Vetting the GOP VP Nominee Online, in Realtime - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ottopilot · 09-19-2008, 10:30 AM

Odd dynamics... what is the subtext of this recent comment from Bill Clinton?

Quote:

Bill Clinton: ‘Mistake to Underestimate’ Palin
by FOXNews.com
Thursday, September 18, 2008

Bill Clinton said in an interview Thursday that “it would be a mistake to underestimate” Sarah Palin, adding that he’s not surprised by the bounce John McCain saw in the polls after naming the Alaska governor as his running mate.

“She is an instinctively effective candidate with a compelling story,” Clinton told CNBC. “And I think it was exciting to some that she was a woman, that she is from Alaska.”

He said Palin grew up in a culture that is probably “well to the right” of most Americans, but that she didn’t “define herself in those terms.”

Clinton said she “handled herself well,” but reiterated his support for the Democratic ticket.

“I think that you know, I disagree with them on many issues and that’s why aside from my party affiliation I would be for (Barack) Obama and (Joe) Biden anyway,” he said. “But I get why she has done so well. It would be a mistake to underestimate her. She has got — her intuitive skills are significant.”

Why would Bill Clinton bother to say such a thing? Although he states his support for his party's candidates, what good does it serve to make such a comment? Bill is a very savy politician, is he sending a message to the Obama campaign?

roachboy · 09-19-2008, 10:39 AM

i don't think there is necessarily a subtext to that, otto. i think it's basically correct--it makes no sense to underestimate either palin, or the conservatives--and especially not the political machinery that the right has built. it's just a stupid way to play a game--underestimating your opponent is a sure way to loose.

thing is that i am not sure who the message is really directed at---i don't see any evidence from obama or biden--going by what they say that i've read--that indicates any such underestimation. i do think that the campaign has allowed itself to get sucked into the republican strategic terrain, or at least they had been allowing themselves to get pulled into it until this week.

i think it's clearly true that alot of folk who write blogs underestimate palin, underestimate the right...but they just write blogs.

at the moment, though, in this campaign universe, things seem in flux, as they are everywhere else (even amongst the red sox, from what i understand)....i see mc-cain trying to "get in front" of the financial catastrophe at the expense of being able to be even a little consistent, and obama being a bit more circumspect---but when i watch the nitwits on television who run these idiot "political" shows, they seem to think that being circumspect (waiting to talk much until it becomes a bit clear what's happening, so that what you say can be coherent) is a Problem. so who knows?

ratbastid · 09-19-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i don't think there is necessarily a subtext to that, otto. i think it's basically correct--it makes no sense to underestimate either palin, or the conservatives--and especially not the political machinery that the right has built. it's just a stupid way to play a game--underestimating your opponent is a sure way to loose.

Isn't it interesting, though, that we've learned to listen for what's behind what Bill says?

ottopilot · 09-19-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

thing is that i am not sure who the message is really directed at---i don't see any evidence from obama or biden--going by what they say that i've read--that indicates any such underestimation. i do think that the campaign has allowed itself to get sucked into the republican strategic terrain, or at least they had been allowing themselves to get pulled into it until this week.

The timing of Clinton's comments is interesting... perhaps a nudge in a positive way? Like you say, who really knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Isn't it interesting, though, that we've learned to listen for what's behind what Bill says?

Indeed

jorgelito · 09-19-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i don't think there is necessarily a subtext to that, otto. i think it's basically correct--it makes no sense to underestimate either palin, or the conservatives--and especially not the political machinery that the right has built. it's just a stupid way to play a game--underestimating your opponent is a sure way to loose.

thing is that i am not sure who the message is really directed at---i don't see any evidence from obama or biden--going by what they say that i've read--that indicates any such underestimation. i do think that the campaign has allowed itself to get sucked into the republican strategic terrain, or at least they had been allowing themselves to get pulled into it until this week.

i think it's clearly true that alot of folk who write blogs underestimate palin, underestimate the right...but they just write blogs.

at the moment, though, in this campaign universe, things seem in flux, as they are everywhere else (even amongst the red sox, from what i understand)....i see mc-cain trying to "get in front" of the financial catastrophe at the expense of being able to be even a little consistent, and obama being a bit more circumspect---but when i watch the nitwits on television who run these idiot "political" shows, they seem to think that being circumspect (waiting to talk much until it becomes a bit clear what's happening, so that what you say can be coherent) is a Problem. so who knows?

I agree. I feel like the Dems and their supporters have vastly understimated Mccain/Palin and continue to do so at their peril. It would be wise for the Obama campaign to stay on point and focus on garnering support instead of looking for ways to bash McCain/Palin. Playung their game is not a good idea. Stick to the plan.

Paq · 09-19-2008, 12:01 PM

woohoo, just got tix to an obama speech in charlotte on sunday afternoon, should be interesting.

i know it's ot, but i'll see how it works out

aceventura3 · 09-19-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Depends on how you define smart. Gore scored a 1355 on his SAT's and his IQ is reported to be in the 130-135 range.

