I do believe that DT is more frightening and dangerous than HRC. So why can't I vote for her? That is an excellent question. 1/
265 replies and sub-replies as of Nov 05 2016

"virtually nothing?" I don't think HRC has threatened to prosecute DT if elected; at least you both respect the rule of law.
For violating the law, not because she loses. If she wins, the law suits and other venalities of his will be punished too.
"For violating the law, not because she loses." He allows his crowds to chant "lock her up"
do you think his supporters (who don't even have BA's) have JD's are qualified to overrule an FBI director?
It's not even a dog whistle, playing off her unfavorability. "Elect me and I'll imprison her 100%" not a trial.
also: DT has no respect for facts. Even if you disagree with HRC about what are facts, you both acknowledge that they exist.
as I understand it, the reason she received a scolding rather than an indictment is because she didn't actually break the law?
I think the most useful thought experiment to apply is how you would choose if you knew you were the tie breaking vote.
She's corrupt. Enough said
voting for lesser of two evils is an endorsement of these terrible choices we've been given. Short term thinking.
real issue is lack of choice and two party system. A much better thing to vote against.
I have no idea why. Hillary is the terrifying one DT builds things. Maybe 2 many years in academia for you - not real world?
neocons have squandered trillions on pointless wars & are now agitating for war w Russia. U see why Middle America is frothing?
Could never vote for either, but isn't the most pertinent question: who has supported policies more ruinous for human wellbeing?
after interviewing @Chris_arnade I feel like you’ve picked up on the art of the twitter rant
Many people who find her to be Satan can't understand why I won't vote for DT. Part of it is the disgust I will feel no matter who wins. 2/
Having to watch their joy at attaining power when I believe deeply that both are unfit offends my sense of justice. 3/
I concede that he is less fit than she is. So why can't I vote for her? Is it just the idea of being offended by her sense of entitlement?4/
Votingfor HRC is endorsing corruption and DC beltway backroom deals. Her election would delegitimize our republic.
what do you mean by entitlement? She likes helping people and rightfully believes she's the best person for the job
I don't think she know what it takes to help people. Will she help poor kids stuck in crappy schools?
Come on man, have you looked at her website? She actually meets with Alvin Roth, Acemoglu to form this stuff, it isn't guessing
Please. I guess you don't listen to EconTalk. It's mostly guessing in my view.
I've listened to econtalk for two years, my favorite episodes were Coase, Becker, and the "lukewarmer guy".
I thank you, my friend. Please keep listening. But I'm a skeptic about the power of skeptics to steer things.
She's the wonkiest wonk we're ever going to get in office. She's someone who if you showed her something works she'll do it.
and I think that's one of the best selling points. If you can empirically show something is pareto optimal 90%+ she does it.
So why is she pushing universal pre-K, where the best evidence is that it's a huge waste of money? Or a new AWB?
link to the pre-k studies? assualt weapons ban doesn't have the strongest argument either way, might be priors
seems pretty obvious though, more guns = more gun deaths.
One that isn't reflected in the data. # of guns in circulation way up, but gun deaths way down over past 20 yrs.
not the wonkiest on NDIs, or cyber security, or Federal secrecy (FACA) laws, or how many mobile devices she carried
non-issues and not really the purview of the Sect of State. She's never spoke on something she doesn't understand.
I guess there's an arguement that Hamilton was a more qualified technocrat for his time, but who else? Kissinger maybe
proper handling of state secrets does not fall under the purview of the Sec of State? She is more qualified...
but let's not kid ourselves. She is doing the only thing she can do, obfuscate and claim ignorance. She's no wonk
You gonna call Kenneth Arrow, Alvin Roth, Deaton, Hart, Khaneman, Phelps, Sharpe, Shiller, Schelling, Krugman shills?
Go back to the EconTalk archives and listen to Zingales.
Is that the one where he says professors should tell students not to be utility monsters? Where's the application?
Krugman became a political hack. I can't speak to the careers of the rest, all smart folks
It's easy to see him as a political hack if you start from the premise both sides have equally good ideas. They don't.
So during the primaries where she constantly met with Nobel Economists to work on her tax plan, that was for show?
of course. Obama got a Nobel prize simply for being elected. Al Gore has one in his closet.
