2012 Republican Presidential Debate

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

Yeah you can especially if the other areas meet "minimum thresholds of populace acceptance". Meaning, if your charisma and articulation meet a minimum level of acceptance by 50% of the population, you really can milk the physical and intellectual aspects of your "product" to the people during an election.

Side discussion: Why in the world is Romney having so much trouble? He's an very handsome man (for his age). He should have knocked the 2008 GOP primary out of the park.

Please enlighten me how we ended up with an deformed grouchy old man as the GOP candidate in '08 because I don't quite understand it. (I thin that McCain-Palin lost the election rather than Obama winning it...if that makes sense.)

Originally posted by inimalist
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 😛

Well, I know I can't really submit these...but

In shows like America's Got Talent and American Idol, the "good looking" contestants do much better than the ugly ones, even to the point of choosing worse singers or talents.

There is very little exception to that. Ruben, from season 2, is a big exception by the producers made sure Ruben had "style" to make up for being fat (they manipulated his image, greatly, to be that of a stylish black dude. It didn't hurt that he was also well-spoken). Ruben also had an amazing voice. So much so that looks alone would not help a person bridge the gap.

What does that mean? Yes, there is a threshold, like you said, in some circumstances, when trying to win the popular vote.

Also, how dare you bring up p-values. HOW DARE YOU! 😆

Originally posted by inimalist
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...

What tipped you off? The comments about it being an oversimplified tool or my whining? 😄

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

lol

I would say having a beer with someone is a very simple thing. Keep in mind, you can have a beer with a perfect stranger and not know them even a little. The beer itself can be what brings the two together.

And I'm a bastard for even going there. 313

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah you can especially if the other areas meet "minimum thresholds of populace acceptance". Meaning, if your charisma and articulation meet a minimum level of acceptance by 50% of the population, you really can milk the physical and intellectual aspects of your "product" to the people during an election.

let me rephrase, in a scientific study that looks to identify independent values for the contribution of certain issues in voter choice, you have to control for those issues.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Side discussion: Why in the world is Romney having so much trouble? He's an very handsome man (for his age). He should have knocked the 2008 GOP primary out of the park.

he's the corporate candidate, and that is a liability with a large portion of the republican base atm. he is also a mormon, but I'd say that is less important.

Perry just might be able to both appeal to corporate donors and the tea party, if he can walk that line just right. I am not happy about this. I don't know enough about Bachman to have an opinion actually, though from what little I have absorbed, I don't think the corporate funding infrastructure is as favorable to her as they are Perry/Romney.

Remember, the election is soooooooooooooo far away, and the polls/etc now are essentially meaningless. I'd be very surprised if Romney didn't get the nod in the end, because at the end of the day, he is more of the same, and the Republican brass itself is now struggling against the tea party for control (meaning, I think Bachman is unelectable to the party leaders, and Perry too much of a chance).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please enlighten me how we ended up with an deformed grouchy old man as the GOP candidate in '08 because I don't quite understand it. (I thin that McCain-Palin lost the election rather than Obama winning it...if that makes sense.)

Bush broke the republican party in a way that only is now being reconciled by the tea party. The field was so weak that someone had to come out of it. Various other front-runners (Guliani, etc) self destructed along the way, and he sort of emerged. He also painted himself as the "il duche" candidate, which appeals to simplified images of "us vs them", "good vs evil", a dichotomous worldview that is highly salient to people (simplifies world events, empowers the individual because they think they are on the side of good).

if you want a psychological analysis, I'd say the Bush years had created a good deal of dissonance in the republican base, and the assuredness of a politician who put the world in simple, black and white terms, eased their insecurities. McCain won by being the guy who threatened the most foreign nations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I know I can't really submit these...but

In shows like America's Got Talent and American Idol, the "good looking" contestants do much better than the ugly ones, even to the point of choosing worse singers or talents.

There is very little exception to that. Ruben, from season 2, is a big exception by the producers made sure Ruben had "style" to make up for being fat (they manipulated his image, greatly, to be that of a stylish black dude. It didn't hurt that he was also well-spoken). Ruben also had an amazing voice. So much so that looks alone would not help a person bridge the gap.