And for the record I don't think Bush Jr. is dumb he scored a 1206 on his SAT's. I don't know what his IQ is but given his SAT score I'd say it's not the 91 that been rumored on the Net.

So I don't think he's "dumb." But I also don't think he's honest.

I think psuedo-intellectuals design I.Q. tests and tests like the SAT's. They create themselves. Real intelligence, i.e.-problem solving, comes in many forms not measured in tests requiring a number two pencil.

roachboy · 09-19-2008, 01:15 PM

you know, this populist thing is getting out of hand in conservativeland.
all this "anti-intellectual" horseshit amounts to is a new bizarre form of officially sanctioned and directed bigotry from the right---now it's some amorphous "intellectual elite that fills the function of Persecuting Alien against which the Wholesome Right, now new and improved with a Monopoly on Practical Understanding, can construct itself. and so it follows that critical thinking is a characteristic of the Enemy and Competence a Problem--unless it is expressed in the form of whatever the conservative parameters of the moment say it should be.

what's hilarious is that the folk pulling the strings behind the conservative media apparatus, the folk organizing this turn to poujadiste-style petit bourgeois resentment as political mode of living, probably graduated from the same schools as the Evil Others did. and many of the Captains of Industry at whose feet the right grovels so long as they are republicans might well have gone to these same schools as well. legacies, dontcha know, that constant bulkward against intellectual consistency in these Bad Bad Schools.

but hey, no matter, what fun is thinking about that stuff when there's all the thrills and chills of good old Grouphate to be had...

but you'd think that after 8 years of trafficking in this idiot demonization as a way of generating a sense of belonging for the reactionary set that the mechanism would be threadbare and its functions transparent.

amazing.

Paq · 09-19-2008, 01:15 PM

as much as i detest standardized testing, they are a huge indicator of college retention rates. Enough so that i wouldn't downplay their results.

and yes, they are often biased, etc, but not in any way against gwb. Problem solving also isn't really a great indicator of 'real' intelligence as much as creativity and resources. Also, i can't really think of too many problems bush seemed to 'understand' much less, 'solve'

ottopilot · 09-19-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you know, this populist thing is getting out of hand in conservativeland.
all this "anti-intellectual" horseshit amounts to is a new bizarre form of officially sanctioned and directed bigotry from the right---now it's some amorphous "intellectual elite that fills the function of Persecuting Alien against which the Wholesome Right, now new and improved with a Monopoly on Practical Understanding, can construct itself. and so it follows that critical thinking is a characteristic of the Enemy and Competence a Problem--unless it is expressed in the form of whatever the conservative parameters of the moment say it should be.

I don't accept that reasonable individuals really believe all intellectuals are bad, and that only average joe's are good... that would be ridiculous (and sounds a bit Khmer Rouge). But blanket statements arguing accademic peidgree, grooming, and being "connected" as a basis of qualification is just elitist. Yes... in the beginning of someone's career, the school they attended, grades earned, awards awarded, etc. are excellent indicators of potential. Once someone is experienced and have applied what they have learned in their field, we have their actual performance as indicators of proven ability. Gifted, well educated, articulate individuals have shown a great ability to succeed and fail miserably.

Einsteins from all political stripes are continuously f**king things up on a daily basis. So what is an intellectual in this context of proven incompetencies? And what good are they really? And what value should we place on the opninons of those so quick to issue a blanket intellectual seal of approval? Are the earthy folk not capable of intellectual excellence and critical thinking without attending all the right schools? It's irresponsible to discriminate because someone is an ivy-leager or an accomplished state-college grad... conservatives and liberals attend both.

Perhaps we're witness to a growing populist revolt... except it's coming from the right instead of the left. It may not be justified, but the perception of old-school elitist failure is being promoted with great popularity. Is there a thread of truth to that perception? If so, is it an orchestrated over-reaction or justified?

dc_dux · 09-19-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Perhaps we're witness to a growing populist revolt... except it's coming from the right instead of the left. It may not be justified, but the perception of old-school elitist failure is being promoted with great popularity. Is there a thread of truth to that perception? If so, is it an orchestrated over-reaction or justified?

otto......what popularity? where is "the perception of old-school elitist failure" being promoted other than by the conservative talking heads?

Unless you consider Limbaugh "ditto heads" (and other followers of similar [partisan infotainers) a growing populist revolt.

ottopilot · 09-19-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

otto......what popularity? where is "the perception of old-school elitist failure" being promoted other than by the conservative talking heads?

Unless you consider Limbaugh "ditto heads" a growing populist revolt.

No ditto-heads. Maybe it's a regional perspective... or perhaps it's just blissfully beneath the radar of those in denial or simply not paying attention?

dc_dux · 09-19-2008, 05:34 PM

Wake me when its over!

