Their Planned IMPLEMENTATIONS of the Platforms
Of course, the Candidates' Plans are even more important than the Party Platforms because each represents one person's philosophy and approach rather than an amalgam of hundreds of delegates' compromises. The Plans generally reflect the Platforms but provide more detail about specific elements of the general issues. Sometimes these specifics are what inspire (or turn off) specific voters.
But their usefulness in deciding whom to vote for is still limited. Their Plans are still vague, for several reasons.
- They haven't yet digested all the issues and options and consequences of possible positions.
- They don't want to be too specific lest they offend some voters.
- They don't want to give out their secrets to the opposition which will twist them back
against the candidate.
We may have a better idea of what they want to do, but not so much on how they will pay for it, or how they will get the other party to go along with it.
How to Evaluate their Plans
I'd recommend doing something similar to what I suggested to do with the Party Platforms:
a. Read the Plan Documents themselves (links below).
b. Read abbreviated Comparisons by Others (see "Candidates' Plans" page).
c. Discuss these issues with other people (who can remain civil while discussing emotional
topics). Again, they may have facts and/or perspectives to supplement yours.
d. Consider how to evaluate the various statements (based on your values, your
knowledge of reality and of the factors involved in the issue). You may have already
done this with the Platforms.
e. Rate the issues numerically and see how each party platform adds up on your value
scale. Use a procedure similar to that described in the Platform post (section e., "Rate
the issues numerically").
Some Notes about the Plans and the Comparisons
Both candidates' Plan documents are fairly lengthy and, unlike the Platform documents, are divided into many areas and placed on separate web pages. As far as I can find, there is not one document that you can download, print, and read while you're waiting at the doctor's office or JiffyLube.
What you can do is go from link to link and read about the issues that concern you, and print out those pages. Or you can go through and collect the text from different pages into one word processor document, and print it to read it.
I've found that the print-page function on most browsers gives very unsatisfactory results, so I have a procedure I use to get a relatively clean compact printout. It's on the TOOLS page.
Here now is a link to my "Candidates' Plans" page, where you can explore their Plans, as well as different sites that compare the candidates' Plans. You can also use the link on the tab bar near the top of this page.
Next post: CHARACTER MATTERS.
If you still have not decided how to vote, this next post will probably do it for you. Sign up to get it via email as soon as I post it.
"Thatch"
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
BLOG STATISTICS - Non-political
Quick Post - Mildly Interesting
I check the blog statistics at least once a day to see if there are any comments I need to respond to, and to see if anybody is reading the posts. What I'm finding is mildly interesting, and, if I were reading a new blog like this, I'd find these stats somewhat interesting - to see who else is reading what I'm reading. So here they are as of last night ->
I've received very few comments and very few "Reactions" checkmarks (at the bottom of each post). It makes me wonder if anyone is reading what I write. Maybe I'm not really accomplishing my goal to help people make a more informed vote.
But then I see the stats, and it's amazing to me that there are viewers from 4 foreign countries (20 views) and over 450 views total, and those viewers are using a variety of browsers and computer types (Windows, iPhone, Macs, Blackberry, etc).
I'm sure a lot of those hits are from searches on keywords, and if they get to this blog, they see it's not what they were looking for, and go on to the next item in the search results list. That is, they don't actually read the blog but it counts as a "view." It would be nice if the stats would show how long a viewer stays on the site, and from what state they are viewing it (since I was sort of targeting the swing states).
I'd hoped this would be a way to engage in conversations with people I might never meet, to share (both ways) info and perspectives. But, with people so busy, and weary of the political conversation (or argument), I guess the dearth of comments is not surprising.
Anyway, it's nothing to toot a horn about, but I thought the stats might be interesting.
I plan to get the next post (on the candidates' own Plans) out today.
"Thatch"
I've received very few comments and very few "Reactions" checkmarks (at the bottom of each post). It makes me wonder if anyone is reading what I write. Maybe I'm not really accomplishing my goal to help people make a more informed vote.
But then I see the stats, and it's amazing to me that there are viewers from 4 foreign countries (20 views) and over 450 views total, and those viewers are using a variety of browsers and computer types (Windows, iPhone, Macs, Blackberry, etc).
I'm sure a lot of those hits are from searches on keywords, and if they get to this blog, they see it's not what they were looking for, and go on to the next item in the search results list. That is, they don't actually read the blog but it counts as a "view." It would be nice if the stats would show how long a viewer stays on the site, and from what state they are viewing it (since I was sort of targeting the swing states).
I'd hoped this would be a way to engage in conversations with people I might never meet, to share (both ways) info and perspectives. But, with people so busy, and weary of the political conversation (or argument), I guess the dearth of comments is not surprising.
Anyway, it's nothing to toot a horn about, but I thought the stats might be interesting.
I plan to get the next post (on the candidates' own Plans) out today.
"Thatch"
Thursday, October 25, 2012
DIFFERENT VISIONS
The PARTY PLATFORMS - IMPORTANCE & COMPARISON
WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT?
Both presidential candidates have repeatedly said that there is a clear difference in the visions each has for America. That is not always clear from their ads and the debates. They both say they are for jobs, freedom, security, prosperity, fairness, lower cost of living, better government, motherhood, and apple pie. To see the differences, one must look closer; for example, maybe not motherhood for every woman, and maybe not apple pie if the apples are genetically modified or picked by underpaid migrant workers, and so on.
Where can we get those details? One place is the party platforms. Some think that the platforms are meaningless or full of the same platitudes as the ads and debates, and that the candidates, once elected, will ignore them and do as they please - and that is somewhat true.
However, a lot of work and precision goes into these documents to express the mind and will of a bulk of the active party members, and that includes the candidates. They generally agree with the principles and goals laid out there, or they would not be in that party, and certainly not as the main representative of it. And, if they do not stick to it, their base will object.
One of the best descriptions of the importance of the platforms is in an article at FreakOutNation.com [http://freakoutnation.com/2012/09/05/comparing-the-dnc-to-the-rnc-2012-platforms-ones-humane-and-the-other-is-insane/]. The site is obviously liberal and/or Democratic, and the author goes way beyond any objectivism in the rest of the article, but there is one screen of text that is well stated. This part starts just after her all-caps line "IS THERE ANY QUESTION as to who is HUMANE and who is INSANE?" which is a clue that she has an opinion.
HOW CAN THEY BE COMPARED?
There are several things one can do to compare the platforms.
a. Read the Party Documents themselves (brief description and links below)
b. Read abbreviated Comparisons by Others [Other Websites (my annotated list of links,
on another page of this site)]
c. Discuss these issues with other people (who can remain civil while discussing emotional
topics)
d. Consider how to evaluate the various statements (based on your values, your
knowledge of reality and of the factors involved in the issue).
e. Rate the issues numerically and see how each party platform adds up on your value
scale.
a. Party Documents
If you want to avoid some name-calling and extreme adjectives, you can go to the party documents themselves (they are not quite as bad). Both are in PDF format. The Democratic platform is 32 pages with only part of 1 page blank. It does not list who was on the committee. The GOP platform is 62 pages, with 50 of actual text, the rest being committee/staff lists, contents, dedication, preamble, and cover sheets.
