So who does represent you?The people that I would consider to represent me are laughed at, given no time on TV and are looked down upon by the general public, dismissed as a joke
US Presidential Election
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
To change topic slightly, this is a really interesting article from psychologist Jon Haidt;
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08 ... index.html
"Why Do People Vote Republican?"
The best thing is that other renowned intellectuals also write essays and comments in response, and there is a lot of interesting views.
I really enjoyed Roger Schank's response, but all the responses and the initial essay are worth reading.
One of the things that is interesting, which can easily be brought into this discussion is that everybody accepts the objective evidence that the majority of people's lives are generally better under Democrats than under Republicans (in terms of economic growth, wealth distribution etc.). As Scott Atran says;
There's a great book by an Australian intellectual - Clive Hamilton - called Affluenza, that addresses essentially the same issue (but in Australian politics) and argues that people vote for our conservative party despite it being against their interests because they imagine that one day they will be in the small percentage of rich people who benefit from such a government.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08 ... index.html
"Why Do People Vote Republican?"
The best thing is that other renowned intellectuals also write essays and comments in response, and there is a lot of interesting views.
I really enjoyed Roger Schank's response, but all the responses and the initial essay are worth reading.
One of the things that is interesting, which can easily be brought into this discussion is that everybody accepts the objective evidence that the majority of people's lives are generally better under Democrats than under Republicans (in terms of economic growth, wealth distribution etc.). As Scott Atran says;
But of course this leads to the thesis being presented. People don't vote based on reason, they vote based on emotions and although they justify their decisions post-rationally, the argument Haidt makes is that they vote republican because they prefer stability and clarity.Scott Atran wrote:Recent economic studies (most notably Unequal Democracy by Larry Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton) show that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income American families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families, and that the reverse was true when Republicans were in control. If people vote rationally their economic interests, one would expect Democrats to be perennial favorites among working poor and middle class, and especially so in this year of economic downturn. Why then does polling show that the election is so close?
There's a great book by an Australian intellectual - Clive Hamilton - called Affluenza, that addresses essentially the same issue (but in Australian politics) and argues that people vote for our conservative party despite it being against their interests because they imagine that one day they will be in the small percentage of rich people who benefit from such a government.
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
Interesting stuff, Jeremy. I may need to re-read and digest it more before commenting.
On the current polling, I'm really surprised that McCain has sustained his bounce and closed the gap. Obama just didn't do anything to re-seize momentum after the convention. Currently most national poll results are within the margin of error, (e.g. McCain 47 Obama 45 or vice versa with margin of error +/- 4%).
Strategically McCain may have taken several states out of play. Obviously Alaska but also North Carolina, North & South Dakota, and possibly Virginia and Indiana.
There are still the debates. I'm not panicking, but I'd like to see the Obama campaign come up with something to get their message back out there.
On the current polling, I'm really surprised that McCain has sustained his bounce and closed the gap. Obama just didn't do anything to re-seize momentum after the convention. Currently most national poll results are within the margin of error, (e.g. McCain 47 Obama 45 or vice versa with margin of error +/- 4%).
Strategically McCain may have taken several states out of play. Obviously Alaska but also North Carolina, North & South Dakota, and possibly Virginia and Indiana.
There are still the debates. I'm not panicking, but I'd like to see the Obama campaign come up with something to get their message back out there.
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
Yeah, I saw that story. The damage control was just so stupid.
The conventional wisdom says that the economic crisis helps Obama. McCain has a very clear history that the Obama campaign can hit him over the head with to make him look like your stereotypical republican - heartless, out of touch, uncapable of governing. But I said the same thing about making Sarah Palin look like a combo of GW Bush & Dan Quayle and public perception went the opposite direction nstead.
Honestly I have no insight into how the crisis will change the race. I don't think it helps McCain any. Potentially the Obama campaign could win this thing on this issue alone, but I fully expect them to blow the opportunity.[/url]
The conventional wisdom says that the economic crisis helps Obama. McCain has a very clear history that the Obama campaign can hit him over the head with to make him look like your stereotypical republican - heartless, out of touch, uncapable of governing. But I said the same thing about making Sarah Palin look like a combo of GW Bush & Dan Quayle and public perception went the opposite direction nstead.
