2012 Republican Presidential Debate

Originally posted by lord xyz
Kay, that link was supposed to be on an article where Paul goes on and on talking about how Blacks are brought up to be racist against white people, and there are clearly racial undertones in the whole article.

I know you don't live here in America so you don't get to see it...but racism is still quite prevelant in America. Yes, I'm saying that many black children are raised to be racist against white people. I would say that many more white peole are raised to be racist against black people, however. One reason is quite obvious: 76% of Americans are white and 12.4% are black. So even if you had equal frequency of racism per person (per capita), you'd have WAAAAAY more racist white people in America.

I agree with this.

Anecdotally, my experience has been this: per capita, black people are much more racist against whites than whites against blacks.

That may be because black people are more outspoken about it and white people are quietly racist. Again, that's just my anecdotal experience.

However, there's another glaringly obvious reason that many blacks are racist against whites: 3 centuries of opression, racism, discrimination, and brutality from white people. That will kind of breed hate for a particular race, if you ask me. 😬

Watching through the debate and theres a definate tone developing. That tone is '**** Barrack Obama.'

Originally posted by Nephthys
Watching through the debate and theres a definate tone developing. That tone is '**** Barrack Obama.'

How else are they supposed to win?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Watching through the debate and theres a definate tone developing. That tone is '**** Barrack Obama.'

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In 1980, we elected a cowboy actor who was previously thought to be a crazy, dangerous moron by nearly everyone. We did the same thing with a loser who pretended to be from Texas in 2000. Does that answer your question?

🙁

That's what i get for trying to be optimistic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That may be because black people are more outspoken about it and white people are quietly racist. Again, that's just my anecdotal experience.

White people do seem to be more influentially racist. A study just found that white scientists get better funding than black ones.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know you don't live here in America so you don't get to see it...but racism is still quite prevelant in America. Yes, I'm saying that many black children are raised to be racist against white people. I would say that many more white peole are raised to be racist against black people, however. One reason is quite obvious: 76% of Americans are white and 12.4% are black. So even if you had equal frequency of racism per person (per capita), you'd have WAAAAAY more racist white people in America.

I agree with this.

Anecdotally, my experience has been this: per capita, black people are much more racist against whites than whites against blacks.

That may be because black people are more outspoken about it and white people are quietly racist. Again, that's just my anecdotal experience.

However, there's another glaringly obvious reason that many blacks are racist against whites: 3 centuries of opression, racism, discrimination, and brutality from white people. That will kind of breed hate for a particular race, if you ask me. 😬

Originally posted by lord xyz
The video quotes many things in the article around half way through. They aren't the kind of things you want a presidential candidate to say.

I agree.

I have a question, and be brutally honest: did you find the words in my previous post to also be of the same caliber? (not something you'd want a presidential candidate to say)

You thinking of running Dom?

I don't know if Oklahomans make good presidents...

To be honest, you come up with assertions and stats, so you'd make a brilliant president.

Not that being president is a good thing.

Politicians aren't supposed to use facts; they're supposed to use words and take bribes. People don't want to hear uncomfortable truths; people want to hear what makes them feel better.

Yeah, and what makes them feel better is usually one side of the news story they made up last time.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You thinking of running Dom?

I don't know if Oklahomans make good presidents...

To be honest, you come up with assertions and stats, so you'd make a brilliant president.

Not that being president is a good thing.

I would like to. At least to serve in the House or Senate.

And thanks. 👆

I think the US Presidents during my time could have done a lot better. I wouldn't be weighed down by coke habits, prostitution, closet homosexuality (lol), or idiocy.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Politicians aren't supposed to use facts; they're supposed to use words and take bribes. People don't want to hear uncomfortable truths; people want to hear what makes them feel better.

I disagree. People want an intelligent president that's not going to jerk them around. They also want a president that looks good on the cover of a magazine (Obama). Looks like I need plastic surgery.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. People want an intelligent president that's not going to jerk them around. They also want a president that looks good on the cover of a magazine (Obama). Looks like I need plastic surgery.

People just want a preside who says he agrees with them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. People want an intelligent president that's not going to jerk them around. They also want a president that looks good on the cover of a magazine (Obama). Looks like I need plastic surgery.

studies on voter choice show that the greatest quality in a politician that gets them votes is literally the "have a beer with them" principle.