WHO THE FUCK WAS THAT FOR SHOW FOR? DO YOU THINK A SINGLE BERNIE SUPPORTER HAD PASSED INTRO MICRO? THEY WOULDN'T CARE
hahahaha yes... lots of out of work grad students and PhD candidates staring at huge loans felt that Bern
No one economically literate supported that clown, and the one UMASS (read:shit school) professor who did was trashed
what are you saying about Cornel West? matrix.wikia.com/wiki/Councillo…
WHAT POSSIBLE DEMOGRAPHIC COULD SHE HAVE CAPTURED WITH THAT THAT SHE DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE?
YOU'D NEVER PREVIOUSLY HEARD OF THESE MEETINGS TIL JUST NOW, SO OBVIOUSLY NOT A PRESS PLAY
I agree, it is not always something you run ads on, but it is in a normal election something to elevate a candidate
generals, Nobel laureates, all get used to prop candidates bona fides. Didn't help Romney (wonkier) won't help her
Romney had nice hair and was a smart guy, I like(d) him, his actual policies sucked though, wouldn't have bailed out.
His low (0) corporate tax plan was good. Hoping we can push hillary on this and carbon tax
I like your optimism anyways. We can both hope together for that
Peace Prizes /=/ Prizes. There aren't any idiots with economic nobles, and besides Romer, no geniuses waiting for them
Do you think more than a handful of people in the US care about what economists she meets with? She breathes this
no "state secrets" improperly handled. Her picking up her grandchildren from Chelsea is not a state secret.
That summarizes one of the reasons I see her as dangerous. Expertise is incredibly overrated in foreign policy and econ.
aren't you in California? The state is already going blue. Vote third party.
I'm in MD. Plan to vote 3rd party. Has nothing to do with where I live or competitiveness of state. I get 1 vote
I recall you once said that you don't vote (and how it shocked people when you said so) -- did you change your mind on that?
Confusing me with someone else. Have voted in every prez election since '72. May have said vote doesn't count. Still vote.
oh must have been a guest. Probably that ne'er do well Munger
Don Boudreaux does not vote...
Who did you support in '72? 😎
would you let your ethics on honesty dictate your response to a Prisoner's Dilemma, eschewing G.T.?
It's about symbolism. Trump is a disgrace to evolution, america, math etc. He/his ilk need to be embarrassed
It is about symbolism. Unusually high 3rd party support would be very symbolic -rejection of both main alternatives
...? Wasn't Becker your advisor? Would you take his word on most things? Where's this anti-expert stuff coming from
Don't agree, but it's the most credible argument for Libertarianism IMO and it's merits are generally underrated
... to the extent that we'd usually be better off doing nothing.
1 strain of Libertarianism says we overstate benefits & understate unintended consequences of most policies ...
necessary evil because the median voter is an idiot. Doesn't mean these aren't good policies, just exaggerated
I didn't mean exaggerated fir PR. I read it as meaning exaggerated by experts in their own assessments
how does that change the sentiment? avg person doesn't understand policy, needs to be misled for their own good.
Sorry, but I think that's evil. Literally.
Yeah I didn't expect that turn. I have more faith in experts than Russ, but their role is to explain, not deceive
you mentioned being very excited for the Hamilton play, did you not agree with any of his sentiments?
Don't know enough about him. Great musical, though.
The median voter thinks corporate taxes and mortgage subsidies are good. Why let them make the wrong choice?
Good god. Think about the implications of that reasoning.
These are positively bad policies. Let voters decide moral destination and technocrats choose the path.
You are overstating the level of certainty that experts have about which path is right
I probably am. But are they more than trivially better than the avg person? If not why do we have PhDs of any kind?
They are more knowledgeable than avg person, but if they're overconfident they may do lots of damage when nothing was better
why not hold the size of the 08 stimulus to a public vote?
I'm not advocating direct democracy. I'm arguing against lying to people to force them to accept expert opinion.
Minimum wage is another example. Goal is to reduce poverty, but MW is a hamhanded tool. Let voters express disapproval with
poverty, let experts choose NIT.
Again, I'm not a libertarian, but it helps to interpret opponents' arguments charitably
As in, experts are wrong about benefits, wrong about risks, and thus wrong in cost-benefit analysis & make mistakes
experts can have a moral imperative to lie to get good change enacted.
Road to hell, my friend. The road to hell.
YOu mean Plato's Noble Lie? bad idea. Elites need more humility.