Honestly I have no insight into how the crisis will change the race. I don't think it helps McCain any. Potentially the Obama campaign could win this thing on this issue alone, but I fully expect them to blow the opportunity.[/url]
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
Yes. All of them. Well, ok, just Cat Fancy.
Looking at the polls - Obama is definitely riding a wave at this time, one month out from the election. As always, those numbers are going to change & in all reality will not be as favorable in one month. However, its on McCain to turn things around now. He'll do what Republicans always do in October...
Anyway, back to the polls. Right now I think the best way to look at the data is through the 269/269 EV framework. I'm already including supposed swing-states Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado in Obama's column. With the exception of CO, none of these were ever credibly McCain states, though the polling looks close. This puts Obama at 269 electoral votes. Meaning even if he doesn't pick up a single other state, and Maine doesn't split one of its EVs off, it goes to the House of Representatives (which in all likelihood will be controlled by the Democrats).
But lets put obscure Constitutional processes aside for a moment. My assumption is Obama gets a minimum 269 votes - meaning McCain has to run the tables on the remaining swing states: NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, MO, & NV. Not impossible, but incredibly difficult when you're in the same party as the most unpopular president in history, you're not trusted to fix an economy that is melting down, and you want to keep fighting a war that the public is (finally) regretting getting into in the first place. And you have a lot less money to spend than your opponent.
To elaborate on that point, which is reinforced by the closing of the Michigan McCain campaign & shifting resources into Indiana, McCain really wishes this thing were coming down to two or three states right now. Instead, he's got to put limited resources into traditionally safe states like VA, NC, and IN. The more defense he has to play, the more of an opening there is for Obama to squeeze out one more state.
To me the likeliest scenario is NH or NV pushes Obama over the edge. For whatever reason I don't think Obama is very strong in Florida or Ohio, and the only way I see Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, or Missouri going Obama is in a massive wave election where he picks up 350 EVs. There's a lot of time between now and the election, though...
Looking at the polls - Obama is definitely riding a wave at this time, one month out from the election. As always, those numbers are going to change & in all reality will not be as favorable in one month. However, its on McCain to turn things around now. He'll do what Republicans always do in October...
Anyway, back to the polls. Right now I think the best way to look at the data is through the 269/269 EV framework. I'm already including supposed swing-states Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado in Obama's column. With the exception of CO, none of these were ever credibly McCain states, though the polling looks close. This puts Obama at 269 electoral votes. Meaning even if he doesn't pick up a single other state, and Maine doesn't split one of its EVs off, it goes to the House of Representatives (which in all likelihood will be controlled by the Democrats).
But lets put obscure Constitutional processes aside for a moment. My assumption is Obama gets a minimum 269 votes - meaning McCain has to run the tables on the remaining swing states: NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, MO, & NV. Not impossible, but incredibly difficult when you're in the same party as the most unpopular president in history, you're not trusted to fix an economy that is melting down, and you want to keep fighting a war that the public is (finally) regretting getting into in the first place. And you have a lot less money to spend than your opponent.
To elaborate on that point, which is reinforced by the closing of the Michigan McCain campaign & shifting resources into Indiana, McCain really wishes this thing were coming down to two or three states right now. Instead, he's got to put limited resources into traditionally safe states like VA, NC, and IN. The more defense he has to play, the more of an opening there is for Obama to squeeze out one more state.
To me the likeliest scenario is NH or NV pushes Obama over the edge. For whatever reason I don't think Obama is very strong in Florida or Ohio, and the only way I see Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, or Missouri going Obama is in a massive wave election where he picks up 350 EVs. There's a lot of time between now and the election, though...
Who cares what you think? You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.Frank_Sinatra wrote:Yes. All of them. Well, ok, just Cat Fancy.
Looking at the polls - Obama is definitely riding a wave at this time, one month out from the election. As always, those numbers are going to change & in all reality will not be as favorable in one month. However, its on McCain to turn things around now. He'll do what Republicans always do in October...