Democratic 2012 National Platform
[http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform]
Republican 2012 National Platform
[www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf]
Most of us do not have the time (especially at this late date), nor the tolerance for vague generalizations, to read through and digest these documents. So most of us will rely on others to extract and match up the core statements from the platforms.
b. Comparisons by Others
There are many websites that compare the platforms, but most have some point of view that slants their choice of issues to compare (don't we all?), and they vary in length and depth.
I have compiled an annotated list of about 20 websites that compare the party platforms. I've listed my 5 favorites first, but after that there is no particular order. You might read the annotations to select which you want to read first. There are also some tips on doing your own web search.
Before going off to follow those links, I'd recommend that you finish the descriptions of the other 3 steps in the comparison process.
c. & d. Discuss the Issues & Consider how to Evaluate the platform statements
These 2 steps are best done together because they feed each other.
We all tend to oversimplify issues in order to speed the decision-making process and to minimize the ambiguity and angst. Our email box tends to be predominantly of one political or social persuasion. We also tend to get caught up in the mind-set of our associates and to start "playing those tapes" to the point of weakening or killing our own independent analysis of the issues, especially if you watch Fox News or Rachel Maddow exclusively.
So I recommend that your discussions be with not only those of like mind but also with some who have different points of view. This helps you with step d. by opening up some of the detailed aspects of issues and how they often interrelate.
If you do these steps, I think your conclusions will be more realistic and more helpful for yourself and the country.
e. Rate the issues numerically
See how each party platform adds up on your value scale. This exercise is helpful because, after looking over the platform comparison, it is often hard to determine which party, on balance, with all the pluses and minuses, you really agree with most. This exercise will keep track of all those pluses and minuses for you, as you review the comparison. It might be useful to do this with a like-minded group (hopefully after you've done the discussion step in a diverse group).
1. View or print one of the tables of issues listed on the "Party Platform Links" page.
(I recommend Asaravala's list, What Your Vote Means)
2. On a piece of paper (or a spreadsheet), make 3 columns of widths of about 2", 1", and 1"
respectively.
3. Write a title header for each column: Issues, Dems, & Reps.
4. In the 1st column, list the issues (Asaravala's list, What Your Vote Means has 41 issues)
5. Now, for each issue:
a. read what each party has to say on it.
b. rate each party's statement, on a scale of 0-10 (or -10 to +10, whatever),
considering how closely it fits your values (considering steps c. & d.) AND
considering how important the issue is to you as a factor.
c. Write the rating number in the appropriate party's column.
If time, you might want to follow the links to learn more about the laws or court cases
referenced. They often involve much more than the title would suggest.
6. When all issues have been rated, add up the Dem and the Rep columns separately.
The column with the larger total will be the platform that seems to match your values
better.
Keep in mind that this is for the Party platform statements ONLY; You still need to consider how closely the candidate will actually abide by the statement (or not) once he gets elected, and how he will adjust when the real world doesn't let him abide by the platform.
Here now is a link to my "Party Platform Links" page, where you can explore different sites that comment on the platform differences. You can also use the link on the tab bar near the top of this page.
----
P.S. For more general information on the election:
As I explore the web for this blog, I am coming across a number of sites that look like real treasure stores of useful information and perspectives. One of these is Democracy in Action (P2012.org) by Eric M. Appleman of George Washington University, and deals mainly with the presidential elections. I've explored several of its pages and it looks like a great place to start. It gives many links to important sites (governmental, think tanks, partisan, and not) on many issues. I highly recommend it.
"Thatch"
WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT?
Both presidential candidates have repeatedly said that there is a clear difference in the visions each has for America. That is not always clear from their ads and the debates. They both say they are for jobs, freedom, security, prosperity, fairness, lower cost of living, better government, motherhood, and apple pie. To see the differences, one must look closer; for example, maybe not motherhood for every woman, and maybe not apple pie if the apples are genetically modified or picked by underpaid migrant workers, and so on.
Where can we get those details? One place is the party platforms. Some think that the platforms are meaningless or full of the same platitudes as the ads and debates, and that the candidates, once elected, will ignore them and do as they please - and that is somewhat true.
However, a lot of work and precision goes into these documents to express the mind and will of a bulk of the active party members, and that includes the candidates. They generally agree with the principles and goals laid out there, or they would not be in that party, and certainly not as the main representative of it. And, if they do not stick to it, their base will object.
One of the best descriptions of the importance of the platforms is in an article at FreakOutNation.com [http://freakoutnation.com/2012/09/05/comparing-the-dnc-to-the-rnc-2012-platforms-ones-humane-and-the-other-is-insane/]. The site is obviously liberal and/or Democratic, and the author goes way beyond any objectivism in the rest of the article, but there is one screen of text that is well stated. This part starts just after her all-caps line "IS THERE ANY QUESTION as to who is HUMANE and who is INSANE?" which is a clue that she has an opinion.
"If there were any questions as for what the 2 candidates stand, the answers are right here...She goes on to compare several paragraphs from each platform document and ridicule the GOP one. But it does quote from the parties' documents and you can compare for yourself.
...Each platform addresses only those issues for which the party can come to consensus or, rather, willingly to promote as “concensus agreement.” Anything else is left out either from lack of consensus or refusal to address – That void or lack of discussion is telling as well." [emphasis is mine]
HOW CAN THEY BE COMPARED?
There are several things one can do to compare the platforms.
a. Read the Party Documents themselves (brief description and links below)
b. Read abbreviated Comparisons by Others [Other Websites (my annotated list of links,
on another page of this site)]
c. Discuss these issues with other people (who can remain civil while discussing emotional
topics)
d. Consider how to evaluate the various statements (based on your values, your
knowledge of reality and of the factors involved in the issue).
e. Rate the issues numerically and see how each party platform adds up on your value
scale.
a. Party Documents
If you want to avoid some name-calling and extreme adjectives, you can go to the party documents themselves (they are not quite as bad). Both are in PDF format. The Democratic platform is 32 pages with only part of 1 page blank. It does not list who was on the committee. The GOP platform is 62 pages, with 50 of actual text, the rest being committee/staff lists, contents, dedication, preamble, and cover sheets.
Democratic 2012 National Platform
[http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform]
Republican 2012 National Platform
[www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf]
Most of us do not have the time (especially at this late date), nor the tolerance for vague generalizations, to read through and digest these documents. So most of us will rely on others to extract and match up the core statements from the platforms.
b. Comparisons by Others
There are many websites that compare the platforms, but most have some point of view that slants their choice of issues to compare (don't we all?), and they vary in length and depth.
