The 2012 US Election

[Dave_LF]

I wonder if it could be mathematically demonstrated that under particular conditions, a system of multiple competing agents eventually equilibrates to a state containing exactly two in a precise balance. It seems to happen a lot in politics and business, but not so much in nature (where competition tends to eliminate all but one species per niche).

As I've said before, I vote for Democrats almost exclusively these days, and when I make exceptions, it's for independents. This has little to do with my feelings about the Democrats and everything to do with my feelings about the GOP. Even when the Republicans front candidates who seem more of less unobjectionable personally (McCain was one), I still can't vote for them because of the people who pull the strings in their party.

As for the ties between seemingly disparate issues, while it is true that there are no logically necessary connections between many of the various liberal or conservative policies, there often are psychological ones--i.e. if you have or do not have a certain personality trait, you will be more likely to support or oppose both positions a and b, even though the two are not intrinsically related.

[Griffon64]

All nations fall. The US will destroy itself, it needs no real enemy. A variety of factors, including geography make a physical conquest of the US unrealistic.

This nation will fall, though the declaration point of when it has failed will llikely be contested by future historians. And, when the period of chaos subsides, the system of government in control will be much more rigid and streamlined...most likely a dictatorship.

Of course the US will fail - it is true that that happens to every nation. But I don't believe it will fail into a dictatorship. If anything, something opposite. It could also re-rise as a democracy returned to its roots, so I wouldn't declare the future fall to be a cast-in-stone disaster.

[Dave_LF]

"Fail" is a strong word. Sure, sooner or later the sun will burn out etc., but there are many, many nations out there that have been around for a long, long time. Their power and prosperity have ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but diminishing is not the same as failing. The US certainly could fail and the risk is high, but it's not something that should just be accepted as the inevitable course of nature.

[River]

As I've said before, I vote for Democrats almost exclusively these days, and when I make exceptions, it's for independents. This has little to do with my feelings about the Democrats and everything to do with my feelings about the GOP. Even when the Republicans front candidates who seem more of less unobjectionable personally (McCain was one), I still can't vote for them because of the people who pull the strings in their party.

I hold my nose to vote for the Dems. I hold my nose to back a centrist position. I do all this nose-holding because I'm pragmatic - what I want I will never get, so I settle for something I can live with. And the thing is, I could live with a moderate Republican president. Done it before, can do it again. Not my preference, but I'll never get my preference. HOWEVER, the GOP base appears to have moved so far to the right that moderate candidates either don't get nominated or if they do they're guys like Romney, who probably are much more moderate in their hearts than they let on because they have to appeal to the base. And I take Romney's willingness to back-peddle and bow and scrape and disown positions and acheivements he previously made because they are now unappealing to the base as a sign of weakness on his part. In other words, I might be able to accept him as a victor in the upcoming election if the people backing him weren't trying to roll the clock back to the 1890's.

As it is, though, I'm terrified. Especially since the Tea Party faction has been sweeping up the GOP primaries in the Congressional races. Maybe the voters in those districts will decide those guys are a little too extreme during the general, but maybe not. The Tea Party's gained minimal traction in Colorado, but Colorado's...Colorado. We've got extremists at both ends but, in the nine years I've lived here at least, they've been more or less balancing each other out. But the thing is, right now, in Congress, the Tea Party is a minority faction but they've rendered Congress utterly useless. You want to point fingers, point them there. I have a coworker looking for a job. Hell, I'm looking for a job. No one's hiring. Not the universities, not the national labs, not the private sector. They've got positions, but they're not hiring. They're all afraid Congress is going to drop us off a fiscal cliff because it suits their ideological purposes. Because if America loses, so does Obama and making sure Obama doesn't get a second term seems to be all the GOP in Congress cares about. During the debt ceiling fiasco, business owners actually had to call their representatives and explain why allowing the country to default would actually be a really really bad idea.

[Erunáme]

But the thing is, right now, in Congress, the Tea Party is a minority faction but they've rendered Congress utterly useless. You want to point fingers, point them there.

I'm tired of the "both sides are just as bad" thing going around... because, I don't think it's accurate. It's trying to be fair, yet isn't fair or truthful. So I'll point out problems and lies even if that makes people rant that I'm indulging in a "blindly partisan diatriabe." A lie is a lie, so is stupidity and harmful policies and I see a hell of a lot more coming from one "side." Of course I'll glady concede (or whatever a good word for it is...acknowledge?) when lies, bad policies etc come from the other "side".