What does that mean? Yes, there is a threshold, like you said, in some circumstances, when trying to win the popular vote.

well, sure, but I think you are actually describing a purer process of what I was talking about. In an election about entirely superficial things, there would be no balance against "amicability". In the case of these contestants, amicability is, as you said, created through the shows producers, and based on the most superficial things, looks, attitude, etc. However, it isn't that talent never wins, as the ugly-old woman in the UK showed, but then again, issues of her being the underdog and such probably were more important than just her singing talent.

political elections are only not like American idol in that, there is some impact the results will have on everyday life, so there would be some salience to things aside from amicability... or, rather, amicability would be determined by things that are not all just superficial.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol

I would say having a beer with someone is a very simple thing. Keep in mind, you can have a beer with a perfect stranger and not know them even a little. The beer itself can be what brings the two together.

ah, actually, it is that you are being too literal 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
let me rephrase, in a scientific study that looks to identify independent values for the contribution of certain issues in voter choice, you have to control for those issues.

It doesn't really work out smoothly in the real world. For instance, the "Veteran" factor really gets liberal and conservatives, alike, to go for a candidate. Resume material.

Originally posted by inimalist
he's the corporate candidate, and that is a liability with a large portion of the republican base atm. he is also a mormon, but I'd say that is less important.

Perry just might be able to both appeal to corporate donors and the tea party, if he can walk that line just right. I am not happy about this. I don't know enough about Bachman to have an opinion actually, though from what little I have absorbed, I don't think the corporate funding infrastructure is as favorable to her as they are Perry/Romney.

Remember, the election is soooooooooooooo far away, and the polls/etc now are essentially meaningless. I'd be very surprised if Romney didn't get the nod in the end, because at the end of the day, he is more of the same, and the Republican brass itself is now struggling against the tea party for control (meaning, I think Bachman is unelectable to the party leaders, and Perry too much of a chance).

I just thought it was odd that McCain got it over Romney in '08. Romney was better spoken and came of more prepared. McCain came off as whiny and grumpy at times. What this means is I still don't completely understand how the American people vote, yet.

I just saw Romney as the best chance against Obama and the GOP screwed their chances of possibly getting another GOP candidate in office.

Also, Bachmann is just a new Palin: she's every bit as stupid. She's more articulate, but she's full of annoying gaffes.

Perry just seems like the dark horse. He could be the ****er that ruins everything for the GOP.

What I want to see is something other than GOP or Dem. 😄

Originally posted by inimalist
Bush broke the republican party in a way that only is now being reconciled by the tea party. The field was so weak that someone had to come out of it. Various other front-runners (Guliani, etc) self destructed along the way, and he sort of emerged. He also painted himself as the "il duche" candidate, which appeals to simplified images of "us vs them", "good vs evil", a dichotomous worldview that is highly salient to people (simplifies world events, empowers the individual because they think they are on the side of good).

I also think Bush did well enough in his debates to get enough support from the moderates to win in both 00 and 04. Bush did well in most of his debates. Well enough to not fail horribly.

Originally posted by inimalist
if you want a psychological analysis, I'd say the Bush years had created a good deal of dissonance in the republican base, and the assuredness of a politician who put the world in simple, black and white terms, eased their insecurities. McCain won by being the guy who threatened the most foreign nations.

I think McCain won because he could argue well enough with the rest of them, had/has a stellar resume, and represented enough of "not Bush" that the GOP saw him as a strong candidate to win against the power-house from the Dems.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, sure, but I think you are actually describing a purer process of what I was talking about. In an election about entirely superficial things, there would be no balance against "amicability". In the case of these contestants, amicability is, as you said, created through the shows producers, and based on the most superficial things, looks, attitude, etc. However, it isn't that talent never wins, as the ugly-old woman in the UK showed, but then again, issues of her being the underdog and such probably were more important than just her singing talent.

I see shows like AGT and Amer. Idol as a more raw representation of how presidential elections work, for sure. I know they are not perfectly congruent but they do offer enough parallels to create at least a decent intellectual comparison.

With those shows, I see exactly what you call "amicability" as being the primary factor. Bitchy attitudes don't make it very far in the shows, as well. In fact, that quickly alienates the "voters". They also have to be the type of person you would want to sit down and have a beer with. 😆

But, yes, it's the whole package on those shows, very similar to campaigns. More so on the talent portion, though. A parallel to the "talent" would be how well spoken under pressure a politician can be. Or how well politically educated (contemporary and historical knowledge) a candidate is.

But, less so in the talent department than in those shows.

I feel like I've gotten off track.