Your respect for your fellow citizens could use some work,
Are you crazy? Why would take GB's word on anything outside of academic economics?
most econ things******* Hillary's not at the podium teaching evolution, she's talking public policy.
most micro econ* Prima Facie. I'll believe Hillary because of her resume until she's proven wrong. As I would do for you
Resume is not evidence of her skill. What were her accomplishments as Secretary of State? US Senator?
Except if you show her how to use a desktop computer - that's a dealbreaker.
Some other politicians might stumble into a rational solution (Bernie - Carbon tax), she gets there because it makes sense
You know HRCs experts will be basing their advice on dubious social science studies riddled with selection bias.
Best methods are not imperfect methods, would you rather she consult a magic 8 ball or the bible?
I'd prefer her to consult the students.
We should put 5 year olds in charge of educational policy? I think I found you your candidate -> donaldtrump . com
Elementary school is not the problem.
Most crucial development is at the youngest ages. Colleges the best in the world. Public Primary/Secondary not
That is wrong. All the studies showing early development is crucial are just proxies for testing parents.
No one can agree on the problem with education, nevermind the solution.
HRC will be enabled by the media in way that Trump won't. Trump will be held accountable in a way that HRC won't.
Certainly his sense of entitlement is worse and his hubris on being elected will be much less palatable. So shouldn't I vote for her? 5/
do you not have a civic duty to vote your actual preference? Even if that means a 3rd party cand with no shot such as Johnson?
people voting based on the game theory of where one's vote counts is a reason disgusting people like HRC/DT get elected
This quote is why: “Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
"all that is needed for evil to spread is for good people to [vote 3rd party]"
I'm going to give you benefit of the doubt and assume sarcasm.
you'd be wrong. This is not an acceptable election to vote 3rd party, unless vote-swapping.
This is the EXACT election to vote third party. If more people did it, we might get a better outcome.
this completely ignores reality and game theory, which is why I always relate it to a P.D.
I think you've oversimplified reality. This is a repeating game without a simple pay-off matrix.
if you accept that Trump is uniquely unqualified and dangerous, the strategy is quite clear IMO
If everyone bought this, under-weighted risk of implying a non-existent mandate. Political consequences.
I think that the best evidence is that many 3rd party voters would switch if election were closer
Third-party voters serving purpose by denying mandate rather than piling on. FWIW, your point valid.
I can't imagine the regret one would feel if they were partly responsible for Trump
3rd party bears no responsibility for Trump. Mains should have nominated better.
Perhaps DT election/impeachment would do trick. Personally though, I'm unwilling to risk it. Rather deny mandate.
a lot of things SHOULD have happened. We are here now. I don't know how you accept this
What other feedback mechanism for main parties do you propose other than vote denial?
vote 3rd party in LITERALLY ANY OTHER ELECTION
weird how every election is THE ONE not to vote 3rd party
this is the first time I've ever said it and I doubt I'll ever again
Unsure about the "certainly"
As of now, I can't imagine it. Part of it--the idea of casting my lot in some way with hers. I share virtually nothing with her worldview.6/
Did you feel the same way about Bill Clinton and his worldview that you feel about Hillary?
I suspect you share with HRC technocratic sympathies, at least. It's worth something, though there's that old Buckley line...
I doubt this last part. Enumerating coincidence of your worldview with each candidate might be illuminating.
But an argument can be made that I should just hold my nose and do the right thing--vote for the least disgusting candidate. 7/
The right thing by any moral framework is to vote for her, even if you don't like it. If you care about humanity at all.
I lack your confidence. Sorry.
Do you believe that under any circumstances she would use nuclear weapons? I think that's 0% I think trump is 0%< that's it
The consequences would be so devastating as to not be measured. 1% chance of infinite harm is still infinite harm.
the only answer really is forget their egos - and your own - and decide who is the better President for the country as a whole.
Nothing to do with ego. I think they are both bad for the country.
Here's one non-silly way of looking at it, though I don't particularly endorse it: reason.com/archives/2016/…
then why not vote Gary Johnson, very clearly better than Trump or Clinton, and you'll be able to sleep.
He's made it a much more existential election than that.
"An argument could be made that I should do the right thing. But, nah. This makes me feel better, and what do I care, really?"
But I'm not convinced voting for her is the right thing. Sorry. And if you don't think I care, you're not paying attention.
Hillary is the only thing between Trump and the presidency. The math shouldn't be difficult. Trump is dangerous
the math says Maryland will give HRC their Elec. col. votes regardless of how he votes.
