US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Warren Dew]

We could deploy some redcoats as a "peace-keeping" force if that would help.....

Just invade and burn down DC for us again, like you did for Madison.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL -- I hope that is an emotional and not a rational comment on your part.

It was neither emotional or rational.

Sometimes I think DC could use a good armed insurrection, with a smattering of militias and military factions duking it out in the streets. And to the victor go the charred ruins spoils.
Just kidding, of course.

We could deploy some redcoats as a "peace-keeping" force if that would help.....

Will you blokes stand all in a nice neat row for us again?

[Clinton Huxley]

LOL -- I hope that is an emotional and not a rational comment on your part.

It was neither emotional or rational.

Sometimes I think DC could use a good armed insurrection, with a smattering of militias and military factions duking it out in the streets. And to the victor go the charred ruins spoils.
Just kidding, of course.

We could deploy some redcoats as a "peace-keeping" force if that would help.....

Will you blokes stand all in a nice neat row for us again?

We will stand neatly and maybe roast some chestnuts while we burn Washington down again. You never should have built the damned placed in that awful swamp anyway.

[Warren Dew]

Oops. Okay, it was a bit rough, but the numbers still aren't too far off (I'd put North Carolina in the "likely" Romney column, not the safe one). Discuss the states and your own electoral math. How do you see it adding up?

I think it's going to be close enough that "not too far off" isn't going to have much predictive power.

I'm not going to list all the states, but starting with the current RCP map, I'd move NC and AZ into the "leans Romney" camp from neutral - though the NC gay marriage vote is not fully indicative, as blacks went 70% against gay marriage but will still go 90% for Obama - and Florida into the "likely Romney" category on the assumption that Rubio is picked for VP. I'd also move NV, MN, WI, MI, and NJ into the "neutral" cateogory from "leans Obama". Finally I'd move OH from toss up to leaning Obama. This gives Obama 215 leaning or likely, Romney 225 leaning or likely, and 116 toss up votes, using the RCP do it yourself map:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html

That puts the race very much up in the air as there are so many toss ups.

If Ron Paul is VP nominee, as now looks very possible, that would change the picture considerably. I'm not sure how, though, as I don't know how Ron Paul's popularity stacks up on a regional basis.

[Warren Dew]

Edit: 100 toss ups, not 116.

[Ian]

I'd also move NV, MN, WI, MI, and NJ into the "neutral" cateogory from "leans Obama". Finally I'd move OH from toss up to leaning Obama.

Can you elaborate on why you came up with these?

Nevada and maybe Wisconsin I can see as battlegrounds rather than leaning Obama, so that's fair. But WI hasn't voted for a Republican in ages, and the locals there have gotten more than a bit active and incensed thanks to their current disaster governor.

I'm not sure how Minnesota is that much of a battleground. It's normally a decent shade blue; Republicans haven't won it in decades, and Obama took it by 10% last time.

New Jersey will be a tough battleground if Christie is the VP. Otherwise, it'll receive a little publicity, and in the end it'll go blue. Like Minnesota, it hasn't voted Republican in decades, and Obama won NJ by 13% last time. Like next-door PA, NJ always seems to give Republicans a false sense of hope late in the campaign that they'll take it, but in the end they're both blue states.

Michigan might go for "Let Detroit fail" Romney? Not a chance in hell, IMO, no matter who his dad was. Obama won MI by 16% in 2008, and it'll be solid blue in 2012.

You might be right about Ohio. I first thought it was going to be a total battleground yet again, but I looked up some numbers and realized its economy, most notably the unemployment rate, has been doing a little better than the national average. Still, Ohio voted for Bush in 2004 in a close race. In 2008 the state went for Obama but the overall race wasn't quite as close (Obama won the national popular vote by over 7%, but won Ohio by only 4%), so the President certainly can't see Ohio as too reliable in 2012.

So here's my current evaluation, with a little more refined math (I shifted several "likely" Obama states to the "leaning" column, among some other shifts):
Likely Obama: CA, WA, IL, MI, MD, DE, NY, CT, VT, MA, RI, HI, PA (197 EVs)
Leaning Obama: OR, CO, NM, MN, WI, NJ, NH, ME (63 EVs) (197 + 63 = 260)
Toss-up: NV, IA, MO, OH, VA (53 EVs)
Leaning Romney: MT, AZ, NC, FL (58 EVs)
Likely Romney: AK, ID, UT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, LA, AR, TN, AL, MS, KY, IN, GA, SC, WV (167 EVs) (167 + 58 = 225)

[Robert_S]

LOL -- I hope that is an emotional and not a rational comment on your part.

It was neither emotional or rational.

Sometimes I think DC could use a good armed insurrection, with a smattering of militias and military factions duking it out in the streets. And to the victor go the charred ruins spoils.
Just kidding, of course.

We could deploy some redcoats as a "peace-keeping" force if that would help.....

Will you blokes stand all in a nice neat row for us again?

We will stand neatly and maybe roast some chestnuts while we burn Washington down again. You never should have built the damned placed in that awful swamp anyway.

What better place than a stinking malaria infested swamp to keep our politicians?