I have compiled an annotated list of about 20 websites that compare the party platforms. I've listed my 5 favorites first, but after that there is no particular order. You might read the annotations to select which you want to read first. There are also some tips on doing your own web search.
Before going off to follow those links, I'd recommend that you finish the descriptions of the other 3 steps in the comparison process.
c. & d. Discuss the Issues & Consider how to Evaluate the platform statements
These 2 steps are best done together because they feed each other.
We all tend to oversimplify issues in order to speed the decision-making process and to minimize the ambiguity and angst. Our email box tends to be predominantly of one political or social persuasion. We also tend to get caught up in the mind-set of our associates and to start "playing those tapes" to the point of weakening or killing our own independent analysis of the issues, especially if you watch Fox News or Rachel Maddow exclusively.
So I recommend that your discussions be with not only those of like mind but also with some who have different points of view. This helps you with step d. by opening up some of the detailed aspects of issues and how they often interrelate.
If you do these steps, I think your conclusions will be more realistic and more helpful for yourself and the country.
e. Rate the issues numerically
See how each party platform adds up on your value scale. This exercise is helpful because, after looking over the platform comparison, it is often hard to determine which party, on balance, with all the pluses and minuses, you really agree with most. This exercise will keep track of all those pluses and minuses for you, as you review the comparison. It might be useful to do this with a like-minded group (hopefully after you've done the discussion step in a diverse group).
1. View or print one of the tables of issues listed on the "Party Platform Links" page.
(I recommend Asaravala's list, What Your Vote Means)
2. On a piece of paper (or a spreadsheet), make 3 columns of widths of about 2", 1", and 1"
respectively.
3. Write a title header for each column: Issues, Dems, & Reps.
4. In the 1st column, list the issues (Asaravala's list, What Your Vote Means has 41 issues)
5. Now, for each issue:
a. read what each party has to say on it.
b. rate each party's statement, on a scale of 0-10 (or -10 to +10, whatever),
considering how closely it fits your values (considering steps c. & d.) AND
considering how important the issue is to you as a factor.
c. Write the rating number in the appropriate party's column.
If time, you might want to follow the links to learn more about the laws or court cases
referenced. They often involve much more than the title would suggest.
6. When all issues have been rated, add up the Dem and the Rep columns separately.
The column with the larger total will be the platform that seems to match your values
better.
Keep in mind that this is for the Party platform statements ONLY; You still need to consider how closely the candidate will actually abide by the statement (or not) once he gets elected, and how he will adjust when the real world doesn't let him abide by the platform.
Here now is a link to my "Party Platform Links" page, where you can explore different sites that comment on the platform differences. You can also use the link on the tab bar near the top of this page.
----
P.S. For more general information on the election:
As I explore the web for this blog, I am coming across a number of sites that look like real treasure stores of useful information and perspectives. One of these is Democracy in Action (P2012.org) by Eric M. Appleman of George Washington University, and deals mainly with the presidential elections. I've explored several of its pages and it looks like a great place to start. It gives many links to important sites (governmental, think tanks, partisan, and not) on many issues. I highly recommend it.
"Thatch"
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
October 22nd Presidential Debate
A Delicate Balancing Act
(11:15 pm) I always watch the commentary after the debates because they always remind me of several points that were made that I had forgotten, or that I had missed altogether. So, maybe this will help you in a similar way.
Both candidates seemed to be trying to stay on the "tightwire" by not offending their base constituency while not offending the independent/undecided voter. The result: they sound a lot alike, but strongly maintain that they are different, while saying, as often as they can get away with it, that they actually agree with their opponent. Are you confused yet?
Here are some of the notes I made during the debate. By the way, if you want to "fact check" the candidates' statements, please do. A good place to start is FactCheck.org, and there are others; just do a search for fact check.
On Libya & Lebanon
Obama said he did everything he could to protect our personnel (in Benghazi). Did he? There is a lot of disagreement about that. Romney didn't push the issue - maybe because of his earlier premature statements.
Romney made the point that, besides just killing the terrorists (which has been compared to playing "Whack-A-Mole"), we need to be helping Muslims reject radical Islam by helping them improve their quality of life. Sounded a bit like "nation-building to me. But consider how both Russia and China have gained great influence in many parts of the world (Africa, Latin America, Middle East, etc.) by doing just that - helping a culture improve its life with infrastructure and technology. Maybe we just need to modify HOW we do it, so it is less costly and less offensive.
Romney also pointed out that it has been 1 year since Obama said that Syria's Assad "had to go" and was wondering why Assad was still not gone.
On Our Role in the World
Obama said that America is stronger (many would disagree with that), that there has been progress in education (depends on what one considers progress), and that he wants to hire more teachers. No doubt that he does want to hire more, but we had more teachers and it didn't solve the problem, and, can we afford it?).
Romney said we need to focus our economic efforts on Latin America, that it has as much or more potential than China. Haven't heard much about that from the candidates so far.
On Israel & Iran
The candidates were asked if each would consider an attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S. Both answered Yes, but Obama danced around a bit before answering.
On Afghanistan
Both were asked if we should leave even if the Afgans are not ready to defend themselves. Romney said they will be ready.
I didn't catch what Obama's reply was, but he went on to say that he has done a lot to take care of veterans, and that veteran unemployment is lower now than when he took office. That’s true for veterans generally but not for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. See FactCheck.org [http://factcheck.org/2012/10/false-claims-in-final-debate/]
On the Rise of China
Of interest to me was that Romney seemed to try to balance the need to confront China (on its efforts to manipulate its currency and ignore the violations of copyrights) with the need to work with China to have a mutually beneficial trade relationship. He said that China does not want a trade war because their economy depends on selling their stuff to us.
In General
Obama called Romney's policies wrong, old, and unworkable, but offered weakly supported defense of his own policies. A line by Romney that may stick in the news was something like, "Criticizing me is not a policy."
Obama spoke with eloquence and with "presidential" pauses. But I don't quite see presidential results after 4 years in office and 2 years with his own party controlling both houses of Congress. Al Qaeda seems to be resurging, not dying, and the whole Middle East is in more turmoil, not less. I've seen the interactions between Obama and Netanyahu, and they were not those of "good buds."
By the way, just before the debate started, I saw a clip of an interview with Gary Hart (previously a Democratic Senator and presidential candidate) that I think is worth mentioning and thinking about. He mentioned that everyone is talking about the Middle Class these days, but nobody is speaking for the poor. He also said something to the effect that people might be more willing to help the poor if they weren't so concerned about their own poverty.
Well, the formal presidential debates are over for this cycle. I've watched all 4, and I still cannot endorse either candidate. But that's not to say that I won't vote against one of them.
One closing thought today:
Since, to me, the debates are not conclusive on who to vote for, maybe I need to look beyond the debate performance, which seemed like not much more than coached acting anyway.