Or at least point me to something that would support the conclusion that the perception is widespread and goes beyond the Republican base.

ottopilot · 09-19-2008, 05:40 PM

You bet!

guyy · 09-20-2008, 05:11 AM

The Palin selection has its benefits and its costs, which should be known:

One thought pushes fence-sitters to the left: Palin - St. Petersburg Times

There is no populist revolt of any sort in the US. We have a top-down political structure run by and for elites like McCain, Thain, & Bush ostentatiously gesturing populist. This gesticulation takes place in a public media run by and for elites. The Palin selection was one of those gestures.

Tully Mars · 09-20-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

The Palin selection has its benefits and its costs, which should be known:

One thought pushes fence-sitters to the left: Palin - St. Petersburg Times

There is no populist revolt of any sort in the US. We have a top-down political structure run by and for elites like McCain, Thain, & Bush ostentatiously gesturing populist. This gesticulation takes place in a public media run by and for elites. The Palin selection was one of those gestures.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. One thing I keep reading is many people aren't really voting for Obama but rather voting against McCain/Palin. Palin's played well for the base but is pushing a lot of independents away. Will it be enough to put Obama over the top? We'll see. I honestly think Obama needs to be up 10-12 points in the polls to win by 3-4%.

asaris · 09-20-2008, 09:01 AM

I've said for month that I'm not going to trust the polls reliability until October. And even then, they're going to be shaky. One problem? They tend not to hit people without land lines, who are disproportionately young people. And young people disproportionately support Obama. Another is that current polls over-emphasize the effect of recent events. I think you can see this in McCain's polls numbers. They got a bump because of the Republican convention and the selection of a young, attractive, female V-P. As the novelty of these two events wears off, people are moving more towards where they were before the conventions. I think we are only starting to see what the real effect of Sarah Palin is going to be at the polls in November (which are, after all, the only ones that matter). Another problem is that it can be hard to accurate predict who is going to vote. So I wouldn't pay too much attention to polls if I were you.

guyy · 09-20-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. One thing I keep reading is many people aren't really voting for Obama but rather voting against McCain/Palin. Palin's played well for the base but is pushing a lot of independents away. Will it be enough to put Obama over the top? We'll see. I honestly think Obama needs to be up 10-12 points in the polls to win by 3-4%.

To what degree racism will affect polling data and the election is an interesting question. I'm thinking that it will, but not to the same degree as before. Ann Selzer, who was the only pollster to get the Iowa caucuses right, has said that a certain degree of Obama support generally goes under the radar due to his support among young people/first time voters. According to Selzer, this support goes unregistered because it is harder to reach via the usual polling method, i.e., calling a land line.

Obama's Senate race did not test the race issue, but he had surprisingly wide support from conservatives and Christians. Kerry won a few counties -- Cook, Rock Island, Jackson (E. St. Louis), Alexander (Cairo), Champaign (barely), and around Quad Cities & Galesburg. In contrast, Obama did very well all over the state, including the suburbs of Chicago and downstate. I don't think it was just because he was running against Keyes. He probably would have beaten Ryan as well, even without the pervy divorce papers. (I think he was up 22% on Ryan when the race started.)

So, the pattern of support for Obama is different than Jesse Jackson's or Bradley's -- or Kerry's for that matter. He does get votes from cities & industrial workers, but that's not really his base.

Tully Mars · 09-20-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

To what degree racism will affect polling data and the election is an interesting question. I'm thinking that it will, but not to the same degree as before. Ann Selzer, who was the only pollster to get the Iowa caucuses right, has said that a certain degree of Obama support generally goes under the radar due to his support among young people/first time voters. According to Selzer, this support goes unregistered because it is harder to reach via the usual polling method, i.e., calling a land line.

Obama's Senate race did not test the race issue, but he had surprisingly wide support from conservatives and Christians. Kerry won a few counties -- Cook, Rock Island, Jackson (E. St. Louis), Alexander (Cairo), Champaign (barely), and around Quad Cities & Galesburg. In contrast, Obama did very well all over the state, including the suburbs of Chicago and downstate. I don't think it was just because he was running against Keyes. He probably would have beaten Ryan as well, even without the pervy divorce papers. (I think he was up 22% on Ryan when the race started.)

So, the pattern of support for Obama is different than Jesse Jackson's or Bradley's -- or Kerry's for that matter. He does get votes from cities & industrial workers, but that's not really his base.

Interesting, hope you're right. I'm concerned. I spent most of my adult life living in rural Oregon. I worked out of the courthouse in two small county's. I remember in 1986 they tore down city hall and moved the offices into a remodeled courthouse. In both buildings they found KKK clothing and assorted items. People weren't shocked, in fact many found it funny and took them home as keep sakes. When Thomas was confirmed to the SCOTUS my neighbor, an honest to God WWII war hero, stood on his front porch and screamed to my other neighbor "I can't believe they put that nigger on the Supreme Court, the worlds gone to hell now!" For brief time after leaving my state job I drove truck, mainly because I had time and CDL. It was a part time, well paying, gig driving live crab from the Oregon coast to the San Fransisco bay area. The guy I drove truck for was a decent enough guy, hardest working 68yr I ever met. One day I went by their house to pick up my paycheck. They'd just come back from Vegas. I asked his wife how the trip went. She went on to explain they had to check out of the first casino because her husband went down to the lobby to buy a USA Today early the first morning and saw a group of black guys hanging out. I asked her if the new casino had black people staying there as well. "Yeah, but not as many."

