Anyone who has nothing better to do than try to calculate the percentage of "liberals," "conservatives," "libertarians," "Republicans," "Democrats," or anything else, on this site, needs to get a life.

I love political threads. Sometimes I'm in the majority and sometimes in the minority. So what? Who cares? The only majority that matters will be decided on November 4th. That plus the 75% majority needed for the HOF.

And if baseball wants to honor the vets with a stars and stripes cap on 9/11, the only way that's going to get politicized is if people react to it in a political way. I can't see anything particularly offensive about what they're doing. But then I don't even get offended by those Kate Smith GBA's---there must be something wrong with me.

McCain's cynicism is breathtaking, and the Republicans will win the Presidential election because they understand that they're selling a product, and they understand that the great mass of the electorate cannot differentiate the true from the false, any more than they couldn't figure out that buying SUVs was a bad idea, or that eating at McDonalds regularly is a bad idea, or that invading Iraq was a bad idea, or that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and so on and so on. Obama doesn't understand how it's done in America, so he's running for President instead of selling an image of himself as President. It's why he's going to lose. When you're selling a product, truth is largely irrelevant. The Republicans understand this.

Hard to disagree with much of that, but it ain't hardly over. But then self-fulfilling prophecies have never been my jigger of gin.

I can't see anything particularly offensive about what they're doing.

Linking Saddam and Iraq with 9-11 is how the Bush Administration justified the invasion of Iraq.

But then self-fulfilling prophecies have never been my jigger of gin.

Self-fulfilling in what sense, Andy?

I can't see anything particularly offensive about what they're doing.

Linking Saddam and Iraq with 9-11 is how the Bush Administration justified the invasion of Iraq.

When Bud Selig plans on sending troops to Iran or Pakistan, give me a call. There doesn't have to be a dark underside to everything.

But then self-fulfilling prophecies have never been my jigger of gin.

Self-fulfilling in what sense, Andy?

In the sense that they cause people to give up two months before the election as a result of their pessimism. Not that I disagree with your take on the Republicans.

Anyone who has nothing better to do than try to calculate the percentage of "liberals," "conservatives," "libertarians," "Republicans," "Democrats," or anything else, on this site, needs to get a life.

I'd say 75-80% of the posters here agree with you.

Looks like white women have swung by 20% towards Republicans since Palin was nominated.

When Bud Selig plans on sending troops to Iran or Pakistan, give me a call.

Somehow I suspect that the idea for MLB to honor our veterans on 9-11 specifically was not entirely Bud's own idea.

Let me also say, our veterans deserve a huge hell of a lot more than to be honored by MLB.

To catch up on posts about my favoritist subject, me:

His first line of his first post about it was "woo-hoo!"

Because it helps the democrates get to the White House?

No; it was because (as I said) she's the most libertarianish choice he could have made. (That is, realistically. He wasn't going to choose David Boaz.)

Thank god I missed that thread. The fact that DMN is excited about a McCain/Palin ticket should finally kill off any notion that he's a "libertarian." And I don't see how JC is anything other than a run-of-the-mill conservative.

I am not "excited" about a McCain/Palin ticket (although the possibility that McCain won't serve out his term can't be ignored.) I was just excited that McCain wasn't recycling Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, or the like.

I tend not to use "democrat" or "republican" or "libertarian" to avoid the DMN problem -- I care more about what a person's views are than the label they use to describe those views.

Just to be clear, I certainly don't describe my views as Democratic or anything other than libertarian; I'm just a registered Democrat. I'm not arkitekton, pretending to be conservative when I'm really on the Chomsky side of the spectrum. The only reason I brought up the fact I was a registered Democrat was to dispel the notion that I'm "really" a Republican who started calling myself a libertarian recently; I've never been one, ever.

David, anyone who has any trouble figuring out where you stand on the political spectrum needs a seeing eye dog who can also read and talk.

#99 is, unfortunately, on the money. Even though I should know better, I have been stunned by the effectiveness of the Republican marketing machine. Was it Ron Suskind who quoted the Bush official on the myopia of the “reality-based community” when it came to understanding Republican political strategy. Repeat certain catchphrases and codes a few times, and people's eyes glaze over and they'll then support whatever Big Mac you're selling them.

And it's not just "those people" over there, the great unwashed, the mouthbreather, the unaborted, but the so-called educated, straight-A, smart boys and girls, all those who were best indoctrinated in our schools to believe we live in a democracy, that we actually are expresssing our choice by voting every four years. Lo0k, the system works, things are okay for me and mine, none of us are being kidnapped off the street and shipped to some client-state hellhole for torture. Hey, that's not even torture, that's just effective punishment for being born with the wrong color or name.

And as I've read here year after year, real racism barely exists anymore in the United States, so electing a Black Man with a Funny Name who, when asked to name how many states in the US, replied from his madras education, "55", as in the number of Islamic states in the world (Story repeated to me today as fact) should only influence an ignorant few, and this election will be too close to call -- not exactly comforting considering how the last two elections turned out.

Oops, strayed off topic, which is not how "they" are fools, but that we are, and the problem isn't that people lack enough rationality, but they lack any imagination that hasn't been thoroughly corrupted by a minimum of four hours television viewed per day from birth; by age 40, at that rate, you've watched 60,000 hours of TV, which is one big advertisement to overcome your resistance to buying whatever crap they're selling.

I guess you had reason to close the thread, Dan; I just find it frustrating when the adults are trying to have a serious discussion and yet the thread needs to be closed because of the behavior of a few adolescents. I suppose simply deleting the offending posts wasn't an option. (?)