We're looking for someone to manage the Executive branch of our government, the branch that actually DOES the work of the government (supposedly). And he has another unofficial but real function: to inspire and motivate the country. These 2 functions require unique skills. And most Americans want something else: a strong character of honesty and integrity and adherance to true American values (as best we can identify them clearly).
In choosing, it seems important to know WHERE the president will be leading us and how effectively he will manage the resources we have given him. And, according to that great and wise philosopher, Dr. Phil McGraw (among many others), "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."
So maybe we need to look at SKILLS, CHARACTER and VALUES, as demonstrated by PAST PERFORMANCE.
I'll try to get to those soon; they may be more helpful than the debates.
"Thatch"
(11:15 pm) I always watch the commentary after the debates because they always remind me of several points that were made that I had forgotten, or that I had missed altogether. So, maybe this will help you in a similar way.
Both candidates seemed to be trying to stay on the "tightwire" by not offending their base constituency while not offending the independent/undecided voter. The result: they sound a lot alike, but strongly maintain that they are different, while saying, as often as they can get away with it, that they actually agree with their opponent. Are you confused yet?
Here are some of the notes I made during the debate. By the way, if you want to "fact check" the candidates' statements, please do. A good place to start is FactCheck.org, and there are others; just do a search for fact check.
On Libya & Lebanon
Obama said he did everything he could to protect our personnel (in Benghazi). Did he? There is a lot of disagreement about that. Romney didn't push the issue - maybe because of his earlier premature statements.
Romney made the point that, besides just killing the terrorists (which has been compared to playing "Whack-A-Mole"), we need to be helping Muslims reject radical Islam by helping them improve their quality of life. Sounded a bit like "nation-building to me. But consider how both Russia and China have gained great influence in many parts of the world (Africa, Latin America, Middle East, etc.) by doing just that - helping a culture improve its life with infrastructure and technology. Maybe we just need to modify HOW we do it, so it is less costly and less offensive.
Romney also pointed out that it has been 1 year since Obama said that Syria's Assad "had to go" and was wondering why Assad was still not gone.
On Our Role in the World
Obama said that America is stronger (many would disagree with that), that there has been progress in education (depends on what one considers progress), and that he wants to hire more teachers. No doubt that he does want to hire more, but we had more teachers and it didn't solve the problem, and, can we afford it?).
Romney said we need to focus our economic efforts on Latin America, that it has as much or more potential than China. Haven't heard much about that from the candidates so far.
On Israel & Iran
The candidates were asked if each would consider an attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S. Both answered Yes, but Obama danced around a bit before answering.
On Afghanistan
Both were asked if we should leave even if the Afgans are not ready to defend themselves. Romney said they will be ready.
I didn't catch what Obama's reply was, but he went on to say that he has done a lot to take care of veterans, and that veteran unemployment is lower now than when he took office. That’s true for veterans generally but not for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. See FactCheck.org [http://factcheck.org/2012/10/false-claims-in-final-debate/]
On the Rise of China
Of interest to me was that Romney seemed to try to balance the need to confront China (on its efforts to manipulate its currency and ignore the violations of copyrights) with the need to work with China to have a mutually beneficial trade relationship. He said that China does not want a trade war because their economy depends on selling their stuff to us.
In General
Obama called Romney's policies wrong, old, and unworkable, but offered weakly supported defense of his own policies. A line by Romney that may stick in the news was something like, "Criticizing me is not a policy."
Obama spoke with eloquence and with "presidential" pauses. But I don't quite see presidential results after 4 years in office and 2 years with his own party controlling both houses of Congress. Al Qaeda seems to be resurging, not dying, and the whole Middle East is in more turmoil, not less. I've seen the interactions between Obama and Netanyahu, and they were not those of "good buds."
By the way, just before the debate started, I saw a clip of an interview with Gary Hart (previously a Democratic Senator and presidential candidate) that I think is worth mentioning and thinking about. He mentioned that everyone is talking about the Middle Class these days, but nobody is speaking for the poor. He also said something to the effect that people might be more willing to help the poor if they weren't so concerned about their own poverty.
Well, the formal presidential debates are over for this cycle. I've watched all 4, and I still cannot endorse either candidate. But that's not to say that I won't vote against one of them.
One closing thought today:
Since, to me, the debates are not conclusive on who to vote for, maybe I need to look beyond the debate performance, which seemed like not much more than coached acting anyway.
We're looking for someone to manage the Executive branch of our government, the branch that actually DOES the work of the government (supposedly). And he has another unofficial but real function: to inspire and motivate the country. These 2 functions require unique skills. And most Americans want something else: a strong character of honesty and integrity and adherance to true American values (as best we can identify them clearly).
In choosing, it seems important to know WHERE the president will be leading us and how effectively he will manage the resources we have given him. And, according to that great and wise philosopher, Dr. Phil McGraw (among many others), "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."
So maybe we need to look at SKILLS, CHARACTER and VALUES, as demonstrated by PAST PERFORMANCE.
I'll try to get to those soon; they may be more helpful than the debates.
"Thatch"
Sunday, October 21, 2012
SWING STATES and ELECTORAL VOTES
A Short Civics Lesson
(10 pm) Someone asked me today, "Which are the 'swing' states?" I realized that I had put that list in my announcement email, but not in the blog. So here it is (below): the list of 'swing' states, with their electoral vote count.
SWING STATES
Some may have the question, "What IS a 'swing' state?" In most states, a particular candidate is very likely (based on polls and history) to win that state and its electoral votes, and it would take an enormous effort to change that outcome. But in some states, the polls are so close that the vote could 'swing' to either candidate, and that's where the campaigns' efforts are most likely to make a difference. And which states are on that list will vary according to one's polling information, but there is general agreement on most lists.
Another question people often have (and I myself need to refresh my memory on this occasionally) is, "How does this Electoral College thing work anyway?" So, I have created a fairly simple example and explanation below the list.
Swing States Electoral votes
Colo. 9
Fla. 29 [for a map, click here]
Iowa 6
Nev. 6
N.H. 4
N.C. 15 NON Swing-State Votes: Obama: 237
Ohio 18 Romney: 191
Va. 13 Needed to win: 270
Wis. 10
---
Total 110 electoral votes
If you think that 9 states out of 50 (or 58 depending on who's counting) is putting too much power into too few hands, there are some writers who say that it's not 9 states that are swingable, but only 106 counties (Texas alone has 254 counties). See the article here [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/21/2012-swing-states_n_1997680.html] or here [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/21/in_race_to_270_it_may_come_down_to_106_counties_115855.html].
For more info on swing states, just do a web search. Besides Google, try Yahoo or Bing; you get different results. In fact, when you come back later to the same search engine and search for the same thing again, you'll often get different results! That's due partly to the contents of the web changing by the second, but largely due to their spying on where you've been on the web and extrapolating what your interests are; Big Brother is here (for the younger generations, that's from Orwell's book "1984").
