Bayesian Investor Blog

I’ve seen plenty of people recently ranting about how presidential candidate X is obviously terrible because of their position on Y. It’s often the case that if I were voting solely on Y, I’d agree that candidate X is terrible.

I see patterns suggesting that those people tend to choose X first, and then choose one or more Y’s that fit an opponent of X.

I want to push back on these patterns, and explain why I expect to be confused as to how scared I should be by the upcoming election results, by focusing on issues based on how important I’d think they were if I didn’t know who would be running.

The most important issues are at least an order of magnitude more important than typical issues, so I ought to base my vote on the most important issues if at all possible.

AI

Governmental response to AI seems quite likely to be the most important political issue of the century.

Alas, it’s hard to figure out either what policies we want or what politicians are likely to implement them.

This LessWrong post is a mostly good attempt at analyzing AI-relevant factors of Trump and Harris’ plans, although it sometimes goes astray with pro-Harris biases (e.g. treating Project 2025 as if it were Trump’s plan). It’s creates a slight presumption that Harris is better than Trump.

Here’s another summary, which is more careful to focus only on candidates’ statements about AI, concluding:

Well, that contradicts my above expectations quite a bit. Kennedy is completely aware of the actual problem and what is necessary to solve it. By far the best candidate.

War with China

A close second for top issue of the decade is the looming war over Taiwan.

It’s unclear whether any candidate takes seriously Beijing’s commitment to gain control over Taiwan by whatever force is needed.

I have little ability to predict who would lose the most in a war between the US and China, but I consider it unlikely that any side will achieve significant benefits.

Trump’s skill as a bully provides him with some sense about when to avoid picking a fight with someone who’s too strong. He’s a xenophobic nationalist who doesn’t care much about what happens to foreigners, so he’s less likely than most politicians to go to war to protect Taiwan.

Most Democrats, probably including Harris, adopt a more deontological approach to international relations, fighting evil without calculating the odds. As far as I can tell, they’re committing to military engagement, while imagining that sanctions will deter Beijing from triggering the use of that military commitment.

So Trump seems less likely to escalate a conflict against a major power.

Kennedy and Oliver seem to have better anti-war track records than either Trump or Harris.

The Rule of Law / Respect for Contracts

Basic respect for rules is always an important foundation for cooperation.

We may be approaching an era where it’s unusually important, in that there’s a chance that human welfare will depend on whether we can make credible contracts with minds that are much more capable than ours.

Democrats have a mediocre track record here. I don’t have good information as to how Harris compares to the average Democrat.

Trump has a wildly varied track record regarding the rule of law. His judicial appointments seem to have above average respect for the rule of law (I’m guessing that a good deal of this is due to law schools holding conservatives to higher standards). OTOH, he has a terrible track record for many decisions over which he has more direct control. E.g. he rejects basic principles such as an obligation to pay his bills.

I’ve heard a good deal of negative things about Kennedy’s attitude toward litigation, which lead me to suspect he’s the worst candidate on this issue.

The Libertarian Party normally prioritizes support for the rule of law, so I’m guessing Oliver is the top choice on this issue.

Conclusion

I’m not going to tell you which candidate to vote for. My research has been too hasty to be thorough. I’m voting in a state that is not at all a swing state, so I’ve devoted less thought to it than I would if I voted in Pennsylvania. I’m sure I haven’t achieved an ideal level of objectivity. I’ve made many claims that will offend someone, and I’m not willing to spend much time defending them.

I’m mainly trying to steer you away from bad reasoning. In particular, away from partisan choices about what criteria to use, and toward focusing on the most important issues.

If I hadn’t gone through the thought processes needed to write this post, I would be dismissing Kennedy as obviously an evil member of the outgroup. Now my choice feels a bit harder.

P.S. I will block comments that merely provide a few counter-examples to my generalizations. I know there are exceptions to most of my generalizations. I’ll probably block anything that sounds too much like ingroup versus outgroup propaganda.