Oregon's a pretty blue state and this isn't the norm esp. in the larger cities and college towns. But in rural Oregon it most certainly can be an issue. I remember seeing a piece on the Daily Show asking people in West Virginia why they didn't vote for Obama their answers were exactly what I would have expected from some of my old neighbors and co-workers.

There's a whole lot of rural out there in the US. In some key states these types of attitudes could make the difference.

filtherton · 09-20-2008, 12:30 PM

I hope they don't make a difference in Minnesota. This traditionally blue state has Obama and McCain neck and neck. I've lived in small towns up here. Motherfuckers are racist.

Tully Mars · 09-20-2008, 05:14 PM

Minnesota's a state I think this could be a problem. I think many states have the potential to be problematic for Obama. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado- really any state where it's tight and there's a large percentage of rural white voters I believe it could be a serious problem. And no I'm calling all rural white people in the aforementioned states racist. I'm simply stating I believe racism is a real thing and if the vote is close the small percentage of people who are racist could prove to be the tipping point. Which would be really sad, IMHO.

Paq · 09-20-2008, 06:19 PM

YouTube - Palin's Nonsensical Answer On Domestic Energy

i love this woman, seriously. She is about as entertaining and watching gwb try to get the 'fool me once' quote right.....

on topic: what the hell is she saying, honestly? i can't even make out what she's even trying to say and i've listened several times...

oh, and from the nytimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us...uGw&oref=login

Quote:

The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

so is the mccain group admitting palin isn't exactly ready to openly debate? gotta keep it to a bit of pre-scripted events and the tiniest bit of free flowing interaction? sounds like someone isn't confident in their candidate....

aceventura3 · 09-22-2008, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you know, this populist thing is getting out of hand in conservativeland.
all this "anti-intellectual" horseshit amounts to is a new bizarre form of officially...

Let's be clear. I am biased against pseudo-intellectuals. I also believe I gave an example or two explaining my problem with them. In your case here you have taken specific and directed comments and made broad and often false generalizations without addressing the specifics. What do we call this form of discourse?
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 11 : 00 : 04-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

as much as i detest standardized testing, they are a huge indicator of college retention rates. Enough so that i wouldn't downplay their results.

I think at one point I stated that pseudo-intellectuals create themselves. If academic types design tests to determine if people would do well in academics they could. If entrepreneurs designed test to determine if people would do well being entrepreneurial they could. If war minded people designed tests to determine if people would do well in war, they could.

I think it important to be open to the differences and to be tolerant of what others bring to the table. Pseudo-intellectuals tend to be less tolerant than others in my opinion. It seem that it has to be their way and any opposing thought on a subject is summarily dismissed.

Paq · 09-22-2008, 08:38 AM

Palin's town charged women for rape exams - CNN.com

obscene:

Quote:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's hometown required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor, a practice her police chief fought to keep as late as 2000.
A former Alaskan lawmaker says it seems unlikely that Gov. Sarah Palin was unaware of Wasilla's policy.

A former Alaskan lawmaker says it seems unlikely that Gov. Sarah Palin was unaware of Wasilla's policy.

Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.

"It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla," Croft told CNN. "We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them."

wow, so her idea of rape: "ladies..you are assaulted..we charge you for the rape kit/exams..oh and you have to carry the baby.
where did we find this woman...

Cynthetiq · 09-22-2008, 08:40 AM

while it's emotionally charged and tied, this should be about fiscal respnosibility.

so then who pays for it? It obviously isn't free. and should I have to pay for it when someone lies like Tawana Brawley?

Paq · 09-22-2008, 08:57 AM

umm..

if it's proven lying, sure...but cmon, we are talking about regular people...

i'm pretty sure she could afford it out of the 290 million + that she didn't return for the bridge to nowhere she said "please..thank you...oh, i'm embarrassed now, thanks but no thanks...but i'm keeping the money..."

that buys a lot of rape kits

( and yes, i know..wrong timeframe, but it's still funny)

kutulu · 09-22-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

while it's emotionally charged and tied, this should be about fiscal respnosibility.

so then who pays for it? It obviously isn't free. and should I have to pay for it when someone lies like Tawana Brawley?

You have to be kidding. The fucking taxpayers pay for it. This is about being a professional police department, there is no difference between collecting evidence on a suspected rape than there is for any other crime. If someone was murdered would they bill the victim's family for the CSI work?

There are systems in place to punish people for false accusations. We don't fuck over a victim just because there is an occasional liar.

Cynthetiq · 09-22-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

You have to be kidding. The fucking taxpayers pay for it. This is about being a professional police department, there is no difference between collecting evidence on a suspected rape than there is for any other crime. If someone was murdered would they bill the victim's family for the CSI work?

There are systems in place to punish people for false accusations. We don't fuck over a victim just because there is an occasional liar.