Passive acceptance of censorship followed by the wish that certain individuals were rendered from the meat of the thread, so to speak. And Wilhelm Reich was a kook for pointing out the mass psychology of fascism that has resulted from the repression of our primary, biological needs from the rise of civilization to now. "Organized violence" is a good description of it.

The misguided answer of the Democrats is that we must make a return to reason, that those of the "reality-based community" must stand up and do their part in shoring up the crumbling structures of the Enlightenment, that we must never hit below the belt, must acknowledge what a fine person John McCain is, in spite of the facts of 300 demerits at the US Naval Academy, 5th from bottom of his class, 5 wrecked planes, Keating 5, calling his wife a #### 5 times in front of reporters, etc., etc.

Don't get me wrong -- listing of 5,555 misdeeds of McCain will NOT derail him, only leave the country crosseyed and painless... facts are simple and facts are straight facts are lazy and facts are late facts all come with points of view facts dont do what I want them to facts just twist the truth around facts are living turned inside out facts are getting the best of them facts are nothing on the face of things facts dont stain the furniture facts go out and slam the door facts are written all over your face facts continue to change their shape... You'll still be waiting 'til doomsday before this strategy has any effect.

No, what is needed is an apocalypse, not a Xtian one where the good folks are saved and the bad ones go to a lake of fire and fry on the 5th of July, but a good apocalypse, an apocalypse where all the thousands of hours of base tv is transformed in the searing heat of the imagination into the gold of inspiration, where shared grief and bridge building and peaceful tomorrows might stand a chance of becoming our reality.

Where and when we don't kill our television, but transform it into a Televisionary Oracle of Truth, Beauty and Many Splendored Love, not for just for two, but for me and you and everyone you know and everyone they know, to infinity and beyond. But the path is not straight and well-lit, but narrow and dark and through the labyrinth of the human heart, a Second Birth not unlike the first.

"When you don't love too much, you don't love enough".

David, anyone who has any trouble figuring out where you stand on the political spectrum needs a seeing eye dog who can also read and talk.

You'd think. But a bunch of people here seemed to have trouble.

And it's not just "those people" over there, the great unwashed, the mouthbreather, the unaborted, but the so-called educated, straight-A, smart boys and girls, all those who were best indoctrinated in our schools to believe we live in a democracy, that we actually are expresssing our choice by voting every four years. Lo0k, the system works, things are okay for me and mine, none of us are being kidnapped off the street and shipped to some client-state hellhole for torture. Hey, that's not even torture, that's just effective punishment for being born with the wrong color or name.


Given your behavior in the previous thread, Alex, you're hardly one to be complaining about how others comport themselves.

Eh, the nuclear blast will knock out the TV reception.

Glad you're here, ghost.

In the sense that they cause people to give up two months before the election as a result of their pessimism. Not that I disagree with your take on the Republicans.

Good point. I could be in the swing state of NH campaigning my heart out. Instead, I'm posting here (among other things).

Given your behavior in the previous thread, Alex, you're hardly one to be complaining about how others comport themselves.

If the Republicans were 10% as evil and competent as arkitekton and alex think they are, they and the rest of their ilk would have mercifully been silenced by now.

If the Republicans were 10% as evil and competent as arkitekton and alex think they are, they and the rest of their ilk would have mercifully been silenced by now.

Not true. Arky and Alex and their friends are the best friends of the far right. If McCain pulls out the election (my money's still on Obama), the campaign should send thank-you cards to people like them for pushing the center towards McCain/Palin over the last week.

You'd think. But a bunch of people here seemed to have trouble.

Right. I think you are a Libertarian who flacks for the Repubs. The evidence on that is pretty clear.

Not true. Arky and Alex and their friends are the best friends of the far right. If McCain pulls out the election (my money's still on Obama), the campaign should send thank-you cards to people like them for pushing the center towards McCain/Palin over the last week.

Indeed. The funny thing is, people like them think that Republicans win because of Karl Rove being mean, as opposed to because of the attitudes towards Americans expressed in posts like #110. And then they act as if they only attack John McCain for getting shot down and held as a POW, they'll win.

These are the same sort of people who spit on soldiers during Vietnam and thought this was helping to stop the war.

The funny thing is, people like them think that Republicans win because of Karl Rove being mean, as opposed to because of the attitudes towards Americans expressed in posts like #110.

Both of these things have barely any effect at all on Republican electoral success or failure.

Voting is very explicable along basic lines of social and economic identity - race, gender, and class, primarily but not exclusively. People have certain material and ideological interests, they vote in the ways that they find match up with these interests. There's really not a lot of reason to make this more complicated.

In 2004, people were evenly divided on Bush, and were not particularly against either the economic situation or the war in Iraq. So Bush won, with a coalition composed more heavily of whites, upper-class people, and men. In 2008, structural factors tilt the electorate more toward Obama, and he is likely to win with a coalition that tilts more multi-racial, poorer, and less male than Bush's winning coalition.

EDIT: I should note I'm talking statistically and generally. Lots of poor people vote Republican, lots of women vote Republican, lots of non-white people vote Republican. But since American elections are incredibly massive events, it makes sense to talk about them statistically rather than engage the electorate one person at a time. And at a statistical level, there's not much reason to talk about most day-to-day political campaigning, and there's almost no reason to talk about these bankshot theories of resentment, wholly separate from any objective, statistically-based engagement with the race.

are you saying that 46-60% of posters ON THIS BOARD are "conservatives"???? i count exactly 3 - joey b, rmc and raydiperna. GR and JC are fanatical anti-abortionists but i won't use JUST that to say they are "conservative"

Sorry, Lisa, but if you aren't counting JC as conservative, then you're not trying. Seriously, there's no question. I have no idea of the politics of RMC and Ray, and the only way I know Joey B is as the ####### that won't shut up in Bonds threads about why are there so many Bonds threads (I call him Captain Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in my head), but come on, JC?

he funny thing is, people like them think that Republicans win because of Karl Rove being mean, as opposed to because of the attitudes towards Americans expressed in posts like #110.

So you are saying that the people who vote Republican aren't basing it on the merits of the actual candidates, but rather to somehow show up a very small group of people that they find objectionable?

You'd think. But a bunch of people here seemed to have trouble.

I agree 100% with Andy, but perhaps not for the reason you think.

Arky and Alex and their friends are the best friends of the far right. If McCain pulls out the election (my money's still on Obama), the campaign should send thank-you cards to people like them for pushing the center towards McCain/Palin over the last week.

Possible explanations of the McCain bounce:

(a) mean lefties caused backlash particular to McCain/Palin

(b) McCain and Palin were all over everyone's tvs, leading to higher ratings, just as happens after basically every political convention ever

I don't see any particular reason to think that McCain's bounce is a special thing caused by special circumstances. It looks like a perfectly normal bounce after a perfectly normal convention. Obama got one too, and not because anyone resented mean righties attacking him - just cause he got to go on tv and have everyone watch him talk about how awesome his presidency would be.

These are the same sort of people who spit on soldiers during Vietnam and thought this was helping to stop the war.

Zombie lies never die.

As a reminder to the community, violations of the Terms of Service are not ignored just because they're typed in a language that is not English. The offending posts have been removed.

(b) McCain and Palin were all over everyone's tvs, leading to higher ratings, just as happens after basically every political convention ever


That would be one of the biggest bounces ever - as someone noted a week ago after Obama received no bounce (Rothenberg?), the convention bounce is greatly overrated. The circumstances at least caused more people to watch the convention - I can't imagine more people would want to listen to McCain speak than Obama.

As a reminder to the community, violations of the Terms of Service are not ignored just because they're typed in a language that is not English. The offending posts have been removed.

I object to your calling what I type in not English. I hereby deem you a racist, a xenophobe, and someone who would value ham over human life.

These are the same sort of people who spit on soldiers during Vietnam and thought this was helping to stop the war.

To follow up on Yeargh - please, cite me an example of this. One.

I don't see any particular reason to think that McCain's bounce is a special thing caused by special circumstances. It looks like a perfectly normal bounce after a perfectly normal convention. Obama got one too, and not because anyone resented mean righties attacking him - just cause he got to go on tv and have everyone watch him talk about how awesome his presidency would be.

What he said. Plus, the notion that Palin is a superstar and that picking her was some stroke of genius is pretty silly.

That would be one of the biggest bounces ever - as someone noted a week ago after Obama received no bounce (Rothenberg?), the convention bounce is greatly overrated. The circumstances at least caused more people to watch the convention - I can't imagine more people would want to listen to McCain speak than Obama.

No -- Obama received a 6-7 point bounce (~ +2 to +8) and McCain received a 7-8 point bounce (~ -8 to even). Both very typical.

What he said. Plus, the notion that Palin is a superstar and that picking her was some stroke of genius is pretty silly.

The Republicans certainly didn't get a 5-15 pt bounce (depending on the poll) from McCain looking like a cross between your crazy old uncle and the Michelin Man.

No -- Obama received a 6-7 point bounce (~ +2 to +8) and McCain received a 7-8 point bounce (~ -8 to even). Both very typical.

The RCP running averages had the Dems getting a 2 point bounce (+4 average week before to +6 average) and the Republicans getting a 9 point bounce (-6 to +3)

Hey, how do you know what my uncle looks like?!

That would be one of the biggest bounces ever - as someone noted a week ago after Obama received no bounce (Rothenberg?), the convention bounce is greatly overrated.

This is all a load of crap. First, conventions produce, on average, a 6 point bounce. Second, it's quite obvious that Obama received a bounce of 4-5 points, and you're just badly wrong on basic facts there.

McCain's bounce can be measured either as 7-8 points from Obama's bounce peak, or as 2-3 points from the state of the race previous to the bounces. These are generally ephemeral things that we can expect to dry up. (I was saying this about Obama's bounce, too, for what that's worth.)

OK, Crazy Old Uncle Archetype, then!

Me? A thread devoted to me? I've arrived, Ma!

But, only a "run-of-the-mill" conservative? I've got to be better than that!

The RCP running averages had the Dems getting a 2 point bounce (+4 average week before to +6 average) and the Republicans getting a 9 point bounce (-6 to +3)

What are the precise dates for RCP's numbers? If you look at right before the Dem convention and shortly after it, the bounce is ~5 points.

Second, it's quite obvious that Obama received a bounce of 4-5 points, and you're just badly wrong on basic facts there.


So, RCP's wrong then. Is there a better site for cumulative poll results? Or do I just believe your assertion?

What are the precise dates for RCP's numbers? If you look at right before the Dem convention and shortly after it, the bounce is ~5 points.

I had been looking at all listed polling that covered the days of the convention vs. polling that covered the 7-day period before - I didn't want to take away some of Obama's bounce for the Palin announcement. I'm not a political poll expert and my last post wasn't meant facetiously. I mean, if I told you that 40% of Americans polled as libertarian, wouldn't you want a source other than me?

His first line of his first post about it was "woo-hoo!"

Because it helps the democrates get to the White House?

No; it was because (as I said) she's the most libertarianish choice he could have made. (That is, realistically. He wasn't going to choose David Boaz.)

Just to clarify, I wasn't actually trying to infer where you stand politically from one comment. I was merely trying to point out that the attempt in the first place was pretty silly. Especially considering how it was based on a snippet completely out of context, which could easily have been taken another way. (Besides I actually don't believe I have typed "woo-hoo!" in a non sarcastical fasion ever...)

Similar for the second part of my OP.

So, RCP's wrong then. Is there a better site for cumulative poll results? Or do I just believe your assertion?

Pollster.com. (or fivethirtyeight)

Pollster.com. (or fivethirtyeight)

Thanks, I'll check it out.

So, RCP's wrong then.

Looks to me like RCP didn't include the Gallup Tracking Poll in their rolling average, and it's the poll that measured the largest bounce. I don't know why they didn't include that poll - it's sort of everyone's go-to poll.

From Nate Silver's 538, here are the polls that were released right after the Dem Convention, and their aggregation:

Gallup: +8
CBS: +5
Hotline: +5
Rasmussen: +3
USA Today: +3
CNN: +2

Average is 4.4 points.

OK, then, I trust Nate, so I'll admit to being mistaken above.

Can you guys get back to discussing me?

The problem with using a rolling average, rather than selecting the polls precisely released at the end of the convention, is that RCP's measurement of the bounce includes a lot of polls that don't include the bounce in them.

Obama's bounce was quickly stepped on by the Republican Convention (and maybe the Palin announcement, though that's less clear from the numbers), so you need to look at a short period of time in order to identify it.

so I'll admit to being mistaken above.

This is the most reprehensible post I have ever seen on this site.

<I>Can you guys get back to discussing me?<?I>

Did you listen to the Beethoven? You got the Böhm, right?

I was just excited that McCain wasn't recycling Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, or the like.

Reportedly, he tried. That means either (a) reports are wrong, or (b) his eventual choice was pretty much the opposite of his first two choices. I'd like to assume the former, but I'm not assuming anything.

I think with the conventions back-to-back, we need to wait a bit to see how it shakes out--a couple of guys on Silver's site (which is openly pro-Demo but is still good in many ways even if you are a righty) and Silver himself said as much--and we need to look at particular states-OH, NV, COL, MICH.

I think Obama wins a very close one, which is what I predicted a year ago, but if McCain does nose him out, I will not be surprised.

dieses, oder?

That means either (a) reports are wrong

I think he WANTED to pick Lieberman--bipartisan, mavericky--but was smart enough to know it would kill him.

I also said in the deleted thread that I think the Palin pick indicated they decided they would lose with a conventional choice like Romney or Pawlenty. Nieporent agreed.

I think Obama wins a very close one, which is what I predicted a year ago, but if McCain does nose him out, I will not be surprised.

I expect Obama wins by 2-5 points. I'll be very surprised if McCain wins. (And I was quite convinced that Bush would win in '04, for what that's worth. The structural factors that basically determine national electoral outcomes are pretty easy to read.)

The Rasmussen/Fox swing state polls show notably less bounce than the national polls. I don't know why that is - most likely it's just random variation and should be added into the average bounce calculations and drop it down a bit, conceivably the choice of a right-wing running mate and a down-the-line conservative convention have led to a bounce that is located more in already-red states.

Rasmussen's swing state analysis following these polls taken during McCain's bounce, shows an election basically a toss-up, tipping very slightly toward Obama.

dieses, oder?

Yeah, that's the one you were talking about. If you liked it (or didn't like it), I can get something from my archives for you for the other symphonies before IRC tomorrow based on what you felt.

To follow up on Yeargh - please, cite me an example of this. One.

Sure. But since I don't feel like doing the work, I'll rely on Jim Lindgren's research. The notion that this didn't happen is the myth, relatively recently promulgated by a guy who (a) defined his criteria so narrowly as to exclude most incidents, and (b) ignored the ones he did find as implausible, based upon his own stereotypes.

As a reminder to the community, violations of the Terms of Service are not ignored just because they're typed in a language that is not English. The offending posts have been removed.

Just to make sure that this was understood:

Como recordatorio a la comunidad, las violaciones de los términos del servicio no se no hacen caso apenas porque they' re mecanografiada en una lengua que no es ingleses. Se han quitado los postes que ofendían.

Comme rappel à la communauté, des violations des limites du service ne sont pas ignorées juste parce que they' ; re introduit au clavier une langue qui n'est pas les anglais. Les poteaux offensants ont été enlevés.

Als Anzeige zur Gemeinschaft, ignoriert Verletzungen der Ausdrücke des Services nicht gerade weil they' Re geschrieben in einer Sprache, die nicht Englisch ist. Die beleidigenpfosten entfernt worden.

Come ricordo alla comunità, le violazioni dei termini di servizio non sono solo perché they' ignorati; re scriv in una lingua che non è inglesi. Gli alberini offendenti sono stati rimossi.

Als herinnering aan de gemeenschap, worden de schendingen van de Termijnen van de Dienst niet genegeerd enkel omdat they' re getypt in een taal die het geen Engels is. De beledigende posten zijn verwijderd.

Como um lembrete à comunidade, as violações dos termos de serviço não são ignoradas apenas porque they' re datilografado em uma língua que não seja ingleses. Os bornes de ofensa foram removidos.

??? ?????????? ???? ?????????, ?? ??????????? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?????? they' ???? ??? ???????????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????. ?? ????????????? ?????? ????? ?????????.

??? ??????? ? ??????, ?? ??????????????? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? they' re ????????? ?? ??????? ? ????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??????. ?????? ?????? ???????????.

The Chinese will cost you extra.

Can you guys get back to discussing me?

Sure. You're a 'compassionate conservative' with a bee in your bonnet about most liberals, especially pro-choicers, but also sometimes about construction workers who make awkward jokes. The op-ed guy you're closest to is probably Michael Gerson, whether you realize it or not.

Is this unfair?

I expect Obama wins by 2-5 points. I'll be very surprised if McCain wins. (And I was quite convinced that Bush would win in '04, for what that's worth. The structural factors that basically determine national electoral outcomes are pretty easy to read.)

Since you're picking Obama I'll guess you're reading the wrong structural factors. This isn't an election, it's an advertising campaign between two competing brands, only one of which is successfully selling itself as New!!! and Improved!!!


edit:

Is this unfair?

Sounds right to me.

These are the same sort of people who spit on soldiers during Vietnam and thought this was helping to stop the war.

To follow up on Yeargh - please, cite me an example of this. One.

Sure. But since I don't feel like doing the work, I'll rely on Jim Lindgren's research. The notion that this didn't happen is the myth, relatively recently promulgated by a guy who (a) defined his criteria so narrowly as to exclude most incidents, and (b) ignored the ones he did find as implausible, based upon his own stereotypes.

If you're of a certain age you don't need Jim Lindgren to know that there were plenty of examples of soldiers being harassed and insulted when they got back from Vietnam.

But by "plenty" of incidents you're still talking about a statistically insignificant number, one that was inflated wildly in the retelling to the point of an urban myth, to the point where it wasn't just a few crazed hippies or hardcore lefties doing the spitting, but an entire wing of the Democratic Party. It was as classic a case of political cynicism as you'll ever see, one that was metaphorically even extended to some of the soldiers themselves---Swift Boat, anyone?

And it continues today with that vicious McCain crack about losing a war rather than losing a campaign. You'd think that Obama had spit on McCain's uniform. And it's more than telling that I've yet to read more than one or two Republicans call McCain out on it, or any of the so-called "liberal media" have the guts to force McCain to apologize. With "fawners" like this, Obama scarcely needs any enemies.

Since you're picking Obama I'll guess you're reading the wrong structural factors. This isn't an election, it's an advertising campaign between two competing brands, only one of which is successfully selling itself as New!!! and Improved!!!

All this false consciousness ######## either needs to stop or get backed up with actual argumentation. If you're really going to argue that almost everyone else is stupid and you're smart, it would help to have evidence. As I read the evidence, there's good reason to think that, on average, people vote their material and ideological interests, within certain confines of acceptable thought. There's also good reason to think that structural factors heavily determine elections, while campaigning has some small effects around the margins. (Tom Holbook's Do Campaigns Matter is good on this score, for one.)

But go on with the false consciousness crap, if it makes you feel all special inside.

And to DN - huh, I didn't know that, you're right. Honestly, I didn't know a lot on the subject, and should have tried to read around before saying much.

If you're really going to argue that almost everyone else is stupid and you're smart, it would help to have evidence.

This doesn't count as evidence, but I have news for you, Matt. Even the dumbest BTFer is smarter than the average American. Maybe you're a modest, charitable, and optimistic fellow; maybe you live, work, and play in an intellectually prosperous environment, and don't get to see how the other half lives; but truly, you appear to have no clue how blindingly stupid your fellow citizens are. We talk a lot about selection bias here on BTF, and I'm here to tell you: we're our own best example.

I do take some consolation that democracy, for all its flaws, is a wonderfully robust system. It can accommodate quite a large number of idiots without breaking down. I do admit, however, to wishing we wouldn't test that robustness so severely, so often.

This doesn't count as evidence, but I have news for you, Matt. Even the dumbest BTFer is smarter than the average American. Maybe you're a charitable and optimistic fellow; maybe you live, work, and play in an intellectually prosperous environment, and don't get to see how the other half lives; but truly, you appear to have no clue how blindingly stupid your fellow citizens are. We talk a lot about selection bias here on BTF, and I'm here to tell you: we're our own best example.

If you believe in intelligence as a singular, easily identifiable and measurable thing, you're hardly in position to talk about how stupid other people are.

I certainly reject the notion that other people make political decisions irrationally and I make them rationally, and there's very little evidence I've seen to support ark's and your false consciousness / stupidity theory. I have no idea how to talk usefully about intelligence as a singular thing, and I would suggest that abstracting "intelligence" outside of the actual discussion we're having - about how people make voting decisions - is just a way of obscuring the debate. Once we talk about specific, concrete things, it becomes clear that this false consciousness / stupidity theory does not usefully explain election outcomes.

Lembcke wrote:

The element of spit in the coming-home stories of veterans who feel betrayed reveals a binary, man-nature dichotomy that lies at the heart of our understandings of human existence. . . . Subconsciously, the individual feels a primal connection with the warmth and dampness of that in utero existence, and perhaps even desires to return to it, while consciously recognizing that life itself depends upon successful separation from the safety and comfort of that watery world. . . . The idiom of wetness in myth is also gendered in ways that help us understand why the stories of spat-upon veterans frequently tell of women or girls doing the spitting.

Good god. I'm vividly reminded of Neal Stephenson's searing satire on this kind of BS writing in "Cryptonomicon".

All this false consciousness ######## either needs to stop or get backed up with actual argumentation.

Or what, Matt, you'll stamp your feet, take your ball, and go home? Your reply does seem... excessive, particularly since you once again make reference to "structural factors" without the "actual argumentation" you're demanding. References to books without any meat in the reference also seems hollow, though I may be reacting strongly because it seems like you just felt like hauling off and taking a swing at me. I've gone into more detail in other posts, and particularly in the long thread that just died, and I wrote what I wrote in stunned response to having only recently finished watching the mass hallucination that was the Republican convention. That McCain could sell himself and Palin as mavericks without getting hooted off the stage and permanently laughed out of politics would be astonishing except for the realization that the event, as I've written before, is essentially substance free, and the only way to understand its utter foolishness and emptiness is to understand it as the selling of images of something, and not the thing itself (if you'll allow me the qua here). That is the province of advertising, and it is something the guys running the McCain campaign understand, and that David Plouffe and Obama, don't.