If you are a smart person who takes politics seriously and has nuanced and well formed opinions on most issues, you want a president who is the same, generally because people feel those who are similar to themselves are the most likable (not that this plays out, just that this is the perception: you might be better friends with people who are unlike you, but if you were just asked point blank if person X or person Y are likable, perceptions of similarity to yourself are generally what are used).

most people don't fall into this category though, and perceive themselves as just regular hardworking people, etc. The primary reason intellectual candidates fail is because most people aren't intelligent. Not that they aren't smart enough to understand the candidate, but that these people's perceptions that the candidate is different from them (intellectual versus regular) makes them feel less amicably toward the candidate.

Again, its not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the policies, and there are ample anecdotal examples of people believing ideologically one way, and voting the other, simply because of the charisma of that candidate made the voter feel they could sit down and have a beer with them.

Originally posted by inimalist
studies on voter choice show that the greatest quality in a politician that gets them votes is literally the "have a beer with them" principle.

If you are a smart person who takes politics seriously and has nuanced and well formed opinions on most issues, you want a president who is the same, generally because people feel those who are similar to themselves are the most likable (not that this plays out, just that this is the perception: you might be better friends with people who are unlike you, but if you were just asked point blank if person X or person Y are likable, perceptions of similarity to yourself are generally what are used).

most people don't fall into this category though, and perceive themselves as just regular hardworking people, etc. The primary reason intellectual candidates fail is because most people aren't intelligent. Not that they aren't smart enough to understand the candidate, but that these people's perceptions that the candidate is different from them (intellectual versus regular) makes them feel less amicably toward the candidate.

Again, its not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the policies, and there are ample anecdotal examples of people believing ideologically one way, and voting the other, simply because of the charisma of that candidate made the voter feel they could sit down and have a beer with them.

I read that it was "looks" played a large roll. If Sarah Palin was very ugly, I am willing to be she wouldn't have even gotten to where she is in politics.

Same with Bachmann and Romney.

Same with Obama.

Obama is an intellectual, though. It's possible that Obama could talk us all in political science circles. He just knows how to play the game of charisma.

You can be an intellectual as well as a charismatic leader at the same time.

So I disagree with the notion that it is as simple as "beer with the guy". That's probably a simple tool to illustrate a point that's not really that simple.

Edit - Bush was elected to his position as governor because he intellectually slaughtered his competition. You should see clips of his old debates: that guy was a flippin' genius with political science and words. I am almost positive that he hammed up the 'idiot' persona for his reign as president.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I read that it was "looks" played a large roll. If Sarah Palin was very ugly, I am willing to be she wouldn't have even gotten to where she is in politics.

Same with Bachmann and Romney.

Same with Obama.

people perceive that they would get along better with people who are more attractive, so that follows entirely from what I was saying in my previous post.

However, it is certainly not as simple as "who looks better, wins". This can be seen anecdotally in almost every election: Palin didn't win it for McCain, Bachmann might have won the Iowa straw poll, but Paul finished second. What is more likely is that there would be a minimum threshold to how attractive a candidate should be. This might be more a rejection of ugly than an attraction to good looks, as less attractive people are often associated with a host of negative qualities (only in people's perceptions) that would impact their electability.

further, it is clearly the case that the "type" of attractiveness matters. I would say there is a visual form of "schematic congruence", where there are visual cues that people look for in candidates based on their perceptions of what a candidate should look like. This is why you get Romney/Obama looking politicians, but not Brad Pitt/Mathew Mcconnahay looking ones, as the former look "clean cut, business like, serious", whereas the latter look like they just got out of bed.

so, looks probably do play some key role, but it is more likely a cutoff where a person is too ugly that voters assume negative things about them with a measure of how congruent their looks are with preconceived notions of what politicians look like.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obama is an intellectual, though. It's possible that Obama could talk us all in political science circles. He just knows how to play the game of charisma.

however, his main campaign message what "Change", not "I am smart". Change being a message that would appeal to Democratic voters and make them identify with him more.

Further, and this is especially true when Obama visited blue collar places like Pennsylvania during the run up to the 08 election, his intellectualism became a liability, as the Republicans blasted him as being an "elitist".