No I'm not kidding. Sure right, Mr. Pagones' reputation has be retcified because of Tawana's lie. Justice has been served.

Actually, there is mounting costs for all of these technologies, and yes, sometimes families are being charged with associated costs. Ambulances aren't necessarily free rides to the ER. There's a cost to them and they bill back depending on state and county.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying there's fiscacal accountability that is required. If you're saying it's to come from the tax base as a whole great, increase taxes accordingly. It hasn't been happening enough, there's not ever enough taxes being paid apparently to cover the costs of running things.

Paq · 09-22-2008, 10:18 AM

umm....

i don't understand how charging someone for costs associated with a crime is fair. Some states are adding $15 onto a speeding ticket to cover the gas that the officer used to catch you....that actually makes more sense. This is simply, "you've been assauted, here is our bill for doing our jobs for which you pay taxes..."
i can't find any way to justify this. Sure, if you're lying, you should pay for it and the fines that go along with it, but for the average person to go through that trauma, then receive a bill from the city....you've gotta be shitting me.

Cynthetiq · 09-22-2008, 10:24 AM

There are more costs than just the police showing up.

Crime scene clean up (biohazards) aren't just cleaned up by your normal Molly Maids. It's a certified job which requires special skills and cleaners, and license from the state.

Who pays for that? The person who wants the place cleaned up, not the city, not you, or me. Just like when the windows are broken due to fire, it's not me who picks up the tab.

Cororner has a fee for picking up the body.

and so forth....

Paq · 09-22-2008, 10:43 AM

This is for the tests performed on the woman who was raaaaaaaaped.

not on her house that was damaged
or on her body that was carted away....

but on a woman who was assaulted physically and raaaaaped.

lemme put it this way: 99.999999% of the country does not charge for it...alaska gets more earmarks per capita than anyone in the union...she raised taxes on oil companies, etc, and was able to give people an extra check from the alaska permanent fund....

they could afford it.

Rekna · 09-22-2008, 10:50 AM

They actually estimated the costs for the rapekits at about 20k a year. That is half the cost of the SUV the city bought Mrs Palin. Also its way less than the millions they spent on a new indoor hockey stadium with heated seats.

Cynthetiq are you actually suggesting that victims should pay for the investigation? Do you see how doing this would lead to a system in which only the rich can have justice served? If you are poor then to bad....

kutulu · 09-22-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

There are more costs than just the police showing up.

Crime scene clean up (biohazards) aren't just cleaned up by your normal Molly Maids. It's a certified job which requires special skills and cleaners, and license from the state.

Who pays for that? The person who wants the place cleaned up, not the city, not you, or me. Just like when the windows are broken due to fire, it's not me who picks up the tab.

Cororner has a fee for picking up the body.

and so forth....

You missed my point so far I have to wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse or you just don't know what the hell you are talking about. I'm going to assume you aren't being a dick. If you aren't familiar with what a rape kit is, please check here.

When a suspected rape occurs the victim's body is a crime scene. The only difference is that the rape exam is done in a hospital. They aren't providing a service with your precious tax dollar, they are looking for evidence.

Charging a victim for a rape kit is analogous to telling a homicide vics family that they'd love to analyze the blood spatter at their loved one's crime scene but they are going to charge you for it.

Your comment about crime scene cleanup is completely irrelevant to the subject.

Paq · 09-22-2008, 11:40 AM

Psychology voting | Salon interesting article about why it is so hard to change someone's mind about a candidate....

Quote:

My candidate, myself

Even when faced with new facts and insights, most voters don't change their minds about their favorite candidates. A neurologist explains how they might.

By Robert Burton
Pages 1 2

* S S S
* RSS
* Print Email
*

Read more: Psychology, Neurology, Robert Burton, Brains, 2008 election, Mind Reader, Environment & Science
News

Sept. 22, 2008 | "Let's make sure that there is certainty during uncertain times" -- George W. Bush, 2008

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

In the current presidential election, a major percentage of voters are already committed to "their candidate"; new arguments and evidence fall on deaf ears. And yet, if we, as a country, truly want change, we must be open-minded, flexible and willing to revise our opinions when new evidence warrants it. Most important, we must be able to recognize and acknowledge when we are wrong.

Unfortunately, cognitive science offers some fairly sobering observations about our ability to judge ourselves and others.

Perhaps the single academic study most germane to the present election is the 1999 psychology paper by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." The two Cornell psychologists began with the following assumptions.

# Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
# Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
# Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.

To put their theories to the test, the psychologists asked a group of Cornell undergraduates to undergo a series of self-assessments, including tests of logical reasoning taken from a Law School Admissions Test preparation guide. Prior to being shown their test scores, the subjects were asked to estimate how they thought they would fare in comparison with the others taking the tests.