[Ian]

Just thinking out loud for a few minutes here...

I'm sure to take some heat from this, but I'd like the conservatives here to help me understand something. The current political divide in the US is based on a basic left-right axis, at least over the last couple decades. Liberals & conservatives. Who knows what axis might become the dominant one in the coming decades, but for now that's what it is. Knowing that, and looking at the electoral map, is it not obvious that the more educated, more sophisticated, more intelligent populations tend to be found in blue states? Is it not also blindingly obvious that the reddest states in the country are also the most backward? No, that's not a very polite thing to say, but I said it. Both parties will always take what they can get to win, but don't the more intelligent Republicans feel a certain amount of shame that places like Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and Oklahoma (not to mention the rural areas of any state) are the places that are solidly on their side, while places like Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusets and Washington are thoroughly Democratic territory?

And related to that, could anyone explain whether or not most conservatives also realize that educational attainment is strongly linked to party affiliation? In 2008, voters with postgraduate degrees favored Obama by 18%. That's a landslide. Bachelors degree holders were roughly split. People with only a high school degree also went for Obama, but only by 6% - less than the 7% margin he won of the popular vote (and particularly understandable given the economic circumstances at the time; that demographic took the brunt of the layoffs that came with the recession). When ranking the states by percentages of people holding undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, the top 15 and 17 of these states (respectively) all voted Democratic in 2008 (and most are traditionally "blue" states). In sum: smarter, more educated people vote liberal and dumber, more insular people vote conservative. Sure, there are ample exceptions to this rule on both sides, but I'm discussing why this is a basic rule in the first place and why Republicans seem to be OK with having the lion's share of the less-intelligent demographic on their side. Even Karl Rove, a guru of Republican electioneering, has owned up to this reality, saying "As people do better (financially) they're more likely to vote Republican - unless they're highly educated." So, I'd like some answers, as long as they don't evoke some anti-intellectual rhetoric. Thoughtful retorts are welcome.

[Warren Dew]

I'd also move NV, MN, WI, MI, and NJ into the "neutral" cateogory from "leans Obama". Finally I'd move OH from toss up to leaning Obama.

Can you elaborate on why you came up with these?

I switched Michigan and Ohio because I think Romney will still get a bit of a home state advantage in Michigan, as showed up in the primaries. I think a lot of people in Michigan recognize that the government bailouts were the wrong way to go; for example, they know that Ford, which didn't take a bailout, was the only one of the big three which didn't go bankrupt. Michigan isn't just the automobile industry, and in fact, large portions of the Michigan auto industry are actually located in Ohio.

Wisconsin and New Jersey I see as toss ups because of successful Republican governors - Walker did a good job of breaking the public employees unions' stranglehold on the taxpayers, and is pulling off a second budget surplus, and Christie seems to be exceptionally popular. Granted the unions are trying to get their revenge on Walker; whether that works might change my estimate of what happens in the fall, though they've failed to run their preferred candidate in the primary.

Overall I think our differences of opinion come from where we think the baseline is. As best I can tell, you see politics as a team sport and are basing your predictions on the last couple of times the teams matched up against each other in 2004 and 2008. I see presidential elections as having more dependence on the individual candidates, and I'm highly cognizant of the fact that Romney is a yankee, not a southerner like Bush or to some extent McCain; to the extent that I use a baseline, I'm more inclined to use 2010 as the baseline.

[Ian]

All decent points - except, I think, using 2010 as a baseline. The voters that turn out for mid-term elections tend to be much older and more conservative (not to mention much less numerous) than the ones that turn out for Presidential elections. Independents and moderates also turn up less in midterm years.

[Warren Dew]

I don't think 2010 is a great baseline either. I don't think there's any really good baseline for this election.

[Warren Dew]

Just thinking out loud for a few minutes here...

I'm sure to take some heat from this, but I'd like the conservatives here to help me understand something. The current political divide in the US is based on a basic left-right axis, at least over the last couple decades. Liberals & conservatives. Who knows what axis might become the dominant one in the coming decades, but for now that's what it is. Knowing that, and looking at the electoral map, is it not obvious that the more educated, more sophisticated, more intelligent populations tend to be found in blue states? Is it not also blindingly obvious that the reddest states in the country are also the most backward? No, that's not a very polite thing to say, but I said it. Both parties will always take what they can get to win, but don't the more intelligent Republicans feel a certain amount of shame that places like Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and Oklahoma (not to mention the rural areas of any state) are the places that are solidly on their side, while places like Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusets and Washington are thoroughly Democratic territory?

I'm not sure I count as "conservative", but I'll give you my two cents. I think you're making an error in conflating education and intelligence. I'll provide an example from my family: my father, with a doctorate, was the best educated among his siblings, but his older brother, who I believe had a bachelor's degree, was the most intelligent in the family, and my father's immediately younger brother, without any college education, was likely also more intelligent. The other three brothers may not have been as intelligent.