How the ELECTORAL COLLEGE Works
It starts with Congress.
The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435. Each U.S. state is represented in the House in proportion to its population but is entitled to at least one representative. (Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives]) The most populous state, California, currently has 53 representatives according to GovTrack [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/CA] (Wiki is out of date). The Senate has 100 members, 2 per state, regardless of population.
Electoral College
Each state is allotted a number of electors equal to its total voting membership of the U.S. Congress (number of Representatives plus its 2 Senators). So the Electoral College has 538 electors, 435 based on states' Representatives and 100 based on their Senators, plus three electors from the District of Columbia. (Wikipedia) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29]
Electoral vote NOT equal to popular vote:
As a result, states with large populations have many more electors than less populous ones, but it is not exactly proportional. Also, In most states, ALL of that state's electors are pledged to vote for the candidate that wins that state's popular vote. So all of Florida's 29 electoral votes will go to the winner in that state, whether he wins by 1 vote or 100,000 votes.
A Simple Illustration (it may help to refer to this graphic):
Assume there are only 2 states, Acadia (with a population of 900,000) and Benovia (with a population of 100,000). And say we have 1 Rep. per 100,000 population. That gives Acadia 9 Representatives and 11 electoral votes (9 for its Reps + 2 for its Sen). Benovia gets 1 Representative and 3 electoral votes (1 for its Rep + 2 for its Sen).
Now, let's say that in Acadia, Candidate #1 gets 440,000 votes (assuming that the entire population can vote, and does) and Candidate #2 gets 460,000 votes, winning Acadia with 51% of that states' votes (460,000 / 900,000). And say that in Benovia, C#1 gets 90,000 votes and C#2 gets 10,000 votes, giving C#1 the win in Benovia with 90% of that states' votes (90,000 / 100,000).
So, the popular vote is:
C#1: 530,000 (440,000 in Acadia + 90,000 in Benovia) and
C#2: 470,000 (460,000 in Acadia + 10,000 in Benovia);
that's 530,000 to 470,000; C#1 wins the popular vote by 60,000 votes,
or 53% to 47%, a 6% lead .
However, the electoral vote is:
C#1: 3 votes (0 from Acadia where he lost 49% to 51%,
and 3 from Benovia where he won 90% of the vote)
C#2: 11 votes (all from Acadia where he won 51% of the vote)
that's 3 to 11; C#2 wins the electoral vote, and the "lop-sided" election !
Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but it shows how the electoral system works, and it also shows its reason for creation. The Framers designed the Congress to help protect the less populous states by making it bicameral (2 houses) with one house (the House) based on population and the other (the Senate) with each state equal (2 Senators per state). They designed the electoral system on the same principal - to protect the small states.
In our example, the small state of Benovia has 21% of the electoral vote (3 votes of the 14 total). If the election was determined by popular vote only, Benovia would get only 10% of the vote (100,000 votes of the 1,000,000 total). That's over TWICE the influence they would have if popular vote were used instead of the electoral process.
As you can see in our example, the 20,000 additional votes for C#2 in Acadia over-ruled the 80,000 additional votes for C#1 in Benovia. That seems unfair, and is one reason for a lot of controversy over this system. Still, the system does give a significant boost to the smaller states, even though it wasn't enough here to counter-balance the much larger state. If we had chosen different numbers for our example, we could have illustrated that.
Technically, an electoral college tie is possible (269 to 269). In that case, the House chooses the President and the Senate chooses the V.P. (U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sect. 1, as modified by the 12th Amendment). Since the current House is controlled by the GOP and the Senate by the Democrats, theoretically we could end up with Romney as President and Biden as V.P.!
By the way, the Politico site [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/swing-state/#swingCustom] has an option to customize the swing state winners and see the results in the electoral vote total. And a good project for someone (a student in math or government class?) would be to develop (or locate on the web) a spreadsheet that would allow us to plug in different values in a scenario to illustrate the effect of varying votes, populations, and representation rates on the outcome. This might be also used to develop a tweak to the system to make the small-state influence fairer (but what's fair???). And the fair issue might be a good project for a class in debate or sociology! Not a trivial pursuit.
Hope this helps. P.S. My wife and I have already caught several gross factual errors in this post. If we still missed some, please let us know so I can correct the post for future readers.
Thanks,
"Thatch"
(10 pm) Someone asked me today, "Which are the 'swing' states?" I realized that I had put that list in my announcement email, but not in the blog. So here it is (below): the list of 'swing' states, with their electoral vote count.
SWING STATES
Some may have the question, "What IS a 'swing' state?" In most states, a particular candidate is very likely (based on polls and history) to win that state and its electoral votes, and it would take an enormous effort to change that outcome. But in some states, the polls are so close that the vote could 'swing' to either candidate, and that's where the campaigns' efforts are most likely to make a difference. And which states are on that list will vary according to one's polling information, but there is general agreement on most lists.
Another question people often have (and I myself need to refresh my memory on this occasionally) is, "How does this Electoral College thing work anyway?" So, I have created a fairly simple example and explanation below the list.
Swing States Electoral votes
Colo. 9
Fla. 29 [for a map, click here]
Iowa 6
N.H. 4
N.C. 15 NON Swing-State Votes: Obama: 237
Ohio 18 Romney: 191
Va. 13 Needed to win: 270
Wis. 10
---
Total 110 electoral votes
If you think that 9 states out of 50 (or 58 depending on who's counting) is putting too much power into too few hands, there are some writers who say that it's not 9 states that are swingable, but only 106 counties (Texas alone has 254 counties). See the article here [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/21/2012-swing-states_n_1997680.html] or here [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/21/in_race_to_270_it_may_come_down_to_106_counties_115855.html].
For more info on swing states, just do a web search. Besides Google, try Yahoo or Bing; you get different results. In fact, when you come back later to the same search engine and search for the same thing again, you'll often get different results! That's due partly to the contents of the web changing by the second, but largely due to their spying on where you've been on the web and extrapolating what your interests are; Big Brother is here (for the younger generations, that's from Orwell's book "1984").
How the ELECTORAL COLLEGE Works
It starts with Congress.
The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435. Each U.S. state is represented in the House in proportion to its population but is entitled to at least one representative. (Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives]) The most populous state, California, currently has 53 representatives according to GovTrack [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/CA] (Wiki is out of date). The Senate has 100 members, 2 per state, regardless of population.
Electoral College
Each state is allotted a number of electors equal to its total voting membership of the U.S. Congress (number of Representatives plus its 2 Senators). So the Electoral College has 538 electors, 435 based on states' Representatives and 100 based on their Senators, plus three electors from the District of Columbia. (Wikipedia) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29]
Electoral vote NOT equal to popular vote:
As a result, states with large populations have many more electors than less populous ones, but it is not exactly proportional. Also, In most states, ALL of that state's electors are pledged to vote for the candidate that wins that state's popular vote. So all of Florida's 29 electoral votes will go to the winner in that state, whether he wins by 1 vote or 100,000 votes.
