It would seem as if concerns about RFK have flipped again...

[RestoreTheJoy]

That's only half of the equation.

While many were quick to chalk it up to "it's just misleading to under-informed voters because he's Kennedy" (although, I have my doubts about if that's as strong a driver as some think it is, RFK Jr and his certain conspiracy theories have been well-known for a while)

For the sake of argument, let's say that was the entire draw "a bunch of people see that he's a Kennedy, and that could make them vote for him without knowing what he's about". That aspect, alone, is quite telling... because it's indicative of the fact that some people evidently prefer the "Kennedy-era" style of Democrat as opposed to what direction the party is heading in today.

...or it could be something in the theme of "JFK, to some people, represented a time in which Democrats weren't so far left on some of the social issues"

Either way, the fact that RFK is getting the amount of press coverage he is should cause some self-reflection in the two main parties.

Low-information voters aren't a new phenomenon.

Nor do I think the totality of RFK supporters are comprised of the aforementioned.

Either people want something different than what the two parties are giving them, or (and people don't want to seem to acknowledge this), his anti-vaxxer positions aren't deal breakers in the eyes of a lot of people, and they may prioritize other issues over that.

Keep in mind, RFK was on Obama's short list of potential candidates to be appointed to head up the EPA, so clearly his oddities in other realms weren't a deal breaker in that scenario.

Let's unpackage it:
He's pro-choice (but doesn't treat abortion like some beacon of empowerment, he more resembles Clinton's safe, legal, and rare stance from the 90's)
He's gay-friendly (but has a balanced position on transgender issues, more resembling where democrats were on the issue 12 years ago)
He's under 80 and doesn't give off the "low-energy doddering old man" vibe
He has a track record on environmental action that virtually no other democrat could hold a candle to
He's in favor of police reform
He's in favor of ending the war on drugs
He favors some additional gun control measures
He's in favor of ending proxy wars
He's in favor of a mandated living wage and strengthening labor unions

...but he's also and anti-vaxxer.


Obviously the famous name doesn't hurt, but if someone's not particularly fixated on that last bit, it's not hard to see how he's siphoning off some support from moderates giving the shockingly poor quality of the two main candidates.

For me personally, I'm well aware of his wacky conspiracies on certain topics and have been for a some time... I still think I'd prefer him over the other two.

All of this. Excellent analysis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can you clarify a little more what you mean by "fantasy epistemology"?

How about "persistent belief in the demonstrably unreal"?

OK, that's technically not an epistemology, but a behavior. (I'll mention conspiracy theory below.)

In a practical sense, certain other ideologies (that are considered mainstream political issues and non-controversial in their respective camps) could check some of the same boxes as conspiracy theories in that many are speculative, non-falsifiable in the eyes of the adherents, and can't be definitively proven or disproven through hard facts and data.

Frankly, I think it is more about the damage to reasoning and thinking skills. There are even some demonstrably wrong beliefs that don't necessarily lead to bad epistemology, including religious beliefs.

Take the claim that the Earth is young. It is demonstrably wrong, and even being a YEC doesn't necessarily break ones ability to reason about other things. Though it does, when dogmatically held to and held as an important "fact", lead some down this bad path to conspiratorial thinking about science (first evolutionary biology and geology, then other sciences. In the worst cases (and I've seen a few around somewhere...) a completely false view of the world forms where science is a cabal, scam, and conspiracy. For others, this can start with vaccine skepticism and end thinking the medical profession is a scam out to kill you.

Certain economic ideologies come to mind in that regard.

The utopian socialist/Marxist form seems to fit in this category well. It seems to someone who has not studied it deeply that it fails to account for certain unsavory human behaviors like greed, sloth, and social hierarchy and quickly devolves in to force to impose the equality that sharing does not bring. I'm sure there is some similar failure in unrestricted capitalism to account for behaviors or consequences that I'm missing right now.

And there's even a little bit of the "there's these shadowy power brokers pulling the strings" mentalities for the various economic ideologies as well (which is one of the hallmarks of what we'd call "conspiracy theories")

And it's not really the particular ideologies, but the people who get trapped in the conspiracy rabbit holes that break their thinking.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Will RFK Jr. and other third-party candidates help doom democracy?

It’s tough to break the partisan duopoly without empowering spoilers.

www.motherjones.com

Don’t Ask RFK Jr. About Being a Spoiler

An interview with the independent candidate threatening to change the election’s course.

www.nytimes.com

Should we care about RFK Jr. and his new running mate?

The Kennedy conspiracy theorist, his VP pick Nicole Shanahan, and their potential to upend the 2024 presidential election, explained.

www.vox.com

Back when he first announced, the prevailing theory among Republicans was that he'd split the democratic vote.

Democrats, at that time, largely rejected/downplayed that notion, and suggested that due to his stances on Ukraine and vaccines, he'd pull more away from Republicans (and cited selectively chosen polls to support that theory)

It now appears that the script has flipped, and some left-leaning strategists and outlets, are now expressing concerns about RFK Jr. spoiling the election for Biden due to his selection of running mate.


Per the NY Times:
This week, the Democratic National Committee formed a unit to push back against third-party candidates and independents. At the same time, a number of Biden allies have formed a super PAC called Clear Choice, which plans to do the same, signaling the seriousness of the potential impact of an outsider candidate.

One such candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is polling above 10 percent in national surveys and is well known for his family lineage.