On average, participants placed themselves in the 66th percentile, revealing that most of us tend to overestimate our skills somewhat. But those in the bottom 25 percent consistently overestimated their ability to the greatest extent. For example, in the logical reasoning section, individuals that scored in the 12th percentile believed that their general reasoning abilities fell at the 68th percentile, and that their overall scores would be in the 62nd percentile. The authors point out that the problem was not primarily underestimating how others had done; those in the bottom quartile overestimated the number of their correct answers by nearly 50 percent. Similarly, after seeing the answers of the best performers -- those in the top quartile -- those in the bottom quartile continued to believe that they had performed well.

The article's conclusion should be posted as a caveat under every political speech of those seeking office. And it should serve as the epitaph for the Bush administration: "People who lack the knowledge or wisdom to perform well are often unaware of this fact. That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else's."

The converse also bears repeating. Despite the fact that students in the top quartile fairly accurately estimated how well they did, they also tended to overestimate the performance of others. In short, smart people tend to believe that everyone else "gets it." Incompetent people display both an increasing tendency to overestimate their cognitive abilities and a belief that they are smarter than the majority of those demonstrably sharper.

Cynthetiq · 09-22-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

This is for the tests performed on the woman who was raaaaaaaaped.

not on her house that was damaged
or on her body that was carted away....

but on a woman who was assaulted physically and raaaaaped.

lemme put it this way: 99.999999% of the country does not charge for it...alaska gets more earmarks per capita than anyone in the union...she raised taxes on oil companies, etc, and was able to give people an extra check from the alaska permanent fund....

they could afford it.

It doesn't matter, things have COSTS. Even the HOSPITAL has COSTS associated with processing the rape kit. That is a resource of person who is not doing something else, who is getting paid right? Or are they doing it for free? Or getting a government voucher for doing such things?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

They actually estimated the costs for the rapekits at about 20k a year. That is half the cost of the SUV the city bought Mrs Palin. Also its way less than the millions they spent on a new indoor hockey stadium with heated seats.

Cynthetiq are you actually suggesting that victims should pay for the investigation? Do you see how doing this would lead to a system in which only the rich can have justice served? If you are poor then to bad....

No, I'm not at all. I'm saying that there is costs, and who is going to pay for it? I'm all for giving away services that are needed. I live in a community with lots of services many of which I do not use, but they fund themsevles to pay for all the outreach that they do outside of the government dollars that are given.

I'm a person that believes simply in financial responsibility. If you don't have the funds for something, you can't just "wish" for money to appear. Once money comes from some place, then it's prudent to figure out how to best spend it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

You missed my point so far I have to wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse or you just don't know what the hell you are talking about. I'm going to assume you aren't being a dick. If you aren't familiar with what a rape kit is, please check here.

When a suspected rape occurs the victim's body is a crime scene. The only difference is that the rape exam is done in a hospital. They aren't providing a service with your precious tax dollar, they are looking for evidence.

Charging a victim for a rape kit is analogous to telling a homicide vics family that they'd love to analyze the blood spatter at their loved one's crime scene but they are going to charge you for it.

Your comment about crime scene cleanup is completely irrelevant to the subject.

I am not being obtuse, I'm being practical. If there's one thing that life has taught me is that if you give an inch someone is going to take that to a yard. I never implied that one should be charged, in some cases it makes sense to charge someone back for it. I've stated simply WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

But to come into a forum and then use an emotionally charged point of "RAAAAAAPE!!! she's charging for RAAAAAAPEE!" is practically trollish to illicit a response for how horrible an individual may be all because there could be an element of fiscal responsibility.

Again, my point is about FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. So far NO politicians seem to have any real handle on that, democrat or republican.

kutulu · 09-22-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I am not being obtuse, I'm being practical. If there's one thing that life has taught me is that if you give an inch someone is going to take that to a yard. I never implied that one should be charged, in some cases it makes sense to charge someone back for it. I've stated simply WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

But to come into a forum and then use an emotionally charged point of "RAAAAAAPE!!! she's charging for RAAAAAAPEE!" is practically trollish to illicit a response for how horrible an individual may be all because there could be an element of fiscal responsibility.

Again, my point is about FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. So far NO politicians seem to have any real handle on that, democrat or republican.

Who the hell do you think would pay for it? The police department and ultimately the taxpayer. Again, it is evidence collection. Routine police work. You don't get to cry fiscal responsibility when it comes to evidence collection. You do it because that is what is necessary to solve the crime.

Can you identify another crime that the police department charged the victim to investigate?

Cynthetiq · 09-22-2008, 12:25 PM

no. that's not what i'm talking about, but you seem hell bent on that kind of response.

again, I'm only advocating for who pays for it.

and yes, I can cry fiscal responsibilty. Collecting DNA and other things costs MONEY to collect, store, properly house and track. It isn't FREE. There's no FREE EVIDENCE Warehouse. Nor do the computers to store the infromation so that people can cross refrence from other crimes come for free from Dell.