A Simple Illustration (it may help to refer to this graphic):
Assume there are only 2 states, Acadia (with a population of 900,000) and Benovia (with a population of 100,000). And say we have 1 Rep. per 100,000 population. That gives Acadia 9 Representatives and 11 electoral votes (9 for its Reps + 2 for its Sen). Benovia gets 1 Representative and 3 electoral votes (1 for its Rep + 2 for its Sen).
Now, let's say that in Acadia, Candidate #1 gets 440,000 votes (assuming that the entire population can vote, and does) and Candidate #2 gets 460,000 votes, winning Acadia with 51% of that states' votes (460,000 / 900,000). And say that in Benovia, C#1 gets 90,000 votes and C#2 gets 10,000 votes, giving C#1 the win in Benovia with 90% of that states' votes (90,000 / 100,000).
So, the popular vote is:
C#1: 530,000 (440,000 in Acadia + 90,000 in Benovia) and
C#2: 470,000 (460,000 in Acadia + 10,000 in Benovia);
that's 530,000 to 470,000; C#1 wins the popular vote by 60,000 votes,
or 53% to 47%, a 6% lead .
However, the electoral vote is:
C#1: 3 votes (0 from Acadia where he lost 49% to 51%,
and 3 from Benovia where he won 90% of the vote)
C#2: 11 votes (all from Acadia where he won 51% of the vote)
that's 3 to 11; C#2 wins the electoral vote, and the "lop-sided" election !
Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but it shows how the electoral system works, and it also shows its reason for creation. The Framers designed the Congress to help protect the less populous states by making it bicameral (2 houses) with one house (the House) based on population and the other (the Senate) with each state equal (2 Senators per state). They designed the electoral system on the same principal - to protect the small states.
In our example, the small state of Benovia has 21% of the electoral vote (3 votes of the 14 total). If the election was determined by popular vote only, Benovia would get only 10% of the vote (100,000 votes of the 1,000,000 total). That's over TWICE the influence they would have if popular vote were used instead of the electoral process.
As you can see in our example, the 20,000 additional votes for C#2 in Acadia over-ruled the 80,000 additional votes for C#1 in Benovia. That seems unfair, and is one reason for a lot of controversy over this system. Still, the system does give a significant boost to the smaller states, even though it wasn't enough here to counter-balance the much larger state. If we had chosen different numbers for our example, we could have illustrated that.
Technically, an electoral college tie is possible (269 to 269). In that case, the House chooses the President and the Senate chooses the V.P. (U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sect. 1, as modified by the 12th Amendment). Since the current House is controlled by the GOP and the Senate by the Democrats, theoretically we could end up with Romney as President and Biden as V.P.!
By the way, the Politico site [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/swing-state/#swingCustom] has an option to customize the swing state winners and see the results in the electoral vote total. And a good project for someone (a student in math or government class?) would be to develop (or locate on the web) a spreadsheet that would allow us to plug in different values in a scenario to illustrate the effect of varying votes, populations, and representation rates on the outcome. This might be also used to develop a tweak to the system to make the small-state influence fairer (but what's fair???). And the fair issue might be a good project for a class in debate or sociology! Not a trivial pursuit.
Hope this helps. P.S. My wife and I have already caught several gross factual errors in this post. If we still missed some, please let us know so I can correct the post for future readers.
Thanks,
"Thatch"
Friday, October 19, 2012
October 16th Presidential Debate - Part 2
More on Benghazi and a Few More Details
I did some fact checking, and was still confused (are you surprised?). But let me mention a few things I found. Often, the accumulation of minutiae can lead to a decision.
I watched several days of CBS evening news to catch up on events, and was a bit surprised that they were doing a bit of fact-checking, so I took notes. Of course, they were careful to report an equal number of errors by each candidate. But here are a few news items, fact-checks, and my observations.
I don't put much stock in the polls, especially when things are so close, and so fast-changing. But I have questions. If 65% to 34% say Romney is better on the economy, and the economy is the main issue, why do the polls show the election as even?
Most of the commentators said the debate was combative, and made a big repeated issue of it. I felt it was lively, with very strong differences and disagreements, but I saw NO signs that either candidate might hit or push or even touch the other in any negative way. But that's not to say they weren't both rude.
Regarding the "binders of women," I think both men will be helpful to women in jobs, but in different ways. Just read their party platforms. Overall, I think the president that fixes the economy will help women's pay the most.As they say, a rising tide raises all boats. In economics, some boats rise higher than others, and that is better than all boats going down.
Now here's more that has come out on the Benghazi issue. It's details, but I think it reveals one's character and integrity - this time about Obama.
In the debate, Romney accused Obama of misleading us about the cause of the attack, and Obama denied it, saying that he said, on the day after the attack, that it was an act of terror. When Romney tried to verify that Obama was really claiming that, Obama looked at the moderator (Crowley) and said to her, "Get the transcript." Now, when I was watching the debate, I thought Obama said to Romney something to the effect of 'If you get the transcript you will see that I'm correct.' But in watching a replay, I saw that Obama was looking at Crowley, gestured to her as he spoke, and that she already had a copy of the transcript in her hand, and quickly jumped in to support Obama, saying that he was correct, that he had indeed said that. That seemed to take the wind from Romney's accusation.
However... On CBS News, the next day I think, Jan Crawford exposed the truth about Obama's statement. The truth is that in the Rose Garden he said, "No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation" but he indicated earlier in that statement that the attack was due to demonstrations against the YouTube video. And Ambassador Rice and others in the administration continued for 5 days to attribute the attack to spontaneous demonstrations against the video. This story is documented very well at several places:
CBS News video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule
NewRepublic (succinct text article):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946658/posts
NewsBusters (transcript of the whole news item):
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/10/18/cbss-crawford-exposes-obamas-deception-benghazi-attack
Susan Rice on Meet The Press
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n
Another aspect of this issue is Obama's apparent premeditated collusion with Crowley to disprove Romney's valid accusation. First, it was not appropriate for the moderator to be involved in doing fact-verification during the debate. At first, I thought she just was caught up in the moment and tried to settle a dispute to move the debate forward. The video replay revealed that she had the transcript in hand, and that Obama knew she had it - clearly premeditated collusion. To me, this is more than being vague with numbers; it's just plain blatant deception, both in the debate and in the media presentation of the causes of the attack.
Other observations:
Romney seemed to be ready with his points and facts (such as he had). Obama had to think a while and preface with history or stories. I would think that as current President, he would have his facts on the tip of his tongue.