Originally posted by inimalist
political elections are only not like American idol in that, there is some impact the results will have on everyday life, so there would be some salience to things aside from amicability... or, rather, amicability would be determined by things that are not all just superficial.

Honestly, I think the Americans care more about those shows than the politicians. The numbers don't lie. I think it has a lot to do with apathy and "more of the same."

Here's a less than scientific article about that.

http://jroycroft.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/american-idol-is-more-important-than-americas-future/

Originally posted by inimalist
ah, actually, it is that you are being too literal 🙂

I disagree: I think the "beer" thing is too simple. I think having a beer with someone is very complex and it can be many different things to many different people. Amicability is just one of those things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It doesn't really work out smoothly in the real world. For instance, the "Veteran" factor really gets liberal and conservatives, alike, to go for a candidate. Resume material.

maybe in your country 🙂 amicability is a socially constructed thing that would change from nation to nation. Being a war vet is largely unimportant in Canadian politics. I think Romeo Dallaire is the only one in recent memory to ride that ticket to office.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just thought it was odd that McCain got it over Romney in '08. Romney was better spoken and came of more prepared. McCain came off as whiny and grumpy at times. What this means is I still don't completely understand how the American people vote, yet.

uncertainty = dissonance

"we are the good guys" = not as much dissonance

"we are the good guys who are going to get those bad guys" = win

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just saw Romney as the best chance against Obama and the GOP screwed their chances of possibly getting another GOP candidate in office.

that may be true, his message just wasn't the exact tone the electorate wanted to hear. It is the same now, in terms of actual ability to challenge the president, Romney might be best (he has funds, some moderate policies, isn't crazy about his religion), but because he doesn't pander directly to the extremist crowd in the Republicans, he might not get the vote. McCain sung songs about bombing Iran, that was what the American people wanted in 08. Perry prays to end economic woes, if that is what the electorate wants, Romney will miss out again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What I want to see is something other than GOP or Dem. 😄

the tea party is the closest thing to that at the moment, but they wouldn't be much without the corporate funding that comes to the Republicans (both parties, I'm not singling out here, just that the tea party already doesn't have access to democratic money), and their existence is too important for the Republicans to just let them drift.

Progressive leftists might have a chance, minus the funding issue mentioned above, but most of them are too afraid of a Republican president to do anything but support the two party system.

I think a progressive left movement would be able to get more votes than the tea party, if you had a 4 party system, but neither would challenge the entrenched party establishments. The difficulty of something like Canada's Green party, a party whose policies are supported by many Canadians, in a place where politics are more open to small parties versus the American system, shows that the chances of some type of "third option" is almost doomed from the start...

I'd like it to be different, but your system is teh ****ed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I also think Bush did well enough in his debates to get enough support from the moderates to win in both 00 and 04. Bush did well in most of his debates. Well enough to not fail horribly.

against the hugely entertaining and compelling Al Gore and John Kerr..zzzzz... god, I can't even stay awake typing their names....

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think McCain won because he could argue well enough with the rest of them, had/has a stellar resume, and represented enough of "not Bush" that the GOP saw him as a strong candidate to win against the power-house from the Dems.

sure, but he also emerged from a field with little other competition, and Romney, for as good as he looks in this election, does not have some of those things that you and I both mentioned, that in the context of 2008, would have been more appealing about McCain

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see shows like AGT and Amer. Idol as a more raw representation of how presidential elections work, for sure. I know they are not perfectly congruent but they do offer enough parallels to create at least a decent intellectual comparison.

With those shows, I see exactly what you call "amicability" as being the primary factor. Bitchy attitudes don't make it very far in the shows, as well. In fact, that quickly alienates the "voters". They also have to be the type of person you would want to sit down and have a beer with. 😆

But, yes, it's the whole package on those shows, very similar to campaigns. More so on the talent portion, though. A parallel to the "talent" would be how well spoken under pressure a politician can be. Or how well politically educated (contemporary and historical knowledge) a candidate is.

But, less so in the talent department than in those shows.

I feel like I've gotten off track.

Honestly, I think the Americans care more about those shows than the politicians. The numbers don't lie. I think it has a lot to do with apathy and "more of the same."

Here's a less than scientific article about that.

http://jroycroft.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/american-idol-is-more-important-than-americas-future/

it would depend on what you mean by "care about". because there are no real implications from the outcome of a call in reality show, people can do it off the cuff, or even as a form of entertainment. Voting in a political election takes more motivation than that, however, I'd imagine people place far more importance, in terms of like "rate the importance of the outcome of this election", on presidential or political elections than on TV shows.

like, I don't personally participate in either, but would say the political one is far more important than the TV one, but that I would probably have more fun with the TV one (if I cared).

