If, during the primary elections, you deem some candidates to be more competent than their opponents, but less electable***...would you be more inclined to vote for the more competent person to be your party's nominee...or for the more electable one?
Essentially what I am looking for is: Is electability your major criteria for your vote...or is electability.
***As a "for instance"...younger white males are often considered to have an electability advantage over female or non-white persons.
As Corn Pop struggles to write a coherent question, he gives us the perfect example of the disease called libtard thinking. The question shifts completely once he throws in his version of 'electable versus competent.' In the libtard world, the first thing that pops into their head about electability is melanin levels. He immediately runs to 'the facts,' claiming some study proves skin color affects electability, so of course it must be part of the calculus.
Sadly, he can definitely find one. There is an entire industry of people burning our tax dollars on 'studies' made exactly for morons like Corn Pop's consumption. They serve zero scientific purpose because they are univariate, meaning they simply tally how many white, Black, or 'brown' candidates (whatever that means this week) won a given seat, crunch the numbers, and declare that white candidates win 32.4% more often than Black ones and 41.5% more than brown ones for example. Bam, Corn Pop has his gotcha study, lol.
He will never find a real study with actual scientific value. A real one is multivariate: it controls for at least twenty variables and takes serious time and work. Why bother when you already know the answer you want? Besides multivariate studies routinely destroy the narrative the left hopes for, so why bother with real science when pseudoscience will do the trick.
Take the gender pay gap. The left loves citing univariate studies claiming women are paid less because of discrimination. When multivariate studies are done properly, discrimination turns out to be statistically irrelevant. Women are paid the same as men when they perform the same work. Capitalist businesses do not care about gender, race, ethnicity, beliefs, or sexual preferences, they care about competence and results. Shocking, unless you are a moron who thinks capitalism is somehow more discriminatory than socialism or communism, whose entire goal is forced equal outcomes. After all they have several studies. (Of course, every one of them is useless propaganda.)
Corn Pop is just being a radicalized dumbass libtard as usual, but he handed us a golden opportunity to expose the grift. The left pretends they have science on their side. They do not. They have libtard science, science for drones like him. If they truly 'loved science' and 'believed in science' they would've been the first ones to want Roe v Wade abolished because of a single word, viability. But, shhhh, science is cool when it tells us what we want to hear. The environazis use the same 'studies' and when those don't show what they want they literally make it up. They were caught doing just that a few years back.
Regardless of Corn Pop's pathetic premise, the real answer is always a mix of both electability and competence. First you have to define what competence even means for the job. Is it the smartest policy wonk who can recite bureaucracy? The most successful? The most caring? The most experienced? The most diverse? The most radical? The most conservative? The variables are endless before you even reach the libtard checklist of oppressed groups, constantly re-ranked by the latest grievance.
For years the top victim class was Black people. Now it is transgender and 'migrants,'. Mix a few together and you have got the libtard dream ticket: select a person that belongs to at least three of the grievance groups for more appeal, says the libtard electability committee. For an old geezer like Corn Pop, he feels good as long as they have the skin color for starters. Why? Not for electability, but he's virtuous so he cares more about the fact that they are more qualified simple because of how much they've been marginalized and beat down by the white man for so long, damn those studies that show they're less electable. If everyone was a virtuous as he is??? The world would be a much better place, so why not at least start with him. For Corn Pop, it's perceived virtue that guides his vote, lol.
Let's talk his question without the pretense. Once you actually figure out what competence looks like to you, something far from obvious, the equation gets real. If the candidate beats his spouse half to death, electability suddenly matters. If he has got a Nazi tattoo on his forehead, same thing. Without electability, competence is pointless. But without competence, electability is worthless. The only sane answer is the best possible combination of both.
In my case, the ideal candidate understands American exceptionalism and why it matters for the brightest future. He is not fooled by morons citing univariate studies but actually gets real science. He knows which systems work and which do not, and why. He fights hard for my issues, stands against mob mentality, and keeps low taxes and limited government at the core of every decision. I could not care less about melanin, genitalia, or who he sleeps with. If he checks those boxes, electability is automatic, until a scandal proves otherwise.
**2009 CONSAD Report (full PDF):**
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ConsadReportWageGap.pdf