Romney talked about supporting free trade. I'm not sure that is a good thing. Central America is so different from the U.S. in its cost of labor that there would need to be tariffs to equalize prices (level the playing field). Originally, most or all of the federal government's income was from tariffs. It certainly helped us become self sufficient. I know the world is different now, but maybe tariffs have a place in the mix.
Obama had a quotable quote: "Weapons for soldiers don't belong on the streets" or something very close to that. I'm almost certain he meant that "assault rifles" don't belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. Sounds good. But casual quotes can lead to harmful mindsets. My wife often says, "If it's not working, don't do it harder." At first it made sense, until I realized that some things weren't working because I wasn't doing them hard enough, or long enough.
The right to keep and bear arms was put into the Constitution to enable the citizens to protect themselves not so much against crime as against an oppressive government (as they had just done against the British). If the government (soldiers) have "assault rifles" and even heavy weapons, then it makes sense that the citizens are authorized to have them also. There are dangers of citizenry misusing their power, but there are greater dangers of the government doing the same. Look around the world; governments and criminals will have guns, and when the citizens do not, they suffer greatly.
If you want to dig further into the economics issues and claims, check out some of these links below. As I've read a bit on them, I've found both meaning and overload. But I do learn a bit from most attempts to understand. I've listened to both of the people referenced below and they make sense and seem to be not particularly partisan.
Wikipedia article on Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget a public policy think tank
President: Maya MacGuineas
http://crfb.org
Wikipedia article on David Walker (Former Comptroller General of the United States; Author of 'Comeback America')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_%28U.S._Comptroller_General%29
Comeback America Initiative (David M. Walker, Founder & CEO)
http://keepingamericagreat.org/
Hope this has been informative. Since time is getting short for voting, things may get more abbreviated and to the point. My own opinions are getting more focused as I collect and digest more and more information. I expect I'll be adding a lot more links and less narrative.
"Thatch"
I did some fact checking, and was still confused (are you surprised?). But let me mention a few things I found. Often, the accumulation of minutiae can lead to a decision.
I watched several days of CBS evening news to catch up on events, and was a bit surprised that they were doing a bit of fact-checking, so I took notes. Of course, they were careful to report an equal number of errors by each candidate. But here are a few news items, fact-checks, and my observations.
I don't put much stock in the polls, especially when things are so close, and so fast-changing. But I have questions. If 65% to 34% say Romney is better on the economy, and the economy is the main issue, why do the polls show the election as even?
Most of the commentators said the debate was combative, and made a big repeated issue of it. I felt it was lively, with very strong differences and disagreements, but I saw NO signs that either candidate might hit or push or even touch the other in any negative way. But that's not to say they weren't both rude.
Regarding the "binders of women," I think both men will be helpful to women in jobs, but in different ways. Just read their party platforms. Overall, I think the president that fixes the economy will help women's pay the most.As they say, a rising tide raises all boats. In economics, some boats rise higher than others, and that is better than all boats going down.
Now here's more that has come out on the Benghazi issue. It's details, but I think it reveals one's character and integrity - this time about Obama.
In the debate, Romney accused Obama of misleading us about the cause of the attack, and Obama denied it, saying that he said, on the day after the attack, that it was an act of terror. When Romney tried to verify that Obama was really claiming that, Obama looked at the moderator (Crowley) and said to her, "Get the transcript." Now, when I was watching the debate, I thought Obama said to Romney something to the effect of 'If you get the transcript you will see that I'm correct.' But in watching a replay, I saw that Obama was looking at Crowley, gestured to her as he spoke, and that she already had a copy of the transcript in her hand, and quickly jumped in to support Obama, saying that he was correct, that he had indeed said that. That seemed to take the wind from Romney's accusation.
However... On CBS News, the next day I think, Jan Crawford exposed the truth about Obama's statement. The truth is that in the Rose Garden he said, "No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation" but he indicated earlier in that statement that the attack was due to demonstrations against the YouTube video. And Ambassador Rice and others in the administration continued for 5 days to attribute the attack to spontaneous demonstrations against the video. This story is documented very well at several places:
CBS News video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule
NewRepublic (succinct text article):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946658/posts
NewsBusters (transcript of the whole news item):
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/10/18/cbss-crawford-exposes-obamas-deception-benghazi-attack
Susan Rice on Meet The Press
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n
Another aspect of this issue is Obama's apparent premeditated collusion with Crowley to disprove Romney's valid accusation. First, it was not appropriate for the moderator to be involved in doing fact-verification during the debate. At first, I thought she just was caught up in the moment and tried to settle a dispute to move the debate forward. The video replay revealed that she had the transcript in hand, and that Obama knew she had it - clearly premeditated collusion. To me, this is more than being vague with numbers; it's just plain blatant deception, both in the debate and in the media presentation of the causes of the attack.
Other observations:
Romney seemed to be ready with his points and facts (such as he had). Obama had to think a while and preface with history or stories. I would think that as current President, he would have his facts on the tip of his tongue.
Romney talked about supporting free trade. I'm not sure that is a good thing. Central America is so different from the U.S. in its cost of labor that there would need to be tariffs to equalize prices (level the playing field). Originally, most or all of the federal government's income was from tariffs. It certainly helped us become self sufficient. I know the world is different now, but maybe tariffs have a place in the mix.
Obama had a quotable quote: "Weapons for soldiers don't belong on the streets" or something very close to that. I'm almost certain he meant that "assault rifles" don't belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. Sounds good. But casual quotes can lead to harmful mindsets. My wife often says, "If it's not working, don't do it harder." At first it made sense, until I realized that some things weren't working because I wasn't doing them hard enough, or long enough.
The right to keep and bear arms was put into the Constitution to enable the citizens to protect themselves not so much against crime as against an oppressive government (as they had just done against the British). If the government (soldiers) have "assault rifles" and even heavy weapons, then it makes sense that the citizens are authorized to have them also. There are dangers of citizenry misusing their power, but there are greater dangers of the government doing the same. Look around the world; governments and criminals will have guns, and when the citizens do not, they suffer greatly.
If you want to dig further into the economics issues and claims, check out some of these links below. As I've read a bit on them, I've found both meaning and overload. But I do learn a bit from most attempts to understand. I've listened to both of the people referenced below and they make sense and seem to be not particularly partisan.
Wikipedia article on Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget a public policy think tank
President: Maya MacGuineas
http://crfb.org
Wikipedia article on David Walker (Former Comptroller General of the United States; Author of 'Comeback America')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_%28U.S._Comptroller_General%29
Comeback America Initiative (David M. Walker, Founder & CEO)
http://keepingamericagreat.org/
Hope this has been informative. Since time is getting short for voting, things may get more abbreviated and to the point. My own opinions are getting more focused as I collect and digest more and more information. I expect I'll be adding a lot more links and less narrative.
"Thatch"
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
October 16th Presidential Debate - Part 1
A Win for Obama? Or just a draw?
