. The BICEP declaration urges that Americans “use less electricity,” “drive a more … Continue reading → […]Guest Blogger
- Amen, Calvin. Amen. June 19, 2013Amen, Calvin. Amen. […](author unknown)
- University of Tokyo's fast-tracking camera system could revolutionize sports coverage (video) June 19, 2013Researchers at the University of Tokyo's Ishikawa Oku Lab have been hard at work on a camera system that can track fast moving objects incredibly well, and the technology may change the way sports like baseball and soccer are televised. Recently, the team building the system has entered the next phase of testing: taking it outside, to see if will perfor […]Brian Heater
- In Defense of Serena Williams June 19, 2013Apparently, the tennis player Serena Williams is in trouble for some comments she made about rape -- a subject that our self-appointed arbiters of acceptable debate are at risk of making completely taboo. Per ABC: "What happened in Steubenville was a real shock for me. I was deeply saddened," Williams said in the statement. "For someone to be […]Charles C. W. Cooke
- U.S. House Wants 'Sustained Human Presence On the Moon and the Surface of Mars' June 19, 2013MarkWhittington writes "Politico reports in a June 18, 2013 story that House Republicans have added a Mars base to its demands for a lunar base in the draft 2013 NASA Authorization bill. Both the Bush-era Constellation program and President Obama space plan envisioned eventual human expeditions to Mars. But if Politico is correct, the new bill will be t […]Soulskill
- Mercury as you've never seen it before! June 19, 2013The MESSENGER mission to Mercury has released this fascinating false-color image of the planet. I've reduced it in size to fit here, but the full-size image makes great wallpaper for your computer screen (I'm using it for that purpose right now). The mission's Web site reports: This colorful view of Mercury was produced by using images from t […]Peter
- Emily Esfahani Smith : Do Children Make You Happy? June 19, 2013Everyone agrees: Having children can change your life in profound ways. But for better or for worse? Study after study says that parents are unhappier than non-parents--and that the less you invest in your kids, the happier you will be. Having kids, after all, is all about sacrifice, struggle, doubt, anxiety, and even terror for parents: Several months ago, […]Emily Esfahani Smith
- Disapproval of Obama is growing—but what does it mean? June 19, 2013Much is being made of the recent drop in Obama’s approval rating, particularly among his usual strong supporters, the young (see also this): Barack Obama’s job approval rating is down to 45 percent in the lastest CNN/ORC poll, conducted June 11-13, with 54 percent disapproval. The approval number is down from 53 percent in CNN/ORC’s May 17-18 poll. Most inte […]neo-neocon
- FBI admits it uses surveillance drones over US soil June 19, 2013FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted that the Bureau uses aerial drones to conduct surveillance within the domestic United States. During his testimony at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today, Mueller bluntly told Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that the FBI uses drones, but does so "in a very, very minimal way, and seldom." Lat […]Joshua Kopstein
- 'World War Z' review: Brad Pitt’s zombie thriller is a scary summer surprise June 19, 2013Sometimes a movie surprises you. Something you thought was going to be a mid-summer slog or an underwhelming riff on familiar themes turns out to be something more. Familiar tropes are reinvented, a tired villain gets new life, and presumed lines of safety are crossed. You find yourself in the middle of a relentless rush of anxiety, fear, and exhilaration, a […]Bryan Bishop
- You’ve Been Framed: A New Primer for the Marriage Debate June 19, 2013Brian Brown: The John Jay Institute has released a primer that turns the marriage debate on its head. The John Jay Institute has released a primer that I think is pretty thought-provoking (full disclosure: so much so that I helped put it together). Here’s how the author describes it: This primer is for anyone committed to pro-marriage advocacy: non-profits, […]Brian Brown
- Judge Edith Jones Accused of Using Moral Language June 19, 2013“In February, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Edith Jones gave a controversial speech defending and endorsing the American system of capital punishment,” says Stephanos Bibas in today’s column. She was accused of “compromising her judicial impartiality” The complaint: “Judge Jones used what I would call moral language in praising the death penalty as a means to […]Katherine Infantine
- “Rep. Won’t Say Why She Opposes 5-Month Abortion Ban Even If It ‘Saves One Life’” June 19, 2013
I believe all of the serious money going for Gingrich is money that actually likes Gingrich.
