Quote:
Originally Posted by Biesterfield
Big 538 guy here. I didn't really like Nate's take on this. I mean I understand the logic but it doesn't make it morally correct.
People who choose Moore over Jones (or Trump over Hillary) are indicating that they value abortion, low taxes, immigration restriction, etc. over pedophilia, racism, etc. That the latter things are not dealbreakers. They are indicating that they believe the bad qualities of the opponent are worse than the bad qualities of their candidate. And that is a bad belief!
Exactly. I understand why Republicans vote for Republicans. It's a choice done with agency. They need to own nominating guys like Moore and then eventually settling on them. I appreciate the game theory, potentially 'logical' choice they are making to take Moore > Jones. But that's absolutely worthy of criticizing. It's not a moral free calculation. And they certainly have to justify why Republicans are nominating guys like Moore and Trump.
Too much punditry is the View from Nowhere, the world is a blank slate starting the morning of the general election, where rational voters look around, decide abortion is important, and the pundits get to say stuff like "welp, everyone is partisan, they just value abortion, no one can judge Alabama Republicans for any of this."
He didn't say it quite that obviously. But he absolutely was finger-waging at naive liberals for not appreciating Republicans vote strategically. But that doesn't explain their primary behavior. They had a choice for a 'mainstream' candidate there and choose Moore. What of that?
Clare Malone at least correctly noted that that 'abortion' and 'judges' are the pre-canned pretense right-wingers always use to tell journalists and normal people why they excuse guys like Moore, so good for her.