Paq · 09-22-2008, 12:30 PM

that's not trollish, that's just my level of absurdity at charging someone for being raped. You can change it to charging the family of murder victims for doing the necessary testing. anything at all. I'm just shocked at "who is gonna pay for it' ...the taxpayer.. It's like insurance..everyone pays into a system and when it's needed, it SHOULD be there...this isn't that much different.

i don't get why it's even an issue of 'who would pay for it' as that just seems to go under 'things taxes pay for"

Cynthetiq · 09-22-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

that's not trollish, that's just my level of absurdity at charging someone for being raped. You can change it to charging the family of murder victims for doing the necessary testing. anything at all. I'm just shocked at "who is gonna pay for it' ...the taxpayer.. It's like insurance..everyone pays into a system and when it's needed, it SHOULD be there...this isn't that much different.

i don't get why it's even an issue of 'who would pay for it' as that just seems to go under 'things taxes pay for"

Again, the absurdity was to garner an emotional response from someone. My response wasn't "OMFG she's charging for rape! How asinine!" because I believe that there's a cost associated with things and how will we fund them?

When you pay lots of taxes, maybe at some point you aren't going to be so interested in paying even more taxes. I don't care about the rest of the folks out there after point, "an imaginary line in the sand," if you will.

At some point, I don't want to pay more taxes and continue to get less goods and services.

You may be interested in doing so, but I'm not.

dc_dux · 09-22-2008, 12:44 PM

It seems to me that until there is a general understanding, clearly enunciated by the government in question (particularly at the local level) and the citizens it serves, that basic government services like police (and follow up criminal investigations) will be based on "fee for service" rather than general taxes, I just dont see any justification for charging potential crime victims.

09-19-2008, 10:39 AM	#202 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i don't think there is necessarily a subtext to that, otto. i think it's basically correct--it makes no sense to underestimate either palin, or the conservatives--and especially not the political machinery that the right has built. it's just a stupid way to play a game--underestimating your opponent is a sure way to loose. thing is that i am not sure who the message is really directed at---i don't see any evidence from obama or biden--going by what they say that i've read--that indicates any such underestimation. i do think that the campaign has allowed itself to get sucked into the republican strategic terrain, or at least they had been allowing themselves to get pulled into it until this week. i think it's clearly true that alot of folk who write blogs underestimate palin, underestimate the right...but they just write blogs. at the moment, though, in this campaign universe, things seem in flux, as they are everywhere else (even amongst the red sox, from what i understand)....i see mc-cain trying to "get in front" of the financial catastrophe at the expense of being able to be even a little consistent, and obama being a bit more circumspect---but when i watch the nitwits on television who run these idiot "political" shows, they seem to think that being circumspect (waiting to talk much until it becomes a bit clear what's happening, so that what you say can be coherent) is a Problem. so who knows? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-19-2008, 12:01 PM	#206 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	woohoo, just got tix to an obama speech in charlotte on sunday afternoon, should be interesting. i know it's ot, but i'll see how it works out __________________ Live. Chris

09-19-2008, 01:15 PM	#208 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you know, this populist thing is getting out of hand in conservativeland. all this "anti-intellectual" horseshit amounts to is a new bizarre form of officially sanctioned and directed bigotry from the right---now it's some amorphous "intellectual elite that fills the function of Persecuting Alien against which the Wholesome Right, now new and improved with a Monopoly on Practical Understanding, can construct itself. and so it follows that critical thinking is a characteristic of the Enemy and Competence a Problem--unless it is expressed in the form of whatever the conservative parameters of the moment say it should be. what's hilarious is that the folk pulling the strings behind the conservative media apparatus, the folk organizing this turn to poujadiste-style petit bourgeois resentment as political mode of living, probably graduated from the same schools as the Evil Others did. and many of the Captains of Industry at whose feet the right grovels so long as they are republicans might well have gone to these same schools as well. legacies, dontcha know, that constant bulkward against intellectual consistency in these Bad Bad Schools. but hey, no matter, what fun is thinking about that stuff when there's all the thrills and chills of good old Grouphate to be had... but you'd think that after 8 years of trafficking in this idiot demonization as a way of generating a sense of belonging for the reactionary set that the mechanism would be threadbare and its functions transparent. amazing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-19-2008, 01:15 PM	#209 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	as much as i detest standardized testing, they are a huge indicator of college retention rates. Enough so that i wouldn't downplay their results. and yes, they are often biased, etc, but not in any way against gwb. Problem solving also isn't really a great indicator of 'real' intelligence as much as creativity and resources. Also, i can't really think of too many problems bush seemed to 'understand' much less, 'solve' __________________ Live. Chris

09-19-2008, 05:34 PM	#213 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Wake me when its over! Or at least point me to something that would support the conclusion that the perception is widespread and goes beyond the Republican base. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-19-2008, 05:40 PM	#214 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	You bet! __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

09-20-2008, 05:11 AM	#215 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	The Palin selection has its benefits and its costs, which should be known: One thought pushes fence-sitters to the left: Palin - St. Petersburg Times There is no populist revolt of any sort in the US. We have a top-down political structure run by and for elites like McCain, Thain, & Bush ostentatiously gesturing populist. This gesticulation takes place in a public media run by and for elites. The Palin selection was one of those gestures.

