[tghw]

If the other option is someone who will take whatever position is most politically convenient, then yes, I will choose the one who has been advocating for the things I believe in for the past 30 years over the one who just got on the bandwagon.

It's also pretty disingenuous to suggest that one of the few independents in the Senate can't work with both sides.

[golergka]

> It's also pretty disingenuous to suggest that one of the few independents in the Senate can't work with both sides.

If you actually read my comment, you'll notice that I not only don't mention Sanders, I don't mention US at all. I specifically construct my arguments to be abstract, because it's easier to reason about abstract model that approximate some certain aspects of reality, than trying to argue about a complex situation as a whole.

[tghw]

You did mention Sanders, by using him as the example which you quoted. You used him as a basis for your model, except that you used a flawed interpretation of him:

> To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president...

Having "stubborn, unwavering commitment" to ones ideals does not mean that one is incapable of compromise. That's a separate axis that may be correlated, but is not the same as commitment to your ideals.

[golergka]

> Having "stubborn, unwavering commitment" to ones ideals does not mean that one is incapable of compromise.

Good point. However, I haven't used Sanders as a whole for the model, I only used the quoted property — and I did implicitly assume that these two properties are closely correlated.

So, wouldn't you agree, that by default, a person A who with "stubborn, unwavering commitment can be expected to have problems reaching compromises? And that if he wishes for people to think that he's able to reach a compromise and be a peacemaker, he has to do more convincing than a person without said quality? Once again, I'm not talking about any particular politicians here.