She's dangerous, too. Hard for her fans 2 notice. Trump fans think he's the cat's meow. Politics damages the brain.
anybody can criticize both candidates every election. It's the safe play. But somebody has to choose.
she can remain calm, he can't. She can speak in full sentences, he can't. Policy shouldn't even be on the table.
That's false Russ. Every Trump voter I know readily admits his faults but can't stomach alternative. @farach @Fortunes_Wheel
I suspect you know only a fraction of Trump voters. But yes, the ones I know also admit his faults.
HRC with power is corrupt and unethical. DT with power will be even MORE corrupt and brazenly unethical.
Jesus Christ. HRC: sane, normal. Trump: maybe the end of the republic, or even the world. Case closed.
I missed what Jesus Christ was.
Lot of BS in this thread. Clinton/Obama created the most misery in the world since Vietname era
'Politics damages the brain'. Sadly correct.
And the heart, I should have added. So much hate these days.
Love the pod but "she's dangerous too" is the opposite of thinking on the margin. MC of 1,000<MC of 100
Disagree. The margin is one term.
Perhaps my wording was imprecise. Agree both are costly/dangerous but relative costs/danger diverge
"politics damages the brain" is one of the best things I've heard in the past 1.5 years
...you faux-intellectual, simpleminded cretin. The world isn't your freshman dorm room. People's lives are at stake.
Yes. And HRC has potential to ruin many lives, too. That you cannot see it has nothing to do with my freshman dorm.
...I like Clinton fine, but I'm not a "fan" of any politicians. Because they're not fucking athletes or rock stars...
They're the most wild-eyed, tongue-waggingest, religious ideologues in human history. My brain? Well...
I always enjoy how "libertarians" insist that they're above such smallminded things as politics when....
Good lord. You're just outright addled.
Your whole world is theory. Read Frum's thing. I'm done with all comfortable Internet hobbyists, left and right.
I despise DT, but my sense of purity prevents me from doing the thing most likely to prevent his presidency isn't a great position
Wow. would love to understand how you get to that implausible position!
Vote HRC, virtually guaranteeing prolonged ME chaos and escalating conflict with Russia. It's the right thing to do.
As if the other options would fix that!
Can't argue that. I just happen to think history counts for something.
Sorry but i don't think she is good for the country. I don't think he is either. So I will vote for Gary Johnson or write-in.
If you at least vote for existing 3rd party (Lib / Green), you magnify your vote by strengthening their viability.
Feels like category error; was there anyone "good for the country"? Was B.Clinton? GWB? Obama? US survived them all.
Would you consider the collective democratic party promises and consider as Sanders refers in any question regarding Hillary?
did it today. Feel so glad it's over. I've voted libertarian in every election since I turned 18 and proud of it
Even if that means you elect the Donald? And you choose someone whose ignorance of current events was so shockingly on display?
I am not electing DT. His ignorance is the least of his flaws to me. Despise him. Won't be voting for him.
Can you elaborate in longform? Long time listener, respect your thoughts & opinions. This view confounds me.
But since election is tight, not voting for HRC may get him elected. You set an example to many. So how do you justify?
logically, if neither are fit to hold office, it doesn’t matter who is less fit, or by how much.
I'm confident that HRC will be an effective President, even if I don't agree with all her positions. Not so Trump
Do you think she was an effective Secretary of State? What were her accomplishments? I am not confident.
I think HRC would be vastly more destructive to people / cultures of MENA, deeply concerned her FP > WW3
In what universe does HRC need another vote in Maryland?
Don't think I set an example to many HRC voters so take comfort. I am not as confident as you are of "the right thing to do."
But you set an example to people who could be, which is what is needed.
nothing matters more than Politicians do not get rich. Money is reserved for private sector winners.
and when Amazon too gets chased from China market, SV will realize it takes Trump mindset for US tech to OWN globe
Thiel nailed it. Our capital much be able to own other countries growth.... Sad. Tim. Sad.
Nothing better than watching two adults talk. #NeverHillary #NeverTrump #NeverJohnson
In our system, a no-vote is effectively half a vote for the person you want least. Abstention is not neutrality.
I prefer you didn't. Some of us should be voting on principles. (I am one of those holding the nose voting for #HRC.)
...you know who to vote for, just do it…make a two column list, the answer is obvious, if not uncomfortable...