As for the ethics of supporting someone only because you think it might increase the odds of the party losing in the general election. It probably is ethical. Just imagine the Evil Party(tm) has two people running in the primary. The first is a reincarnated Adolf Hitler….gone is the funny facial hair, he looks like a chisled Ken Doll and has great appeal to the general public. The other is the anti-Christ, but he appears as fat, unattractive, just totally unattractive to the general public.
You deem that if Hitler wins, he will kill 60% of humanity, the anti-christ 90%. So clearly Hitler in this case is ‘more fit’ than the anti-christ. In this case though supporting the anti-Christ works because it ensures Obama wins and no one gets slaughtered.
The game theory here is complicated by the fact that the general voter is incorporating not only who he thinks is better but the fact that it’s a two stage race where you can’t be in the general election without first winning the primary.
Boonton,
A million dollars in Florida seems serious. You think Obama PACs “likes” Gingrich qua Gingrich? Seriously? Naive much.
I know the simple game theory that this is a two stage race in which one part is only participating (this year) in one stage. I’m asking about the morality of gaming and trying to throw the other sides race (which arguably you have no right to participate in if you are of the other party) for a person who if he wins the final stage would be worse … Or to put in perspective of your example. When the A/C wins the general election, you having decided to campaign against the less bad but more electable A/H, how do you justify your support for the candidate you felt was a poorer choice, some complicated game theory thing.
Why isn’t the simpler game, we want each party to have the candidate best fit to be President in the general election not what is ultimately better for the country? And that not working for that alternative is not ethical.
I think you’re overestimating the Democratic potential in Gingrich’s surge. I suggest you look at Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, casino mogul billionaire who have made the largest political donation in history, $15M, to Gingrich and it seems they did so because, well they like Gingrich. I suppose $100K here or there may be from some game theory playing Dems but I don’t think it’s relevant here. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/newt-gingrich-sheldon-adelson-super-pac-citizens-united_n_1233372.html)
Onto the theory side:
I’m asking about the morality of gaming and trying to throw the other sides race (which arguably you have no right to participate in if you are of the other party) for a person who if he wins the final stage would be worse
Consider my hypothetical where the anti-christ is objectively the worse candidate of all to win the overall election but winning the nomination ensures 60% of humanity won’t be killed by Hitler winning the general election. It seems both rational and ethical to play the game.
As for ‘no right to participate’…not sure what you’re talking about. Your side fought tooth and nail to gut campaign finance regulation on the grounds that money = speech. All dirty tricks are now acceptable by your philosophy.I think you’re overestimating the Democratic potential in Gingrich’s surge. I suggest you look at Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, casino mogul billionaire who have made the largest political donation in history, $15M, to Gingrich and it seems they did so because, well they like Gingrich. I suppose $100K here or there may be from some game theory playing Dems but I don’t think it’s relevant here. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/newt-gingrich-sheldon-adelson-super-pac-citizens-united_n_1233372.html)
Onto the theory side:
I’m asking about the morality of gaming and trying to throw the other sides race (which arguably you have no right to participate in if you are of the other party) for a person who if he wins the final stage would be worse
Consider my hypothetical where the anti-christ is objectively the worse candidate of all to win the overall election but winning the nomination ensures 60% of humanity won’t be killed by Hitler winning the general election. It seems both rational and ethical to play the game.
As for ‘no right to participate’…not sure what you’re talking about. Your side fought tooth and nail to gut campaign finance regulation on the grounds that money = speech. All dirty tricks are now acceptable by your philosophy.
Why isn’t the simpler game, we want each party to have the candidate best fit to be President in the general election not what is ultimately better for the country? And that not working for that alternative is not ethical.
Well clearly in the case I presented that doesn’t have to be the case as the hypothetical demonstrates. So the problem doesn’t seem to be how people play the game but the rules of the game itself.
Maybe a solution would be to follow something like NYC. There you have at least 4 parties (Dems, Reps, but also Progressive and Conservative Party). Often a politican may run with multiple endorsements (for example, Republican and Conservative). The number of votes determine the winner but the votes under party banners decide things like the party’s placement on the ballot in the next election.
There if a Republican isn’t quite conservative enough, the Conservative Party may have a different person on their line and vice versa. In that model, it would be easier to have multiple people making serious bids in the ultimate election.