Obama Sure Knows How To Pick Winners

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

I keep it real, it's all good if I disagree with you while you're keeping it real and vice versa.



Since we're keeping it real the same thing could be said and have been said about my boy Ronald Reagan. I mean, Obama does have policy ideas. You may not like his policies but I refuse to believe that 8,645,538 more people voted for him just because he's cool. Even if we suppose he won by popularity, would he still have won if we eliminate all those who didn't vote based on principles on both sides?

Good
Bad

Speaking only anecdotally(sp?) I think very few people in our fair nation vote with any mind to what they are doing. It is largely a bandwagon/popularity contest based on likeability and the prevailing politcal winds. It works both ways without any doubt. I am guessing there are about 20% of the electorate on both sides of the politcal aisle voting on principle or just plain ideaology. Another 20% each way who "think" they vote on principle but couldn't give you a very strong argument for what those principles are and what they mean. And then 20% in the middle who vote because they like the guy/girl or "think it'd be cool" to have a black president(just an example). Well I think it'd be cool we have a black president too if I actually agreed with him on much but I'd never vote for someone just because of some completely irrelevant factor.

And if there were a real absolute way to measure I'd bet every penny to my name that 8,645,538 people voted for Obama just cause "he was cool". I'd also bet a good several million or more voted for McCain for similarly stupid reasons.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Speaking only anecdotally(sp?) I think very few people in our fair nation vote with any mind to what they are doing. It is largely a bandwagon/popularity contest based on likeability and the prevailing politcal winds. It works both ways without any doubt. I am guessing there are about 20% of the electorate on both sides of the politcal aisle voting on principle or just plain ideaology. Another 20% each way who "think" they vote on principle but couldn't give you a very strong argument for what those principles are and what they mean. And then 20% in the middle who vote because they like the guy/girl or "think it'd be cool" to have a black president(just an example). Well I think it'd be cool we have a black president too if I actually agreed with him on much but I'd never vote for someone just because of some completely irrelevant factor.

And if there were a real absolute way to measure I'd bet every penny to my name that 8,645,538 people voted for Obama just cause "he was cool". I'd also bet a good several million or more voted for McCain for similarly stupid reasons.

Words matter, the structure of words matter more, what words don't say even more so. When I hear "[his victory] had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity" I also hear the implicit position of "if he wasn't popular he wouldn't have been victorious" and that "his principles leave much to be desired." The argument also lends itself to criticism because it is open to universal usage on presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

There is nothing dangerous about the election of Obama, don't take a dump on his election is all I'm trying to say. VP who moved up the ladder not withstanding, have we ever had a president that wasn't elected because he was popular?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

Words matter, the structure of words matter more, what words don't say even more so. When I hear "[his victory] had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity" I also hear the implicit position of "if he wasn't popular he wouldn't have been victorious" and that "his principles leave much to be desired." The argument also lends itself to criticism because it is open to universal usage on presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

There is nothing dangerous about the election of Obama, don't take a dump on his election is all I'm trying to say. VP who moved up the ladder not withstanding, have we ever had a president that wasn't elected because he was popular?

Obama had rock-star celebrity status during his campaign. It was unprecedented, and there's no denying it. Sure every elected president has been popular, but Obama took it to a whole new level, and I'm sure it played a big part in his victory. During his campaign he represented the antithesis of the Bush Administration, of which the entire world had tired.

IMO he was elected because of his masterful campaign and celebrity status more so than his politics and principles. Since he went from campaigner in cheif to Commander in Cheif, his approval numbers have dipped quite a bit.

[saden1]

[Reagan] had rock-star celebrity status during his campaign. It was unprecedented, and there's no denying it. Sure every elected president has been popular, but [Reagan] took it to a whole new level, and I'm sure it played a big part in his victory. During his campaign he represented the antithesis of the [Carter] Administration, of which the entire [country] had tired.

IMO he was elected because of his masterful campaign and celebrity status more so than his politics and principles. Since he went from campaigner in cheif to Commander in Cheif, his approval numbers have dipped quite a bit.

Never mind that he promised to decreases taxes, increase military spending. He was the most popular president ever! Popularity wins elections!

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

Never mind that he promised to decreases taxes, increase military spending. He was the most popular president ever! Popularity wins elections!

I never said he won ONLY because of popularity/celebrity. I said it was MORE popularity/celebrity than politics and principles.

I was 2 years old when Reagan was elected, so I only know what I've read about his campaign.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Words matter, the structure of words matter more, what words don't say even more so. When I hear "[his victory] had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity" I also hear the implicit position of "if he wasn't popular he wouldn't have been victorious" and that "his principles leave much to be desired." The argument also lends itself to criticism because it is open to universal usage on presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

There is nothing dangerous about the election of Obama, don't take a dump on his election is all I'm trying to say. VP who moved up the ladder not withstanding, have we ever had a president that wasn't elected because he was popular?

You can hear what you want. We all tend to. I'll grant you that popularity has always been a factor. I don't think I ever made a statement contrary. That doesn't make it right though. And I am not meaning to take a dump on Obama's election more than anyone else's. It simply is front and center right now.

Obama WAS elected because of popularity not principles. That isn't meant to deride his principles it is meant to deride the notion that this country is magiaclly leaning left all of a sudden. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but his election is neither proof nor disproof either way. Hell he ran on "Change"...basically a marketers quick and efficient way to say "I'm not Bush..that guy we all hate so much".

Obama's election is only an example. I guess my issues are far more general. I think our system is very fundamentally flawed. Is it better than others? Yeah but it isn't perfect or even close and it seems to be getting worse to me.

But now we are totally off subject.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You can hear what you want. We all tend to. I'll grant you that popularity has always been a factor. I don't think I ever made a statement contrary. That doesn't make it right though. And I am not meaning to take a dump on Obama's election more than anyone else's. It simply is front and center right now.

Obama WAS elected because of popularity not principles. That isn't meant to deride his principles it is meant to deride the notion that this country is magiaclly leaning left all of a sudden. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but his election is neither proof nor disproof either way. Hell he ran on "Change"...basically a marketers quick and efficient way to say "I'm not Bush..that guy we all hate so much".

Obama's election is only an example. I guess my issues are far more general. I think our system is very fundamentally flawed. Is it better than others? Yeah but it isn't perfect or even close and it seems to be getting worse to me.

But now we are totally off subject.

Perhaps I misunderstood, I guess we're discussing a) a utopian view of how elections should be won, b) how shift leftwards in ideology is unlikely, c) hating Bush was good enough to get elected.

I'm still confused about few things though, a) how does one become popular, b) isn't reputation of the Bush Administration the rejection of their principles and policy, and c) what constitutes a shift and does losing 51 house seats, 14 senate seats, and the presidency in 4 years qualify?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Perhaps I misunderstood, I guess we're discussing a) a utopian view of how elections should be won, b) how shift leftwards in ideology is unlikely, c) hating Bush was good enough to get elected.

I'm still confused about few things though, a) how does one become popular, b) isn't reputation of the Bush Administration the rejection of their principles and policy?, and c) what constitutes a shift and does losing 51 house seats, 14 senate seats, and the presidency in 4 years qualify?

When things go bad the party in charge always takes the hit. Obama ran for office at the perfect time and poeple were upset with the direction (or perceived direction) the country was heading which let Obama run with pretty much a free ride. Only a few people where pointing out his very leberal voting record and what little he had done while in office. He talked about goverment waist and all that stuff but his record told a different story. He ran as kind of a moderate but his record said he was a far left leberal and his current record says the same thing. While I like McCain he ran a poor campain and then brought in a VP who was not ready.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Perhaps I misunderstood, I guess we're discussing a) a utopian view of how elections should be won, b) how shift leftwards in ideology is unlikely, c) hating Bush was good enough to get elected.

I'm still confused about few things though, a) how does one become popular, b) isn't reputation of the Bush Administration the rejection of their principles and policy, and c) what constitutes a shift and does losing 51 house seats, 14 senate seats, and the presidency in 4 years qualify?

a) I wish I knew that for sure. Well spoken and thoughtful goes a long way but I doubt there's a real formula. Obama had IT, hell even Bush had something that people sorta liked at one point. McCain never had it. Palin sounded scripted and vapid. Biden sounds doofey and is foot-in-the-mouth prone. Cheney comes off like Mr. Potter. Who the heck knows what IT is.

b) Perhaps so or perhaps markets(political, human, economic, take your pick) are cyclical. There are ups and downs. We've had a lot of downs lately for various reasons. The buck stops at whoever is in charge when the downs come calling. If our econmoy is in the tank come 2012 Obama will answer whether it is his fault or not.

c) something tells me that a drastic shift in political alignment, a true shift, takes decades. Bush doesn't get elected twice in eight years and then magically the whole electorate gets turned on it's principled head. It is almost guaranteed that in either the next general election or the following the Republicans will regain seats. That doesn't mean the shift right has happened. In fact it really goes more to the popularity argument. Those in power rarely get the benefit or being recognized for the positives but they sure as hell get killed over the negatives. I think a lot of people say "Hey it has sorta sucked for a while, maybe I'll vote for the other guys and see what happens." No pricniples, no real thought, just a "grass is greener" type mentality. And if those people actually got honest with themselves and really admitted to themselves what they felt about issues on a principle level they'd always vote that way. They'd always vote based on what they think the candidate will do relative to their principles.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Words matter, the structure of words matter more, what words don't say even more so. When I hear "[his victory] had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity" I also hear the implicit position of "if he wasn't popular he wouldn't have been victorious" and that "his principles leave much to be desired." The argument also lends itself to criticism because it is open to universal usage on presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

There is nothing dangerous about the election of Obama, don't take a dump on his election is all I'm trying to say. VP who moved up the ladder not withstanding, have we ever had a president that wasn't elected because he was popular?

I see alot of danger in his election and the direction he is taking this counrty. He is making Goverment the answer to everything and all the Goverment does is screw up more then it has ever fixed. Every goverment programe is basically a financial failure.