[anthriel]

anthy - If I could pull you right through the internetz for a hug and a tall glass of ice tea ( is it as miserably hot and humid in Phoenix as it is here in Bakersfield? ) I would do so in a heartbeat! We can sit down and talk at length, you and me, because I could have written your post.

I'll have to settle for one of these:

I would LOVE to sit down and talk, and it is a real relief that I can find someone to talk to. I tend to have a mix-and-match ideology, between the two "platforms", and it makes real discussion (for me) kind of difficult.

I'll even make the tea.

[Frelga]

IAWE. Sometimes reality is partisan.

Is it truly the case now or am I missing something?

I would really appreciate it if posters shared examples of actual policy action from either party that they support. I'm thinking bills introduced (with a large degree of support from the party) or opposed, detailed proposals - concrete stuff, not campaign-generated hot air. I would be particularly grateful for examples this sort that posters here feel are positive from the Republican party, although I'd love to see both.

I apologize for throwing out a question without supplying my own answer, but lunch time is almost over. I'll try to come up with something tonight.

[Holbytla]

To beat a proverbial dead horse;

I was born in 1961. Since that time there have been 3 republican senators from Massachusetts. Leverett Saltonstall served from 1945–1967, and he was succeeded by Edward Brooke who was subsequently defeated by Paul Tsongas, a democrat. Due to health issues, Tsongas retired in 1985. He was succeeded by John Kerry who still holds that seat. JFK held the other seat until his election to president in 1960. Democrat Ben Smith was appointed to fill out JFK's term and he "retired" in 1962. Ted Kennedy held that seat from 1962 until 2009.
The dems anointed Attorney General Martha Coakley to be Teddy's successor.
However because of a poorly run campaign (some accuse her and the dems of expecting to win rather than giving a great effort to win) and the political fallout from the financial crisis and people being sick and fed up with business as usual in Washington (and Massachusetts) Coakley was soundly defeated by republican Scott Brown, the first time that the class one seat was held by a republican in 50 odd years and the first time that a senate seat in Massachusetts was held by a republican since 1979.

Barney Frank, who has been a a Representative to Congress since 1980, has opted not to run for re-election. Believe what you may, but I believe his decision not to run is directly related to the fallout from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/financial crisis. Rather than lose the seat to a republican he has chosen to step aside. This state has had a grand total of 3 republican Representatives to Congress since 1993.

The state is legendary for being ensconced in blue state status. There are few if any more liberal states than this one, yet the worm is turning. People are tired of the way things are and people are being proactive and are doing something aside from complaining about the system. Instead of hold our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils, people are voting for true change. Not necessarily better change, but change enough to send a message that people are not going to tolerate ineffective, deceptive, business as usual politicians who are running this country into the ground.

It is way way past time that we accept that this country is evenly philosophically divided, and that we need to learn how to deal with that.
Some people believe in higher taxes and more social programs, and some people believe in lesser government involvement and lower taxes.
There is no right or wrong with that. Just difference.
It seems to me that most people hover somewhere around the middle of the spectrum and just want the never ending political tug of war to end and for us to get back to effectively governing this country.

That isn't an easy task, and it may be an impossible task. Maybe one side has to win out for us to effectively govern this country, or maybe there has to be another revolution. I don't know. I do believe however that acceptance, understanding, tolerance and open mindedness is a better road to travel than, my guy is great and that guy sucks.

We don't have to worry about having discussions about candidate's attack ads this fall, because the voters themselves are ahead of the pols in swamping social media with cutesy half-true or even false or misleading blurbs. Nobody is talking substance. Nobody is holding anyone responsible for anything other than how closely they correlate to their own ideals.
It is all bash and snark and a giant mud slinging contest. And it isn't even the usual suspects involved. It is us!!! It is madly depressing that we are starting to behave like that which we use to rail against.

Just so you don't think that I am entirely blaming the voters and social media, here is yet another example of what has to stop if we are ever going to dig out of this hole;

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/column ... t_on_news/

What should we do? Vote, Not just based on your ideals, but on leadership, honesty and a billion other factors. Understand people that have differing philosophies and accept that maybe not everything they believe in needs to be discounted because you feel differently. Stop attacking and discuss. Stop the rah rah parade because you want your side to win and take the country forward as a whole, not a winning and losing side. This is one country, bifurcated maybe, but one entity like it or not. We live and die as one. Work the problem, don't make it worse by denigrating and refusing to accept other philosophies. Make politicians accountable even if it hurts. They will eventually get the message.