Per Vox:
Kennedy is currently averaging about 12 percent in the polls, according to RealClearPolling. Celinda Lake, a pollster for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign who continues to work with the Democratic National Committee, said that’s a worrying signal for Biden, based on polling and focus groups her firm has been conducting that suggest Kennedy will pull voters from Biden.

Democrats ramp up attacks on RFK Jr.: ‘He should be ashamed of himself’

Democrats are stepping up their criticism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after he announced his pick of Nicole Shanahan for vice president Tuesday, arguing the duo will benefit former President Trump.&nb…

thehill.com

And it would seem those concerns were amplified by his running mate selection. He picked a philanthropist, former Democratic donor, and wealthy activist who's focused on causes of women's reproductive rights, criminal justice reform, and environmentalism.

The fact that Biden's PAC and DNC operatives are forming task forces to squash independent candidates, and putting out websites to smear RFK, it doesn't sound like the DNC is quite as confident in their earlier assertion of "nothing to worry about, he'll pull more votes away from Trump"



I think my original theory still holds up...which was that the farther and farther removed we get from the covid pandemic, the less of a deal-breaker the anti-vaxxer aspect becomes, and at the end of the day, despite his vaccine attitudes, an anti-war, pro-gay rights, environmentalist is going to pull more votes from the left than from the right. (even more true now that he has a wealthy women's reproductive rights advocate at his side as his running mate during a time when abortion is quite the hot button issue)

I think it's difficult to tell...but if I were betting, I'd probably agree.

Libertarians aren't exactly stoked on Trump...or their own nominee.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How about "persistent belief in the demonstrably unreal"?

OK, that's technically not an epistemology, but a behavior. (I'll mention conspiracy theory below.)

Conspiracy theories.

Frankly, I think it is more about the damage to reasoning and thinking skills. There are even some demonstrably wrong beliefs that don't necessarily lead to bad epistemology, including religious beliefs.

Sure...when your explanation of the world involves lizard people on the moon or extra-dimensional demons....you've sort of lost the plot. There's some attraction to the idea of esoteric knowledge that is impairing otherwise reasonable thinking.

Take the claim that the Earth is young. It is demonstrably wrong, and even being a YEC doesn't necessarily break ones ability to reason about other things. Though it does, when dogmatically held to and held as an important "fact", lead some down this bad path to conspiratorial thinking about science (first evolutionary biology and geology, then other sciences. In the worst cases (and I've seen a few around somewhere...) a completely false view of the world forms where science is a cabal, scam, and conspiracy. For others, this can start with vaccine skepticism and end thinking the medical profession is a scam out to kill you.



The utopian socialist/Marxist form seems to fit in this category well. It seems to someone who has not studied it deeply that it fails to account for certain unsavory human behaviors like greed, sloth, and social hierarchy and quickly devolves in to force to impose the equality that sharing does not bring. I'm sure there is some similar failure in unrestricted capitalism to account for behaviors or consequences that I'm missing right now.


And it's not really the particular ideologies, but the people who get trapped in the conspiracy rabbit holes that break their thinking.

And yet...conspiracies exist. They aren't fictional, they're real, and have ample evidence. From Project Bluebird, to MKUltra, to the Edgewood Arsenal, to Snowden, to Epstein and more beyond count....at no point in the last 100 years has our own government stopped all chicanery and played by the rules with its own people.

So in defense of the "conspiracy theories" they aren't always wrong, and it takes another sort of blind irrational thinking to imagine our government has stopped engaging in them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think it's difficult to tell...but if I were betting, I'd probably agree.

Libertarians aren't exactly stoked on Trump...or their own nominee.

I think the tone of some of the articles I linked is a bit troubling.

The one I linked that said "will third parties doom democracy" carries the tone of something bordering on emotional blackmail.

If a person doesn't like either of the two main options and opts to go with someone different (or make a third party run themselves), "you're complicit in potentially destroying democracy because that could cause the other guy (we don't like) to win"

Sort of a "well, WE say this other guy is so dangerous, that the only moral and decent thing for you to do is abandon half of your principles and vote for our guy so that other guy doesn't win, so if you come up with an Option C, just keep it to yourself"

...which to me, presents a more dire picture about our democracy than the scenario of "the bad guy" winning because of the spoiler effect of a third party candidate.


If there's this construct in which it's "socially unacceptable" to vote for the Option C who you really like, because the Option A & B people are afraid it'll split their teams' votes, then the thing people are worried about is already happening to a degree. That's not a stellar democracy if people voting for their first choice is going to be portrayed as a "problem" and the power-brokers (media outlets, pundits, campaign financiers) are going to pull every lever they can to emotionally manipulate people back into the two-party ecosystem.

To me, that's a symptom of the DNC and RNC asking the wrong questions.
Instead of "how can we manipulate people out of voting for third parties so it doesn't split our votes?"
They should be asking "how can we get more people to vote for us because they actually want to?"

Seems like the obvious one would be candidate quality. They should look back at the election cycles in which third parties had virtually no presence to speak of, and pick D & R candidates like them.

The Libertarians and Greens typically only have a noteworthy presence in election cycles where the candidate quality is poor in the two main parties.

People know the names of the LP and G candidates in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles... most wouldn't be able to tell you who they were for the 2008 and 2012 election cycles without Googling it (because Obama, Romney, and McCain were all respectable enough candidates that covered enough of the Overton Window that most people didn't feel compelled to look for other options)