Originally posted by inimalist
it would depend on what you mean by "care about". because there are no real implications from the outcome of a call in reality show, people can do it off the cuff, or even as a form of entertainment. Voting in a political election takes more motivation than that, however, I'd imagine people place far more importance, in terms of like "rate the importance of the outcome of this election", on presidential or political elections than on TV shows.

like, I don't personally participate in either, but would say the political one is far more important than the TV one, but that I would probably have more fun with the TV one (if I cared).

From what I hear from those around me, they vote in shit like Amer. Idol because:

1. It is more important/matters to them.

2. It is not boring and you can see the results quickly

3. No matter who you vote for in politics, it's just more of the same.

This is why "intelligent" Americans participate in silly popularity contest shows instead of politics. It's also why America has "voting apathy" disease.

Also, every election, you see those "prank" clips where you present one party's policies under the opposite party's nominee (for instance, they presented McCain's campaign talking points under Obama's name) to see if people rolled with it. Surprisingly, most people did not know the difference and just blindly agreed with the talking points. It shows how "educated" most Americans really are when it comes to politics. This is why I want to remove voting ability from everyone except those who actually know what each candidate has to offer (a proficiency test). I've been called a fascist for it...but I hate American ignorance that much.

Originally posted by inimalist
Perry prays to end economic woes

Originally posted by dadudemon
From what I hear from those around me, they vote in shit like Amer. Idol because:

1. It is more important/matters to them.

2. It is not boring and you can see the results quickly

3. No matter who you vote for in politics, it's just more of the same.

This is why "intelligent" Americans participate in silly popularity contest shows instead of politics. It's also why America has "voting apathy" disease.

Also, every election, you see those "prank" clips where you present one party's policies under the opposite party's nominee (for instance, they presented McCain's campaign talking points under Obama's name) to see if people rolled with it. Surprisingly, most people did not know the difference and just blindly agreed with the talking points. It shows how "educated" most Americans really are when it comes to politics. This is why I want to remove voting ability from everyone except those who actually know what each candidate has to offer (a proficiency test). I've been called a fascist for it...but I hate American ignorance that much.

the psychologist in me makes me exceptionally skeptical of the reasons people give for their own actions... I can't imagine a scenario where people are more inclined to vote for AmIdol than in a presidential election that doesn't include some measure of how impactful their vote will be. You vote in AmIdol because it is a simple, fun thing to do, and because there is no cost associated with a "wrong" vote, whereas there is some pressure in a political election because the outcome is meaningful.

Though, I don't actually disagree with the reasons you gave, or with the fact people are dumb about elections.

I've thought about some type of voter qualification before, but in the end, it seems to me to be the exact same thing as giving a single party or person or department, etc, the power to decide the borders of voter ridings. So like, there are countless examples of places where these lines have been drawn and redrawn so that certain electoral bases are maximized or minimized, ie: put all democrats in a single riding, therefore they can't vote in other ridings, and Republicans will win, or vice versa. Sure, in theory, there might be a way to determine if people are politically aware, but the reality will be, whoever you give the power to in terms of creating or administering that test, is given far more power than anyone in a free society should be. I'd much rather have an uninformed electorate than one which is filtered through something which couldn't not be created with bias. its an exploitation waiting to happen, imho.

Originally posted by inimalist
I've thought about some type of voter qualification before, but in the end, it seems to me to be the exact same thing as giving a single party or person or department, etc, the power to decide the borders of voter ridings. So like, there are countless examples of places where these lines have been drawn and redrawn so that certain electoral bases are maximized or minimized, ie: put all democrats in a single riding, therefore they can't vote in other ridings, and Republicans will win, or vice versa. Sure, in theory, there might be a way to determine if people are politically aware, but the reality will be, whoever you give the power to in terms of creating or administering that test, is given far more power than anyone in a free society should be. I'd much rather have an uninformed electorate than one which is filtered through something which couldn't not be created with bias. its an exploitation waiting to happen, imho.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

"What is Obama's view on reducing the national debt."

And you have four options: one is the answer that came directly from Obama's campaign, one is one that came directly from the GOP candidate's campaign and the other two are red herrings.