In my own experience at MIT, I've noticed that the average undergraduate is noticeably more intelligent than the average graduate student, so an undergraduate degree from MIT probably indicates higher intelligence than a graduate degree from MIT. That's not surprising: MIT gets 1000 of the best applicants each year for both undergraduate and graduate schools, but of the best undergraduates, some don't go on to graduate school, so a pool of 1000 of the best graduate applicants ends up including many people who wouldn't have been smart enough to be in a pool of 1000 of the best undergraduate applicants.

In general, I think a graduate degree is more likely to reflect an affluent background than intelligence; I would never have considered taking on hundreds of thousands of debt for an advanced degree, but people from rich backgrounds don't bat an eyelash at the idea.

But there's another point that's even more important: even being more intelligent than other people does not make one a better person than other people. And that brings up a conversation I once had with someone who worked in the MIT alumni association, the group whose job it is to get donations from alum. After her discussion with me, she said, "It's so refreshing to talk to an alum who doesn't think that being from MIT makes one so much smarter than everyone else." And I said, "Actually, MIT graduates are smarter than most people. It's just that being smarter than other people doesn't mean one is a better person than other people."

The Democrats have more of the highly educated people, as you say, and that means they have more of the people who mistakenly think that being better educated makes them better than other people. To me, that's a point against the Democrats, not a point in their favor.

And related to that, could anyone explain whether or not most conservatives also realize that educational attainment is strongly linked to party affiliation? In 2008, voters with postgraduate degrees favored Obama by 18%. That's a landslide. Bachelors degree holders were roughly split. People with only a high school degree also went for Obama, but only by 6% - less than the 7% margin he won of the popular vote (and particularly understandable given the economic circumstances at the time; that demographic took the brunt of the layoffs that came with the recession). When ranking the states by percentages of people holding undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, the top 15 and 17 of these states (respectively) all voted Democratic in 2008 (and most are traditionally "blue" states). In sum: smarter, more educated people vote liberal and dumber, more insular people vote conservative. Sure, there are ample exceptions to this rule on both sides, but I'm discussing why this is a basic rule in the first place and why Republicans seem to be OK with having the lion's share of the less-intelligent demographic on their side. Even Karl Rove, a guru of Republican electioneering, has owned up to this reality, saying "As people do better (financially) they're more likely to vote Republican - unless they're highly educated." So, I'd like some answers, as long as they don't evoke some anti-intellectual rhetoric. Thoughtful retorts are welcome.

I think based on my above discussion you may be able to see why conservatives don't really care about educational attainment as a measure of the value of a group. Whether a person is a good person doesn't depend on their educational attainment; it depends on things like whether they are willing to take personal responsibility for their lives and have a good work ethic. And from that perspective, it's the Democrats that are suspect: the Democrats are the party that court the vote of poorly educated people who choose to live on welfare at the taxpayer's expense, rather than working hard and doing the best they can with what they have.

[Warren Dew]

Here's a good video on how conservatives see the Republican party, by the way.

[Ian]

I don't think better educated means you're a better person, or necessarily any more intelligent for that matter. The notion that some people are better people than others is not at all what I was getting at (while we're on personal anecdotes, I was the first person in my extended family to graduate from college, nevermind get a graduate degree. It doesn't mean I think I'm better than all of them).

But how informed one is, and how developed one's critical thinking skills are (these are things directly related to education. It's also too much of a stretch to think education and intelligence have little to do with each other; if you stay in school longer, you don't get dumber) are ultimately reflected in how one come to view government and how one votes.

And I think your last paragraph is not at all realistic - it's pure strawman.

[Warren Dew]

I don't think better educated means you're a better person, or necessarily any more intelligent for that matter. The notion that some people are better people than others is not at all what I was getting at (while we're on personal anecdotes, I was the first person in my extended family to graduate from college, nevermind get a graduate degree. It doesn't mean I think I'm better than all of them).

I'm not saying it applies to you personally; for that matter, I don't think you align all that well with the "left". It is, however, the way a lot of the Democrats I know think.

But how informed one is, and how developed one's critical thinking skills are (these are things directly related to education. It's also too much of a stretch to think education and intelligence have little to do with each other; if you stay in school longer, you don't get dumber) are ultimately reflected in how one come to view government and how one votes.

College education and, especially, postgraduate education is highly specialized: you'll learn something about your major, but that doesn't mean you'll be better informed in general.

For example, Coito seems pretty well educated, but he's still often rather naive about how the political system works. You and I have had years of exposure living in the DC area to how the political "sausage factory" works, but that's something anyone living in DC and reading the papers there could learn if they took an interest, whever the level of formal education. Most people, including college graduates and PhDs, learned most of what they know about government in high school American History classes or before.

I actually did take some courses on foreign affairs in college, but that was only because they were required for ROTC, and I may have learned more from living overseas for a few years growing up anyway. Most college students graduate without learning anything about that subject in college. Similarly for economics: this is an area where Coito seems to have a solid grounding, but the vast majority of college graduates learn nothing about economics, and postgraduate work even directly in economics may focus excessively on narrow subfields.

And I think your last paragraph is not at all realistic - it's pure strawman.

Hey, you asked the question about how conservatives view the parties. I'm just answering your question. If you don't like the answer, feel free to ignore it.