What do you think of this as a rationale? Vote for a predictable foil. politicususa.com/2016/08/08/p-j…
Doubt that I will though. But why? I don't have an easy answer to that question. Appreciate the reader who provoked it. 8/
another reason might be that you don't want to be in any way morally culpable for what she does.
inherent sexism
My real question is that given you're california, why is the president (which is not in play there) the thing that's mentioned.
this is exactly the wrong way to think about voting.
I am in Maryland but that is true of every vote.
So I know nothing about Maryland's local issues ... anything fascinating on the ballot this year?
While I've your attention, I'd love an interview with a socialist; you're so thoughtful and sincere with those you disagree with
Oh makes sense! Listening for years every time you say "Stanford" I think bay but then you talk about the east coast a lot.
one reason might be that you value your vote as a protest vote more than you value its nominal value in an election.
He is a thoroughly authoritarian personality. Voting for the only person who can deny him office is powerful reason.
It's an ugly circus. More ugliness this year than usual. Avoiding DT/HRC is my way of protesting. Good enough? All I have for now. 9/9
your vote is a signal not a deciding factor- vote for whoever signals the right thing for you. Even a write in. Great show BTW
agree 100%. voting for least worst of 2 main parties just perpetuates status quo
Have you read @cshirky's post about protest votes? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. medium.com/@cshirky/there…
I disagree. Maybe I will write something.
no, actually not good enough. Why not Vote for Mcmullin or Johnson then?
my personal conclusion this year is to skip the presidential ballot, try to vote pro-federalism for Congress, & donate to @IJ
I comfort myself with the fact that no president has been able to destroy the country yet. Good/bad, we're still here.
Anthropic bias. We could only exist in a section of multiverse where atomic war not destroy U.S.
Is it fair to say the Constitution had any hand in that section existing? Checks & balances, for instance?
Not sure. No checks and balances with ability to launch atomic weapons or provoke Russians into doing so.
Must be nice to have an election outcome this insane not affect your personal existence very much.
participating in the two-party system that is failing us would feel hopeless?
Russ the disgust response can obfuscate the stakes: hes a threat to the republic. This is about surviving to fight another day.
same for me. Your thinking so humane/sensible. Reflects so well on you and econtalk.
…chance of moving us away from rule of law and starting a nuclear war. As well as a 100% of setting back racism and sexism
I agree with almost none of her policies. But she will be a competent president keep us mostly the same. DT has a non zero …
I know you're not a conservative, but @davidfrum had a good piece: A Guide for Undecided Republicans. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
I am not a conservative. I am a classical liberal. Not the same thing.
Interesting. Please do econtalk episode on distinction between classical liberalism and conservatism.
That's what I wrote in my tweet! But, I thought the article was interesting on the Trump vs. Clinton vs. third-party dilemma.
That was a really good piece. It sums up very well conversations that I've had with conservative friends.
We teach that sometimes profit maximizing really means loss minimizing, and that it doesn't change the analysis, right?
surprised at how emotional your motivations are.
Trying to be honest and understand my thinking. I think voting (like much of life) has an emotional component.
what do you think of the classic argument that voting is irrational cause 1 vote never makes a difference?
very honest and very interesting, personal insights.
As long as you admit that you're freeriding on people who *are* willing to hold their nose and do the right thing...
right with you. Decided to vote for candidate that most closely represents my interests. It's like lying vs truth. Feels better
or the one that is not corrupt
I am not so sure she is more fit,even after seeing Iraq she pushed for bombing Libya! She's still talking no fly zones in Syria!
this is a very non-consequentialist attitude to voting
Also, where is your evidence of entitlement beyond an any other canidate in history?
do you know about the Donna brazile stuff? The way the dnc helped her?
I don't think it always a bad thing. Trump is only possible because of how weak parties are now. Tyranny of the majority
are tilted to nominate the person that the party likes best. That how it always been. This election the had the least influence
As you like to say there is no DNC. It a group of people which clinton was able to gain the support of. It is politics. Rules …
too bad for CNN. Their business is built on top of employee leaking secrets. They should not be trusting a part time employee
Donna Brazile should be fired for that but it didn't seem liketo be hillary plan or to have helped hillary. I also fail to feel…
Due to electoral college, marginal impact of vote is minimal if DC vote spread is large. Not voting HRC is not a vote for DT.
"hold your nose" argument is immoral to you. Outcome is nihilistic, produces less love for your neighbor.
Are the women in your family happy with you not doing your best (voting + using your pulpit) to stop Trump?