That's what I mean by proficiency. That means that the voter will actually have to know a basic level of who they are voting for.

You could set the minimum score requirement really low at like 60% and that would still weed out lots and lots of voters...or at least force people to not be able to straight ticket vote of blindly vote based on a party.

What does that mean? Each party will submit their answers to the "big" questions for the tests and that eliminates the "corruption" reason you gave: it comes straight from the horses mouth.

You could say that the "big questions" will favor one candidate over the other but that's for the parties to argue out and submit.

that doesn't really reduce the power given to the test makers and administrators though

like, i mark MC stuff all the time. if i wanted a student to fail, they would fail, and it would be of trivial difficulty

Originally posted by inimalist
that doesn't really reduce the power given to the test makers and administrators though

Since they don't come up with the answers, I don't see why not. The parties submit their own answers. The parties also argue over what questions would be asked.

Proctors would only be able to make sure people don't cheat and ensure that the test is securely administered. That's it. They literally would not have any power over the content of the test.

Originally posted by inimalist
like, i mark MC stuff all the time. if i wanted a student to fail, they would fail, and it would be of trivial difficulty

With a computer based multiple choice, you can't mark something wrong that is right.

Unless you're suggesting a massive corruption scandal from the test administration. In which case, you're thinking way too far ahead: the program hasn't even been instituted yet...so how can it be corrupt. 😆

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since they don't come up with the answers, I don't see why not. The parties submit their own answers. The parties also argue over what questions would be asked.

Proctors would only be able to make sure people don't cheat and ensure that the test is securely administered. That's it. They literally would not have any power over the content of the test.

i still dont see it, its the exact same issue as riding borders to me

Originally posted by dadudemon
With a computer based multiple choice, you can't mark something wrong that is right.

Unless you're suggesting a massive corruption scandal from the test administration. In which case, you're thinking way too far ahead: the program hasn't even been instituted yet...so how can it be corrupt. 😆

1 - pencils have erasers

2 - dummy sheets with the wrong answers

3 - if you are the one running the machine, you can tell it what is right

Originally posted by inimalist
1 - pencils have erasers

2 - dummy sheets with the wrong answers

3 - if you are the one running the machine, you can tell it what is right

So why are they using pencils when it is a touch interface kiosk?

the same type that have already been implicated in massive voter fraud all around the US in the past few elections?

Originally posted by inimalist
the same type that have already been implicated in massive voter fraud all around the US in the past few elections?

The potential is there, for sure.

But the motivation is much more difficult.

How can you commit fraud?

It would have to be per person. And you'd have to know for which person the voter would be voting for.

Not as easy as changing a vote count and certainly not very helpful to manipulate results when millions of voters change party lines each presidential election.

The motivation for corruption is still in the votes itself: not the voting proficiency test. The proficiency test would be corrupt only in that it would require people to know which candidate it supporting what.

Additionally, you could eliminate the corruption by allowing a person to get a copy of their test and answers. They failed when they didnt'? AHA! Corruption! Rape bitches NOW!

typically these things go by district. Faulty machines would be put in districts that you know will go to the other person, or worse, by racial demographic.

this isn't theoretical either, it has already happened with electronic voting machines

Originally posted by inimalist
typically these things go by district. Faulty machines would be put in districts that you know will go to the other person, or worse, by racial demographic.

So how are they supposed to get away with it when the person can get a copy of their test and then prove that it cheated them?

With voting...you can't do that really. I mean you could...but how could you remain anonymous?

You'd think that each party would be overly zealous to catch the other in cheating...like they do now.

Remember the ACORN thing with Obama?

how do the banks get away with excessive fraud?

edit: what im saying isn't that the idea is bad, but that people are demonstrably so corrupt that there is no way it would work out to be beneficial for the people. it would simply become another tool of control used by the powerful to ensure there is no challenge to their power

Originally posted by inimalist
how do the banks get away with excessive fraud?

edit: what im saying isn't that the idea is bad, but that people are demonstrably so corrupt that there is no way it would work out to be beneficial for the people. it would simply become another tool of control used by the powerful to ensure there is no challenge to their power

So if you're only argument against it is "the potential fraud" then you should be all over it because it is an improvement over the current system.

Both versions will have fraud in your perspective. It can't be rampant because it would be caught too easily.

how does adding an additional lever of manipulating democracy make the system better?

Why must every thread in the GDF turn into in and ddm playing teacher/student?