09-20-2008, 09:01 AM	#217 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I've said for month that I'm not going to trust the polls reliability until October. And even then, they're going to be shaky. One problem? They tend not to hit people without land lines, who are disproportionately young people. And young people disproportionately support Obama. Another is that current polls over-emphasize the effect of recent events. I think you can see this in McCain's polls numbers. They got a bump because of the Republican convention and the selection of a young, attractive, female V-P. As the novelty of these two events wears off, people are moving more towards where they were before the conventions. I think we are only starting to see what the real effect of Sarah Palin is going to be at the polls in November (which are, after all, the only ones that matter). Another problem is that it can be hard to accurate predict who is going to vote. So I wouldn't pay too much attention to polls if I were you. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

09-20-2008, 12:30 PM	#220 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I hope they don't make a difference in Minnesota. This traditionally blue state has Obama and McCain neck and neck. I've lived in small towns up here. Motherfuckers are racist.

09-20-2008, 05:14 PM	#221 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Minnesota's a state I think this could be a problem. I think many states have the potential to be problematic for Obama. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado- really any state where it's tight and there's a large percentage of rural white voters I believe it could be a serious problem. And no I'm calling all rural white people in the aforementioned states racist. I'm simply stating I believe racism is a real thing and if the vote is close the small percentage of people who are racist could prove to be the tipping point. Which would be really sad, IMHO. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

09-22-2008, 08:40 AM	#225 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	while it's emotionally charged and tied, this should be about fiscal respnosibility. so then who pays for it? It obviously isn't free. and should I have to pay for it when someone lies like Tawana Brawley? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

09-22-2008, 08:57 AM	#226 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	umm.. if it's proven lying, sure...but cmon, we are talking about regular people... i'm pretty sure she could afford it out of the 290 million + that she didn't return for the bridge to nowhere she said "please..thank you...oh, i'm embarrassed now, thanks but no thanks...but i'm keeping the money..." that buys a lot of rape kits ( and yes, i know..wrong timeframe, but it's still funny) __________________ Live. Chris

09-22-2008, 10:18 AM	#229 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	umm.... i don't understand how charging someone for costs associated with a crime is fair. Some states are adding $15 onto a speeding ticket to cover the gas that the officer used to catch you....that actually makes more sense. This is simply, "you've been assauted, here is our bill for doing our jobs for which you pay taxes..." i can't find any way to justify this. Sure, if you're lying, you should pay for it and the fines that go along with it, but for the average person to go through that trauma, then receive a bill from the city....you've gotta be shitting me. __________________ Live. Chris

09-22-2008, 10:24 AM	#230 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	There are more costs than just the police showing up. Crime scene clean up (biohazards) aren't just cleaned up by your normal Molly Maids. It's a certified job which requires special skills and cleaners, and license from the state. Who pays for that? The person who wants the place cleaned up, not the city, not you, or me. Just like when the windows are broken due to fire, it's not me who picks up the tab. Cororner has a fee for picking up the body. and so forth.... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

09-22-2008, 10:43 AM	#231 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	This is for the tests performed on the woman who was raaaaaaaaped. not on her house that was damaged or on her body that was carted away.... but on a woman who was assaulted physically and raaaaaped. lemme put it this way: 99.999999% of the country does not charge for it...alaska gets more earmarks per capita than anyone in the union...she raised taxes on oil companies, etc, and was able to give people an extra check from the alaska permanent fund.... they could afford it. __________________ Live. Chris

09-22-2008, 10:50 AM	#232 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	They actually estimated the costs for the rapekits at about 20k a year. That is half the cost of the SUV the city bought Mrs Palin. Also its way less than the millions they spent on a new indoor hockey stadium with heated seats. Cynthetiq are you actually suggesting that victims should pay for the investigation? Do you see how doing this would lead to a system in which only the rich can have justice served? If you are poor then to bad....

09-22-2008, 12:25 PM	#237 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	no. that's not what i'm talking about, but you seem hell bent on that kind of response. again, I'm only advocating for who pays for it. and yes, I can cry fiscal responsibilty. Collecting DNA and other things costs MONEY to collect, store, properly house and track. It isn't FREE. There's no FREE EVIDENCE Warehouse. Nor do the computers to store the infromation so that people can cross refrence from other crimes come for free from Dell. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

09-22-2008, 12:30 PM	#238 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	that's not trollish, that's just my level of absurdity at charging someone for being raped. You can change it to charging the family of murder victims for doing the necessary testing. anything at all. I'm just shocked at "who is gonna pay for it' ...the taxpayer.. It's like insurance..everyone pays into a system and when it's needed, it SHOULD be there...this isn't that much different. i don't get why it's even an issue of 'who would pay for it' as that just seems to go under 'things taxes pay for" __________________ Live. Chris

09-22-2008, 12:44 PM	#240 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	It seems to me that until there is a general understanding, clearly enunciated by the government in question (particularly at the local level) and the citizens it serves, that basic government services like police (and follow up criminal investigations) will be based on "fee for service" rather than general taxes, I just dont see any justification for charging potential crime victims. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire