Yeah, and those points and the FairVote argument both rely on the massive assumption that Bush and Clinton split Perot's voters. Exit polls at the time say they do, but exit polling has been downright terrible even as recently as 2004 and it's a mistake to rely on them for that time. Most of Perot's voters would have gone towards Bush, which swings it wildly in his favor.
There are three systematic conclusions we can draw about the Perot candidacy. First, the issue that worked for him was the deficit. Second, he took more voters from Bush than from Clinton. Third, those voters he took were from a group expected to favor Bush heavily over Clinton: men. Beyond this point, Perot's appeal seemed to have little systematic component. He did not grab the votes of people most dissatisfied with economic performance or most desiring change in Washington. Again we have found little support for the angry-voter hypothesis, especially as an explanation for the votes Perot received in 1992.
Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Aug., 1995)
On November 09 2008 11:56 Locke. wrote: i dont see the problem of adding community service to high-schools and elementary schools.. what's so wrong with that? it teaches you a whole lot more than many other classes which are all mandatory as well.
What's so wrong with requiring children to spend a small part of their time helping others?
I'm liberal but this is fucking ridiculous.
college tuition for community service? FUCKING RIDICULOUS!!!
anyone that cant afford $50,000 for a college education doesnt deserve a college education. AMIRITE?
This is optional, so any emotional response to how fucking ridiculous it is, is just silly. A lot of college bound students are being told to do community service already, because it apparently looks good on college applications and helps with scholarships. This program just takes advantage of that and creates a definite incentive. How many high school kids are working part time to save up for college anyway? Personally, I think no one can afford 50g's for an education. Our higher education system is to damn expensive.
On November 09 2008 11:56 Locke. wrote: i dont see the problem of adding community service to high-schools and elementary schools.. what's so wrong with that? it teaches you a whole lot more than many other classes which are all mandatory as well.
What's so wrong with requiring children to spend a small part of their time helping others?
I'm liberal but this is fucking ridiculous.
college tuition for community service? FUCKING RIDICULOUS!!!
anyone that cant afford $50,000 for a college education doesnt deserve a college education. AMIRITE?
I was responding to Locke saying there's no problem making community service mandatory for school children. I do not have a problem giving financial aid for college tuition for students that do a certain amount of community service. I heard Obama mention in his speeches and I think it's a good idea. But why should the government force middle and high school students to do unpaid community service with no benefits? My original response was not elegant but still don't see how forcing that nation's children to do unpaid work is a good thing. And you're right people are already kind of "forced" to do community service so you will have a good resume for college, and maybe this does indirectly save the person tuition in the end and maybe not.
I was also responding to this:
Community service is great but it should be voluntary. That is just saying he wants to set that goal, which is fine, but I doubt it'd be "mandatory" or anything. And again, I have no problem doing community service for school tuition.
a child in elementary school can spend a little of the time he is in school helping his community, what is so wrong with that?
he will learn and receive a lot even if it doesn't come in the form of a pay check
small example: being in 6th grade we had to stand for around 40 minutes next to the road by the school and make sure children passed safely using handheld stop signs. each child did it like 4 times that year and it went along with some lessons about the subject.
throughout the years this project prevents a lot of near school car accidents, it teaches real responsibility to children, teaches children to be careful on the roads and is a great fun social activity.
now what exactly is the horrible "problem" with this idea?
On November 09 2008 11:12 Jibba wrote: And Savio, what exactly is your basis for believing this is a center-right country? There is none, polls have shown the opposite.
So, I read a lot of the articles posted on RCP (cited in the OP). The center-right statement I have read in several articles and I have never once heard the opposite stated. I assumed that it was something that was well known enough that it had become a saying. I am sure I could find the citations and there may be good evidence printed if you want it.
If you wanted an easy answer, then consider that the US has not elected a liberal democrat since Lyndon Johnson (and Kennedy before him was fairly moderate for the time). They only democrats who were able to win were moderates from the South. On the other hand, Reagan, Bush, Nixon, all won by overwhelming landslides and at least Reagan was very conservative.
EDIT: I will try to find some more like this, using only trusted sources like Gallup/Rasmussen:
Which finds that "liberal" is more negative than positive, while "conservative" is more positive than negative. And a lot of other analysis of labels in general. This matters because "right-center" is itself a label.
Again, Nixon was not a conservative president and Carter was pretty damn liberal. Just like we saw this election, people don't vote down the line, you're making a mistake by trying to prove your point based on past elections. More people identify with the Democratic party, while most people rank their political leanings as moderate, mostly because everyone thinks of themselves as a moderate.
The Gallup polls just show how poorly people perceive their own identification. All they did was change the word 'liberal' for 'progressive' and the numbers skewed towards the center.
You should be well aware that every side has a set of statistics used to prove their point.
What I am saying is that since, "Right-center" is itself a label, then the labels that people use to define "good" vs "bad" or that they use to define themselves matter.
As it stands, in terms of labels, "liberal" is viewed negatively, while "conservative" is viewed positively. "Progressive is simply unknown. Only 20% of people are very familiar with that term.
Also, more people in the US identify themselves as "conservative" than "liberal".
So I don't think it is incredible to expand these labels to label the US as primaryily a "center-right" nation.
Again, you're going by statistics drawn from 1,003 people and extrapolating for 300 million. Second, on what issue? I can pull up misleading figure after figure on how people lean to the left on social issues like abortion, stem cell research, global warming, etc.
Self identification doesn't imply political leaning. The right is more politically active than the left, there's no denying that. That doesn't translate into there being greater number of people towards the right, just greater number of people that call themselves that.
On November 10 2008 06:07 Jibba wrote: Again, you're going by statistics drawn from 1,003 people and extrapolating for 300 million. Second, on what issue? I can pull up misleading figure after figure on how people lean to the left on social issues like abortion, stem cell research, global warming, etc.
This post of yours is not up to par with your normal posts. Of COURSE it's a sample. That's what statistic are. If you don't think Rasmussen and Gallup engage in good statistical practice, then lets hear some backup for that.
As far as issues, it should have been obvious that we are talking about general perceptions of the public regarding overall philosophies. I didn't say the country was "center-right" on abortion, or taxes or any one issue...just that it is "center-right". So the only useful stats to back that up would be on overall perceptions of ideologies rather than on single issues.
On November 10 2008 06:11 Jibba wrote: Self identification doesn't imply political leaning. The right is more politically active than the left, there's no denying that. That doesn't translate into there being greater number of people towards the right, just greater number of people that call themselves that.
Disagreed. If you said that Republicans are more active than Democrats, I would agree. But saying the Right is more active than the left, means you are looking at a different subset of people. I think anyone who goes to or has ever gone to college has seen an extremely active Left compared to Right.
Sometimes I wonder if the more secular Left channels the energy that they would have channeled into their religion (if they had one) to their political philosophies. And thats why you see the Left acting with a "Religious" fervor toward their chosen political ideal (animal rights, environment, abortion, etc.)
I've made it clear throughout the entire three threads that I don't trust the polling of Rasmussen and Gallup, especially when Pew and others have had conflicting results.
You're attempting to proclaim that "center-right" is more American, just like you did earlier when you said that the Republican party stood for more of the Fore Fathers' beliefs. That is fucking absurd. Your "center-right" has no definition because it's an entirely relative scale. Some professors give their students Bs on average, others give C-. People are making an arbitrary distinction and the only way to get anything useful out of "center-right" is to look at the issues they're talking about- in this case on social issues in which case the all-holy polls actually refute your point.
On November 10 2008 06:11 Jibba wrote: Self identification doesn't imply political leaning. The right is more politically active than the left, there's no denying that. That doesn't translate into there being greater number of people towards the right, just greater number of people that call themselves that.
Disagreed. If you said that Republicans are more active than Democrats, I would agree. But saying the Right is more active than the left, means you are looking at a different subset of people. I think anyone who goes to or has ever gone to college has seen an extremely active Left compared to Right.
Sometimes I wonder if the more secular Left channels the energy that they would have channeled into their religion (if they had one) to their political philosophies. And thats why you see the Left acting with a "Religious" fervor toward their chosen political ideal (animal rights, environment, abortion, etc.)
Shepherding cats. We're at a natural disadvantage because we can't collectivize around something ridiculous like staring at stones inside of a hat.
On November 09 2008 17:10 Jibba wrote: Charisma is defined a lot of different ways and none of them help that theory hold any ground. Clinton only had 43%, and won because Perot stole 19% from Bush. You can basically go down the list and see that it's frivolous, and the author is just inaccurately re-interpreting elections to prove his point. Reagan lost the 1976 Primary to Ford and Ford had essentially already lost by pardoning Nixon. Carter just happened to be there.
Kerry might've lost because of it, but Dean lost the nomination by having too much (and he was a pussy.)
Charisma is kinda vague, it may be better defined as 'likeable', but the theory largely holds up quite well, as one can usually pick out the more charismatic of the two.
I was able to predict Obama over Hillary before seemingly anyone using this theory. And it made the Obama vs McCain election that much more of a joke.
I wouldn't say it's flawless, but effective enough to be given a lot of weight when predicting an election.
On November 09 2008 17:10 Jibba wrote: Charisma is defined a lot of different ways and none of them help that theory hold any ground. Clinton only had 43%, and won because Perot stole 19% from Bush. You can basically go down the list and see that it's frivolous, and the author is just inaccurately re-interpreting elections to prove his point. Reagan lost the 1976 Primary to Ford and Ford had essentially already lost by pardoning Nixon. Carter just happened to be there.
Kerry might've lost because of it, but Dean lost the nomination by having too much (and he was a pussy.)
Good article. People seem to think that when there is a problem, government should fix it, when as Reagan put it so well, "Government can't fix the problem, because government IS the problem".
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/original.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr061206i.gif)