I find these bare assertions of your personal superiority over most other people in the world to be quite offensive for pretty basic reasons. (I know a lot of people in the world, and I don't think it's nice, or correct, to say that they're mostly stupid.)

I think that the practical import of what ark's saying applies to a relatively small percentage of voters. But in a close election that small percentage can determine a winner.

Regarding this above controversy, I did have one hopeful conversation today, with my business partner. He's an almost sterotypical blue collar Republican: Air Force vet, football Dad who coaches his kids after school, Catholic right to life guy, has plenty of black friends but still drops the n-word on occasion, and is always firing off anti-Obama and anti-Hillary chain e-mails. He also thinks Palin is hot. To reduce him to a catchphrase he'd be a salt of the earth redneck, alternately smart and stupid like most all of the rest of us. On a personal level he's not just a McCain fan, he's practically a McCain groupie.

And yet when we were driving down to Dupont Circle today to set up our poster booth at a Michigan sports bar, he said he was going to vote for Obama. I couldn't believe it, and of course asked him why. In a word: Health Care. He buys health insurance for his two boys (he's divorced) but can't afford it for himself, and he knows damn well what that might mean down the road if he had a major illness. And he knows that once you strip away the patriotic rhetoric the Republicans couldn't care less about people like himself.

He said very bluntly that if Obama can keep hammering on the economy and personalize economic issues to people like him, he'll win. If not, the "advertisers" will win---though obviously that's not how he put it. And this is Obama's challenge.

I find these bare assertions of your personal superiority over most other people in the world to be quite offensive for pretty basic reasons. (I know a lot of people in the world, and I don't think it's nice to say that they're mostly stupid.)

Aside from whether it's "nice," as you suggested above, it's nonsense. He's superior and they're "stupid" b/c they don't see that conventions are the "province of advertising," or more accurately, b/c ark supposes they don't see that conventions are about the projection of images?

This doesn't count as evidence, but I have news for you, Matt. Even the dumbest BTFer is smarter than the average American.

Wait, do we first get to poll members as to who the "dumbest BTFer" is? 'Cause I have a few nominees.

And yet when we were driving down to Dupont Circle today to set up our poster booth at a Michigan sports bar, he said he was going to vote for Obama. I couldn't believe it, and of course asked him why. In a word: Health Care. He buys health insurance for his two boys (he's divorced) but can't afford it for himself, and he knows damn well what that might mean down the road if he had a major illness. And he knows that once you strip away the patriotic rhetoric the Republicans couldn't care less about people like himself.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

I find these bare assertions of your personal superiority over most other people in the world to be quite offensive for pretty basic reasons. (I know a lot of people in the world, and I don't think it's nice, or correct, to say that they're mostly stupid.)

Since I've never claimed "personal superiority" I don't have a specific response to this. It seems obvious enough that I'm talking about people in regard to their politics and not, say, child-raising, or community-building, or people with wonderful instincts who adopt damaged kids because they have a lot of love and believe it's the right thing to do. I've only talked about stupid, or low-information, or ignorant voters. That's because it's rare that I run into an American who, really, knows even the rudiments. Who their congressman is. Where Iraq is. Who Sunni and Shia are, and why it's important to know that, and why it's important that the president or president-to-be knows that. I spent a decade in the midwest, for what that's worth, and outside the local university no one knew these things. No one. I talked a lot of politics, and had a job that brought these questions to the surface, and no one knew these things. You can't judge the surge, or judge whether withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months is a good idea, or have any idea whether the candidates know what should or shouldn't be done, if you don't know where Iraq is, or why the Sunni and Shia are fighting and what they're fighting over --you can't do it. It's nice, I guess, to think that people are making somehow sensible judgments based on sound instincts, but people's instincts aren't sound. They're making decisions based on which advertising jingle moves them at a particular point, and which sound bite appeals to their particular bents and prejudices.

or more accurately, b/c ark supposes they don't see that conventions are about the projection of images?

Shame on your strawman, JC. Mentioning that people are stupid in a certain regard isn't a corresponding claim of superiority. If you can't quite grasp that conventions are about the projection of images (among other things), I'm not sure how the discussion can proceed.

I think that the practical import of what ark's saying applies to a relatively small percentage of voters. But in a close election that small percentage can determine a winner.

I should probably build this into my argument, though I'm guessing it's a larger percentage than you think. And it is precisely that small (or not so small) percentage that will be swayed by jingles, or gut feelings based on ads that have no real content, that will decide whether we go to war with Iran, or Russia, and have a President who knows next to nothing about foreign affairs, or have an economy based on funneling dollars to the already wealthy, and so on.

Once we talk about specific, concrete things, it becomes clear that this false consciousness / stupidity theory does not usefully explain election outcomes.

Since it seems to explain why millions of people vote the way they do, how can it be left out of any thorough analysis?

Wait, do we first get to poll members as to who the "dumbest BTFer" is? 'Cause I have a few nominees.

The dumbest BTFer is anyone who occasionally deludes himself into thinking that the influence of his ramblings on this site amounts to anything more than a fart in the desert. On that note, I should start by nominating myself, but OTOH I might have a few worthy opponents.

And yet when we were driving down to Dupont Circle today to set up our poster booth at a Michigan sports bar, he said he was going to vote for Obama. I couldn't believe it, and of course asked him why. In a word: Health Care. He buys health insurance for his two boys (he's divorced) but can't afford it for himself, and he knows damn well what that might mean down the road if he had a major illness. And he knows that once you strip away the patriotic rhetoric the Republicans couldn't care less about people like himself.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

That's too good of a straight line to embellish with any rebuttal, other than to note who the largest recipients of that public largesse have been since Day One.