This country is not a two party system. There are two major parties, but there could be more if there were enough people interested in making true change. People tend to gravitate towards a party that at least loosely fits their ideals, and currently there are only two major parties, but there is also a number of smaller parties. There are also independents, with no party affiliations. My first ever presidential vote went to an independent named John Anderson. The parties don't always dictate ideals and sometimes people vote outside of their party if they feel strongly enough on an issue.

People want to back a winner, and most people's ideals in this country are closely aligned with the dems or reps. The Libertarian Party, Green Party and the Constitution Party (none are recognized in all 50 states) are more fringe parties that appeal to people other than the average person. Which is sad. The fact that politicians can't vote their conscience on every issue and are pressured to support party ideals helps us not at all, but it is the voters and the people of this country that are ultimately responsible.

[River]

I have no idea where to put this, but since it's relevant to the election, I'll put it here:
Top Six Myths about Medicare. A good subheading would be "It's not as screwed up as the politicians want you to think it is."

[N.E. Brigand]

There is an Australian psephologist, Peter Brent, who writes in The Australian and is something of a maverick.

Veering briefly off-topic, does anyone recognize the Tolkien connection in that sentence?

Answering my own question: the term "psephology" was coined by Tolkien's fellow Inkling, R.B. McCallum.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Missed that. Thank, N.E.B.

[vison]

I, along with most people, would like to see jobs.

But what I would like to know is: what jobs? Where? Doing what?

It's easy to stand around shouting about it, but for the life of me I can see no way to "provide" jobs for all the people who need them.

Mr. Romney is rich, but he is not an entrepeneur. He is a financier and, moreover, the sort of financier who moves money around without it being used to finance business. Even if he was another Henry Ford, there isn't much he can do.

Mr. Obama? I never know what to say. I assume he wants to create an America where business can thrive and people can work - but how, exactly?

Things have changed. Times have changed. It's sad.

[vison]

I think it's fairly obvious that god is not a Republican. He's making an awful mess of their party.

[Dave_LF]

That makes three cycles in a row where a hurricane has interfered with the GOP convention. Kind of makes you wonder what they'd be saying if it was the other way around.

On a half-related note, anyone notice that you can no longer read the full articles at fivethirtyeight without subscribing to the New York Times?

Edit 2: Ok; it's real easy to get around by following Nate Silver on Twitter and then following the (free) links he posts there. What is the point of the whole system if it's so easy to circumvent?

[axordil]

That makes three cycles in a row where a hurricane has interfered with the GOP convention. Kind of makes you wonder what they'd be saying if it was the other way around.

On a half-related note, anyone notice that you can no longer read the full articles at fivethirtyeight without subscribing to the New York Times?

Well, Mr. Silver is a contractor or employee of theirs now...I can't blame them for firewalling their own content.

[Primula Baggins]

I use Twitter a lot that way. The links don't lead to full articles beyond the day of publication, generally. But I read Nate Silver right away, as a rule.

They're welcome to firewall their own content, of course, but I miss the days of 2008 when Silver ran his own blog and community and everything was available, old or new. 2008 showed me that if you read only one poll analyst, Silver was the one to bother with. His final forecast was much closer to the actual results than anyone else's—almost exactly right. He had no stake in making it "look like a horse race" in states where it wasn't, whereas the networks and others actually tweaked their maps to make it look like a close election right to the end. It wasn't.

The difference will probably be a lot less marked this time, because it really may be a close election.

[axordil]

I miss that too, but I don't begrudge him what is almost certainly a significant chunk of change.

[River]

That makes three cycles in a row where a hurricane has interfered with the GOP convention. Kind of makes you wonder what they'd be saying if it was the other way around.

I've been having snarky thoughts along those same lines. Either they're on the Divine **** List OR they've repeatedly shown spectacularly bad judgement in where they put their convention this time. Florida? In hurricane season? One does not give the hand of fate such juicy temptation.

[Holbytla]

Florida (again) is going to be a key swing state. It makes political sense to hold a convention there. You can't and shouldn't ever worry about the weather, because you can't control it one way or the other. I mean this isn't Minnesota in January where the weather is fairly predictable.
Yeah it is chancy to hold anything in Florida during hurricane season, but this could prove to be a political boon regardless.

Anything can be spun in whatever way convenient.

Goodness I certainly hope we are better than this.

[River]

Oh I understand the politics behind it...it just seems like a huge risk to be taking when you've got states like Ohio that are also important swing states and don't get hurricanes.

Of course, the DNC isn't doing much better, holding their convention in NC. Hopefully they're far enough inland that a wandering storm won't cost them delays as well.