Anyway, back to the polls. Right now I think the best way to look at the data is through the 269/269 EV framework. I'm already including supposed swing-states Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado in Obama's column. With the exception of CO, none of these were ever credibly McCain states, though the polling looks close. This puts Obama at 269 electoral votes. Meaning even if he doesn't pick up a single other state, and Maine doesn't split one of its EVs off, it goes to the House of Representatives (which in all likelihood will be controlled by the Democrats).
But lets put obscure Constitutional processes aside for a moment. My assumption is Obama gets a minimum 269 votes - meaning McCain has to run the tables on the remaining swing states: NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, MO, & NV. Not impossible, but incredibly difficult when you're in the same party as the most unpopular president in history, you're not trusted to fix an economy that is melting down, and you want to keep fighting a war that the public is (finally) regretting getting into in the first place. And you have a lot less money to spend than your opponent.
To elaborate on that point, which is reinforced by the closing of the Michigan McCain campaign & shifting resources into Indiana, McCain really wishes this thing were coming down to two or three states right now. Instead, he's got to put limited resources into traditionally safe states like VA, NC, and IN. The more defense he has to play, the more of an opening there is for Obama to squeeze out one more state.
To me the likeliest scenario is NH or NV pushes Obama over the edge. For whatever reason I don't think Obama is very strong in Florida or Ohio, and the only way I see Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, or Missouri going Obama is in a massive wave election where he picks up 350 EVs. There's a lot of time between now and the election, though...
(oh wait, the part of unwarranted dickhead is usually played by you. My bad, I'll go attack someone else, like I always do, right?)
James Randall
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
-
PegLegHolly
- Swashbuckler
- Posts: 2475
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006 17:43
- Location: Cleveland, OH
- Contact:
this is my first time voting.
im surprised this hasn't been brought up, but ive noticed a lot of focus goes to the "undecided voters", which is why you cant believe the percentages "they" are releasing on who is winning and who isnt. there seriously cant be any relevance in those percentages because there is no way you can tell until it all comes together tomorrow night. last election, i remember a newspaper released results early but it changed with the whole recount. the whole reason they're releasing the percentages is so they can try and curve the undeciders.
ive noticed a lot of campaigning for certain parties, but in my mind that isn't effective enough. i wish there were more "vote" campaigns than there are "vote for.." campaigns. a lot of people (5 that i know of) arent voting because they are so turned off by radicals of each party. do your own research, make sure you are looking at "credible" sources, and make your own decision.
i was talking to my mother the other day about voting (horrible topic with my parents because i disagree with what they believe) and she said there has been only one election she voted FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone. this year she is voting against obama because she believes he has possible muslim ties and she doesnt like his plan for pulling troops out of iraq. while i completely disagree with half her statement, i can understand the half about the troops.
and yeah, i agree with nathan about the whole topic of abortion in conversation. abortion is a huge issue here in america, and its such a hard topic to talk about without it getting out of hand.
things i avoid talking about in public:
religion
abortion
palin
im surprised this hasn't been brought up, but ive noticed a lot of focus goes to the "undecided voters", which is why you cant believe the percentages "they" are releasing on who is winning and who isnt. there seriously cant be any relevance in those percentages because there is no way you can tell until it all comes together tomorrow night. last election, i remember a newspaper released results early but it changed with the whole recount. the whole reason they're releasing the percentages is so they can try and curve the undeciders.
ive noticed a lot of campaigning for certain parties, but in my mind that isn't effective enough. i wish there were more "vote" campaigns than there are "vote for.." campaigns. a lot of people (5 that i know of) arent voting because they are so turned off by radicals of each party. do your own research, make sure you are looking at "credible" sources, and make your own decision.
i was talking to my mother the other day about voting (horrible topic with my parents because i disagree with what they believe) and she said there has been only one election she voted FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone. this year she is voting against obama because she believes he has possible muslim ties and she doesnt like his plan for pulling troops out of iraq. while i completely disagree with half her statement, i can understand the half about the troops.
and yeah, i agree with nathan about the whole topic of abortion in conversation. abortion is a huge issue here in america, and its such a hard topic to talk about without it getting out of hand.
things i avoid talking about in public:
religion
abortion
palin
Holly Mathews
peglegholly.com
peglegholly.com