I can't imagine you are actually arguing that "intellectualism" was a major part of the Obama campaign?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can be an intellectual as well as a charismatic leader at the same time.

nothing I have said challenges this notion

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I disagree with the notion that it is as simple as "beer with the guy". That's probably a simple tool to illustrate a point that's not really that simple.

I think you are simplifying what factors go into personal perceptions of likability... also studies disagree with you...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Bush was elected to his position as governor because he intellectually slaughtered his competition. You should see clips of his old debates: that guy was a flippin' genius with political science and words. I am almost positive that he hammed up the 'idiot' persona for his reign as president.

yes, that is precisely my point...

Originally posted by inimalist
people perceive that they would get along better with people who are more attractive, so that follows entirely from what I was saying in my previous post.

However, it is certainly not as simple as "who looks better, wins". This can be seen anecdotally in almost every election: Palin didn't win it for McCain, Bachmann might have won the Iowa straw poll, but Paul finished second. What is more likely is that there would be a minimum threshold to how attractive a candidate should be. This might be more a rejection of ugly than an attraction to good looks, as less attractive people are often associated with a host of negative qualities (only in people's perceptions) that would impact their electability.

further, it is clearly the case that the "type" of attractiveness matters. I would say there is a visual form of "schematic congruence", where there are visual cues that people look for in candidates based on their perceptions of what a candidate should look like. This is why you get Romney/Obama looking politicians, but not Brad Pitt/Mathew Mcconnahay looking ones, as the former look "clean cut, business like, serious", whereas the latter look like they just got out of bed.

so, looks probably do play some key role, but it is more likely a cutoff where a person is too ugly that voters assume negative things about them with a measure of how congruent their looks are with preconceived notions of what politicians look like.

however, his main campaign message what "Change", not "I am smart". Change being a message that would appeal to Democratic voters and make them identify with him more.

Further, and this is especially true when Obama visited blue collar places like Pennsylvania during the run up to the 08 election, his intellectualism became a liability, as the Republicans blasted him as being an "elitist".

I can't imagine you are actually arguing that "intellectualism" was a major part of the Obama campaign?

nothing I have said challenges this notion

I think you are simplifying what factors go into personal perceptions of likability... also studies disagree with you...

yes, that is precisely my point...

I thought the studies showed that looks played a much larger role than how much of an "average" brained person the politician was?

And, Palin is an excellent example. Just because she didn't win it for McCain, doesn't mean what I said was incorrect. In fact, when she came aboard, in the first 3 days, the McCain-Palin ticket was slaughtering the Dems and they were projected to win quite handedly.

If they would have gotten Palin to STFU, I foresee a much different outcome.

Yes, I agree with the minimum threshold point. Except I think it's not a "floor" limit, like you suggest. I think it's a "difference" phenomena. Meaning, if people rate X 3 or more points higher than Y, X is far more likely to be forgiven of mistake type 1 and 2.

Also, I personally thought the "Elitist" smear campaign that the GOP was running against Obama was actually counter-productive to "taking down" Obama. I think it actually helped make Obama look better and made the GOP look worse.

And, no, I'm arguing that appearing intelligent and well-educated is part of the political campaign pie. Too much is bad. Too little is bad. I also think that you can use a lot more of it IF you use it at just the right moments. Like juggling at a party without being drunk before you attempt it. 🙂

if your point is "there are more than a single factor in influencing who someone votes for", nothing I have said does anything but support this

but no, from the journal Political Psychology, typical results show that the ability to identify with the politician on an amicable level, a measure that includes physical looks, identity politics, etc, is more important than just looks alone. The most attractive person will not win over the person who connects more with the voting population, all other things being equal.

Seeming intelligent, for some voters, likely falls more under "schematic congruence". It would be interesting to see something that tested amicability with this congruence, but the measures would be so subjective and correlated that it would be difficult to do. (amicability is probably related on congruence which is itself likely related to amicability)

This might also explain why these factors are more important on a national versus local level. On a national level, policies have less day to day impact on people's lives, thus, congruence and amicability outweigh actual policy, yet, as the policy impacts voters lives more and more, there may be less emphasis on these things, in the mind of a voter.

Originally posted by inimalist
if your point is "there are more than a single factor in influencing who someone votes for", nothing I have said does anything but support this

If you're point is "who you are more likely to sit down and have a beer with", nothing I said contradicts it. I just think that that is an oversimplified tool of comparison because it's not that simple.

Originally posted by inimalist
but no, from the journal Political Psychology, typical results show that the ability to identify with the politician on an amicable level, a measure that includes physical looks, identity politics, etc, is more important than just looks alone. The most attractive person will not win over the person who connects more with the voting population, all other things being equal.

I wasn't talking in "all things being equal" terms, though. Because, let's be honest, it's never equal.

Originally posted by inimalist
Seeming intelligent, for some voters, likely falls more under "schematic congruence". It would be interesting to see something that tested amicability with this congruence, but the measures would be so subjective and correlated that it would be difficult to do. (amicability is probably related on congruence which is itself likely related to amicability)

There's a difference between being a "pompous ass know-it-all" and having sharp wit and "wisdom". Politicians often get stuck in the former when they should be exercising the latter more often.

That's really my point. There's still room for a very good education and intelligence in politics.

For example, Weiner seemed to have one of the best "wits" of modern American politicians. I loved that guy's soliloquy. He would knock it out of the park. 🙁 It's a shame he couldn't keep his last name to himself. 🙁

Originally posted by inimalist
This might also explain why these factors are more important on a national versus local level. On a national level, policies have less day to day impact on people's lives, thus, congruence and amicability outweigh actual policy, yet, as the policy impacts voters lives more and more, there may be less emphasis on these things, in the mind of a voter.

I agree: it handily explains why Bush had some of the best talking points I have seen, in terms of raw political science and know how, in his debates for his initial run on Texas governor.

On a side note, it makes me think that Bush was extremely dishonest with his "image" due to that. He could have been so much more if he used more of his "smart" persona instead of that dumb *ss persona. However, some say that he truly was dumb and it wasn't just a political game he was playing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're point is "who you are more likely to sit down and have a beer with", nothing I said contradicts it. I just think that that is an oversimplified tool of comparison because it's not that simple.

fair enough

I used that as a short hand for a measure of amicability, which is what is consistently found to be most important. That being said, being attractive makes one more amicable, and being amicable improves ratings of attractiveness, so they obviously aren't unrelated.

I've never tried to say it was simple

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wasn't talking in "all things being equal" terms, though. Because, let's be honest, it's never equal.

ok, but in a situation where all things aren't equal, you can't confidently say one thing is more important than the other...

in reality, sure, from case to case different things are going to influence different people. I'm talking about what is found in controlled studies. There is a valid argument that such studies lack the ability to be generalized to the real world, so /shrug. I'm just reporting p-values 😛

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's a difference between being a "pompous ass know-it-all" and having sharp wit and "wisdom". Politicians often get stuck in the former when they should be exercising the latter more often.

yes. the former alienates voters, making them feel less amicable toward the politician. The latter, especially wit, puts people in a good mood, again, amicability is increased by this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's really my point. There's still room for a very good education and intelligence in politics.

For example, Weiner seemed to have one of the best "wits" of modern American politicians. I loved that guy's soliloquy. He would knock it out of the park. 🙁 It's a shame he couldn't keep his last name to himself. 🙁

amicability is actually a very complex thing. Maybe I shouldn't have used "have a beer" as short hand for it, because that seems to be what you are tripping over... Most of the things you are bringing up would be part of how amicable a person is perceived as being (I know I'm messing up tenses... ugh English...). I'd almost suggest you are simplifying how complex getting a beer with someone really is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree: it handily explains why Bush had some of the best talking points I have seen, in terms of raw political science and know how, in his debates for his initial run on Texas governor.

On a side note, it makes me think that Bush was extremely dishonest with his "image" due to that. He could have been so much more if he used more of his "smart" persona instead of that dumb *ss persona. However, some say that he truly was dumb and it wasn't just a political game he was playing.

I'm less convinced of Bush's intelligence than you are (governor Bush was as much of a concoction of political engineering as president Bush), but of course his folksy persona was an embellishment. we agree on that for sure.