Since it seems to explain why millions of people vote the way they do, how can it be left out of any thorough analysis?

Here's the process by which you explain why millions of people vote the way they do.

First, you determine what people's real interests are, through unspecified methods.
Second, you determine what marketing strategies are most effective in convincing people to vote against their interests, through unspecified methods.
Third, you claim that they voted against their interests because of effective marketing.

It's only explanatory in a trivial sense- if you can determine what people's real interests are and what marketing strategies will convince people to vote against their interests, obviously you can explain voting. I just don't think you can do those things.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

At which point it becomes... what exactly?

The little dust-up above is in part an issue of tone and word choice. I tend to agree with ark in that many voters operate with a thin knowledge base and tend to trust the media too much, (from FOX to MSNBC--it is not an ideological thing) rather than questioning it. That is not the same thing as being "stupid." Intelligence, as Matt suggests, is neither linear nor non-contextual.

Additionally, politics is often too personal. Political discussions in any medium are rarely framed as exchanges of ideas among equals who want what is best for the country but disagree on such; instead, they are clashes of competing worldviews--and most people hold on to their worldviews very hard and many take pleausure in seeing them presented as "winning." The trash talk and anger surrounding the outcomes of presidential elections reflect these realities, and IMO, help to make for less-informed voters.

or more accurately, b/c ark supposes they don't see that conventions are about the projection of images?

Shame on your strawman, JC. Mentioning that people are stupid in a certain regard isn't a corresponding claim of superiority. If you can't quite grasp that conventions are about the projection of images (among other things), I'm not sure how the discussion can proceed.

Did you read what he wrote? He didn't say that conventions aren't about the projection of images. He said that you're assuming that other people don't realize this.

And yes, mentioning that people are stupid in a certain regard is a corresponding claim of superiority. You're not saying that people are stupid; you're saying that people are stupid and you're smart.

Here's the process by which you explain why millions of people vote the way they do.

First, you determine what people's real interests are, through unspecified methods.
Second, you determine what marketing strategies are most effective in convincing people to vote against their interests, through unspecified methods.
Third, you claim that they voted against their interests because of effective marketing.

It's only explanatory in a trivial sense- if you can determine what people's real interests are and what marketing strategies will convince people to vote against their interests, obviously you can explain voting. I just don't think you can do those things.

This does frame the issue as something that can only be answered via the techniques of sociiology, and I'm far from sure that that's the only or even the best way to frame it. I also don't think that people's real interests are impossible to discern. Too, I can simply point to the astonishing number of Americans who are obese as an example of how easy it is to persuade huge numbers of people (is it one hundred million, now?) to eat (read, vote) against their interests. Coequally, surely it was against the interest of Americans to have Bush as President and yet, despite all the evidence that was too, too readily available, there he is, sacking out at the White House. The evidence that people vote against their interests is there, directly, on the face of things. We can tweeze out the why, probably to a useful degree, as we like, but there it is.

That is not the same thing as being "stupid." Intelligence, as Matt suggests, is neither linear nor non-contextual.

I'll readily cede that point of Matt's, rr. Be stupid of me not to. I'll say again though, that I've referred to people, I think pretty directly, as politically stupid or, to use your less charged words, possessed, politically, of a "thin knowledge base". It does bother me at least a little that on this site many of us will readily accept that most people don't understand much about the game of baseball, and that most people have a "thin knowledge base" indeed when it comes to understanding what really wins ball games, and who the truly valuable players are. We seem, in general, to very readily understand that the image of the scrappy player (or "maverick" pol), or the CFer with the high batting average, is what sometimes leads to almost hallicinatory judgments of their value. At BTF we surely wouldn't expect the average fan to be able to assemble the best team in a competitive draft, and this in a field where information is far more precise, available, and subject to intelligent analysis than it is in politics. Why the umbrage, then, from so many here, when I point out that the same blindness, prejudice, thin knowledge base, or plain, dumb, plum ignorance rules in politics just as it would if every fan had an equal vote in an expansion draft?

At which point it becomes... what exactly?

An oligarchy, I suppose. Point #473 in favor of divine right monarchy.

And yes, mentioning that people are stupid in a certain regard is a corresponding claim of superiority. You're not saying that people are stupid; you're saying that people are stupid and you're smart.

I try to be optimistic about the intelligence of people at large, but after spending the summer in North Dakota, I think it's safe to say that both you and ark have a legitimate claim to intellectual superiority at the point where you are interrogating motives. You need not arrive at logical conclusions, but the process itself is more ambitious than most will attempt.

Additionally, politics is often too personal. Political discussions in any medium are rarely framed as exchanges of ideas among equals who want what is best for the country but disagree on such; instead, they are clashes of competing worldviews--and most people hold on to their worldviews very hard and many take pleausure in seeing them presented as "winning." The trash talk and anger surrounding the outcomes of presidential elections reflect these realities, and IMO, help to make for less-informed voters.

I don't disagree that people vote as if on a moral quest. On the other hand, it is interesting that this moral judgment is often a deferral away from direct, personal action. Some of the most passionate supporters and critics of abortion rights, gay marriage, the death penalty, and even war are never directly affected by the outcome of the political discourse. Yet these subjects generate far more vigor than social security, taxes, and even health care, which all impact everyone at some point. Perhaps the distance is its own form of artillery, much like the experiment where people were more willing to launch a nuclear weapon than to stab someone.

whats so bad about posting pictures of aborted children?

you'll condone their execution, and even find it hilarious to make demented jokes about them, just so long as you don't have to look at them.
Is that how it works? Is that how you have justified this slaughter in your mind?

Just so long as I don't have to look at it?

Wait, do we first get to poll members as to who the "dumbest BTFer" is?

