I admire your persistence, Kady, and the time you have to devote to attempting to demolish my argument. It’s pretty clear we’ll never agree. I understand that “data-driven” sounds very logical and solid, but in truth, confirmation bias is the most common pitfall in both diagnosis and argument. You are starting from the conviction that both the zillionaire currently in the White House and the one who wants to replace him (but in my view is quite likely to do the opposite, dividing moderate votes) would be acceptable choices, then seeking data to confirm your conviction. Trouble is, the world is so data-rich that masses of data can always be mustered to support most hypotheses. One sad outcomes is that a lot of blogosphere is people trading links and quotes, none of which can be taken as ultimate or definitive.

I never said “Schultz is bad.” I said (to paraphrase) that his decision to introduce his self-funded independent candidacy is likely to split the vote in a way that helps Trump, manifesting both excessive self-confidence and indifference to the suffering another Trump administration would mean for others not so fortunate. The future being unknowable, we will have to wait and see whether the outcome will be as I fear. Nothing either of us can say now can satisfy the need for outcome-based data in the future. So I’m bidding adieu and leaving it here in the hope readers will decide for themselves.

Writer, painter, speaker, consultant activist. Learn more about arlenegoldbard.com.