I win hands down. I'd like to thank all the little people who made this possible...

whats so bad about posting pictures of aborted children?

you'll condone their execution, and even find it hilarious to make demented jokes about them, just so long as you don't have to look at them.
Is that how it works? Is that how you have justified this slaughter in your mind?

Just so long as I don't have to look at it?

Who doesn't like the pictures? Keep 'em coming!

Why the umbrage, then, from so many here, when I point out that the same blindness, prejudice, thin knowledge base, or plain, dumb, plum ignorance rules in politics just as it would if every fan had an equal vote in an expansion draft?

Rhetorical style and your apparent strong preference in the election. Like I said, I agree with your point to an extent.

I don't disagree that people vote as if on a moral quest. On the other hand, it is interesting that this moral judgment is often a deferral away from direct, personal action. Some of the most passionate supporters and critics of abortion rights, gay marriage, the death penalty, and even war are never directly affected by the outcome of the political discourse. Yet these subjects generate far more vigor than social security, taxes, and even health care, which all impact everyone at some point. Perhaps the distance is its own form of artillery, much like the experiment where people were more willing to launch a nuclear weapon than to stab someone.

Interesting point. One element that comes into play in elections is that it is far easier to learn/know basic principles and to have a worldview ("I'm for small government I'm anti-war etc. ) than it is to really think through an issue and/or develop a knowledge base. That, in effect, is what we "hire" the president and his advisers to do--"know" about all these issues. And of course, three of the issues you noted--abortion, death penalty, and war--involve life and death in a direct way (aborton is different of course) so those hit people more emotionally. Gay marriage is totally different than those three but is also emotionally charged. People may be kind of pissed off about their federal taxes but few people do much other than #####, look for tax shelters,(or become Libertarians).

"I win hands down. I'd like to thank all the little people who made this possible..."

****

Hey, wait. David said he had "several" nominees in mind. I would be shocked--shocked--were I not among them.

It ain't over till it's over.

"whats so bad about posting pictures of aborted children?

you'll condone their execution, and even find it hilarious to make demented jokes about them, just so long as you don't have to look at them.
Is that how it works? Is that how you have justified this slaughter in your mind?

Just so long as I don't have to look at it?"

Are you in favor of the common practice of defecation? If so, I'll be glad to provide some images of the practice in the real world, to convince you of why it's terrible and evil and wrong. Not to mention disgusting.

Please, people: Hold it in, for the good of us all.

"Wait, do we first get to poll members as to who the "dumbest BTFer" is? 'Cause I have a few nominees."

***crosses fingers***

you'll condone their execution, and even find it hilarious to make demented jokes about them, just so long as you don't have to look at them.
Is that how it works? Is that how you have justified this slaughter in your mind?

It works for war.

I have worked in a customer service type job for a number of years and although I would agree with some of the things that were said above about the relative intelligence of the voters, I think I will go with the more politically correct term of willfully ignorant.

As a reminder to the community, violations of the Terms of Service are not ignored just because they're typed in a language that is not English. The offending posts have been removed

Does this include Pig Latin? heTay aidersRay tillsay ucksay.

Wait, do we first get to poll members as to who the "dumbest BTFer" is? 'Cause I have a few nominees.

Just be sure to not confuse "dumbest" with "most annoying".

Just be sure to not confuse "dumbest" with "most annoying".

Not to disappoint some of you, but I'd imagine DMN's Top 3 would consist of 2 Republicans.

Not to disappoint some of you, but I'd imagine DMN's Top 3 would consist of 2 Republicans.

I wasn't implying anything about David's choices for nomination. It was more a general statement that too many people confuse "He pisses me off" with "He's an idiot", as evidenced by the periodic degeneration of some of the political discussions.

Wait, do we first get to poll members as to who the "dumbest BTFer" is? 'Cause I have a few nominees.

If ever there were a guarantee of setting off the longest thread in BTF history (or of the quickest thread-closure in BTF history--not sure which)...

"Not to disappoint some of you, but I'd imagine DMN's Top 3 would consist of 2 Republicans."

Only two. So... you're telling me there's a chance?

you'll condone their execution, and even find it hilarious to make demented jokes about them, just so long as you don't have to look at them.
Is that how it works?

I object to looking at them only because they make me hungry.

I try to be optimistic about the intelligence of people at large, but after spending the summer in North Dakota, I think it's safe to say that both you and ark have a legitimate claim to intellectual superiority at the point where you are interrogating motives.

Hm. I've never spent a summer in NoDak, but I've traveled there for work a number of times for shorter stretches. I've found Bismarckians to be some of the nicest folks I've ever met, and had a number of intelligent conversations on a wide range of topics with a lot of them, just casually in bars/restaurants whatever. Strange though it sounds, I really like going up there.

Of course, among North Dakotans, perhaps Bismarck folk are the urban "elites."

Wait, do we first get to poll members as to who the "dumbest BTFer" is? 'Cause I have a few nominees.

Who do I have to *** to win this?

Not to disappoint some of you, but I'd imagine DMN's Top 3 would consist of 2 Republicans.

I think you're implying that one of us can't count to 3.

Who do I have to *** to win this?

Your mom.

Is it considered "dumb" to pretend you're a conservative when you're far left?

That would be one of the biggest bounces ever - as someone noted a week ago after Obama received no bounce (Rothenberg?), the convention bounce is greatly overrated.

I guess I'm late to the party, but here's Gallup's list of convention bounces:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109702/Conventions-Typically-Result-FivePoint-Bounce.aspx

Clinton's in 1992 was a whopper. The next largest, Carter's in 1980 is inexplicable -

But my "favorite" bounce of all was Kerry in 2004

NEGATIVE one. Woo Hooo