On the surface, one might say that Obama "won" because he:
-used numbered points (as Romney had done in the 1st debate),
-was more "engaged" than in the 1st, and
-made many positive statements of what he's done and what he plans to do,
and Romney was rather vague.
On the other hand, Obama was rather cool and mechanistic, and his points (though positive) were not detailed, and gave no substance to what would be different or better than his 1st term. Romney, though also not being very detailed, was nevertheless very passionate about his plans and about his different approach.
Both men interrupted the other, kept talking over the other, talked beyond the clearly agreed upon and clearly posted time limits, and ignored and talked over the moderator. Both seemed to be so focused on getting their own point across that they ignored the rules they had both agreed to, as well as just being rude.
Once again, the thing that stood out the most to me, about both candidates, was their failure to answer the question they were asked ! And their failure to give enough details to their "glittering generalities!" Much of the answer time (50%-75%) was spent re-describing the problem and telling anecdotes to illustrate it. We know the problems pretty well - we want to hear their solutions !
So maybe nobody won, certainly not us.
Now for some specifics that might resonate with some of you, one way or another.
Romney made a statement I had not noticed before. He'll not decrease the taxes on the wealthy, and he'll not increase them on the middle class. It sounded like an opening for him to increase taxes on the wealthy, something Republicans have generally disavowed in the past, and something that may be necessary to fix the deficit problem.
Obama said that Romney's plan doesn't add up, and gave some numbers to help show the math. It sounded good, though he didn't provide the numbers for the other half of the equation - they don't exist yet. So who do we trust to make things happen?
Do we trust the math of Obama (who has actually been President for almost 4 years, but, instead of balancing the budget, has increased the national debt by $5 trillion, and projects continued budget deficits of over $1 trillion each year)?
Or do we trust Romney who has not been President and whose math is still fuzzy, but who has been governor of Massachusetts and balanced that budget every year there, and has taken the 2002 Winter Olympics from red ink to surplus, and (though there is dispute about how the individual companies fared) he has made great profits for Bain Capital. He has a good track record for making money work out.
Romney's answers on women's pay did not satisfy me at all. Yes, he hires women, but at what pay rate?
Obama criticized Romney for having Washington people decide health care issues for women. I assume he's referring to elected representatives voting to not have government pay for contraceptives or not force insurance companies to pay for them. Yet ObamaCare has unelected panels deciding what major medical care that government insurance will not pay for. Seems like stones thrown by the resident of a glass house.
On immigration, Romney criticized Obama for not doing anything on immigration as he had promised. Obama said he had conferred on this issue, yet I don't recall hearing about it in the news. It seems that sometime in his 1st 2 years, with both House and Senate controlled by the Democrats, he could have gotten something done on it, or at least something that made the news. But then, he did have a financial crisis, and was busy working on a health care plan that most of the country did not want.
Regarding the Benghazi attack, Obama said, "I am ultimately responsible..." and he supported that by saying he's working to bring the perpetrators to justice. It seems to me that his main job is to protect Americans, including our consulates and embassies, and he should have been aware of the danger there and made sure there was adequate protection, at least as much as at our French consulate. And I simply do not understand why the administration kept saying for 14 days that the event was a demonstration about the video on YouTube, when news video made it obvious from day one that it was a coordinated attack by trained and well-armed terrorists. Obama's words of respect and care for his personal friends that were lost there sound hollow considering the blatant withdrawal of security around these people.
I applaud Obama for supporting community colleges and training in the skilled trades. That seems to be a real help for people and the economy. I have personally seen such programs move many persons into a new income level and help mature them from kids into productive and confident professionals.
Well, this is getting lengthy. I think I'll finish this topic in the next post.
There were a lot of "factual" statements that ought to be verified. I'll try to check on those or at least give some links to others who have.
Regarding how the candidates' statements match their own published plans, I have an outline for some posts on that.
I'm also currently working on several posts comparing both Parties' platforms, and I'll include some comments on how the candidates' statements in this debate match their own Party's platform.
Please let me know what other issues you would like addressed. If you see things differently, let us hear about it. Different viewpoints usually provide a fuller picture (like the blind men and the elephant).
On the surface, one might say that Obama "won" because he:
-used numbered points (as Romney had done in the 1st debate),
-was more "engaged" than in the 1st, and
-made many positive statements of what he's done and what he plans to do,
and Romney was rather vague.
On the other hand, Obama was rather cool and mechanistic, and his points (though positive) were not detailed, and gave no substance to what would be different or better than his 1st term. Romney, though also not being very detailed, was nevertheless very passionate about his plans and about his different approach.
Both men interrupted the other, kept talking over the other, talked beyond the clearly agreed upon and clearly posted time limits, and ignored and talked over the moderator. Both seemed to be so focused on getting their own point across that they ignored the rules they had both agreed to, as well as just being rude.
Once again, the thing that stood out the most to me, about both candidates, was their failure to answer the question they were asked ! And their failure to give enough details to their "glittering generalities!" Much of the answer time (50%-75%) was spent re-describing the problem and telling anecdotes to illustrate it. We know the problems pretty well - we want to hear their solutions !
So maybe nobody won, certainly not us.
Now for some specifics that might resonate with some of you, one way or another.
Romney made a statement I had not noticed before. He'll not decrease the taxes on the wealthy, and he'll not increase them on the middle class. It sounded like an opening for him to increase taxes on the wealthy, something Republicans have generally disavowed in the past, and something that may be necessary to fix the deficit problem.
Obama said that Romney's plan doesn't add up, and gave some numbers to help show the math. It sounded good, though he didn't provide the numbers for the other half of the equation - they don't exist yet. So who do we trust to make things happen?
Do we trust the math of Obama (who has actually been President for almost 4 years, but, instead of balancing the budget, has increased the national debt by $5 trillion, and projects continued budget deficits of over $1 trillion each year)?
Or do we trust Romney who has not been President and whose math is still fuzzy, but who has been governor of Massachusetts and balanced that budget every year there, and has taken the 2002 Winter Olympics from red ink to surplus, and (though there is dispute about how the individual companies fared) he has made great profits for Bain Capital. He has a good track record for making money work out.
Romney's answers on women's pay did not satisfy me at all. Yes, he hires women, but at what pay rate?
Obama criticized Romney for having Washington people decide health care issues for women. I assume he's referring to elected representatives voting to not have government pay for contraceptives or not force insurance companies to pay for them. Yet ObamaCare has unelected panels deciding what major medical care that government insurance will not pay for. Seems like stones thrown by the resident of a glass house.
On immigration, Romney criticized Obama for not doing anything on immigration as he had promised. Obama said he had conferred on this issue, yet I don't recall hearing about it in the news. It seems that sometime in his 1st 2 years, with both House and Senate controlled by the Democrats, he could have gotten something done on it, or at least something that made the news. But then, he did have a financial crisis, and was busy working on a health care plan that most of the country did not want.
Regarding the Benghazi attack, Obama said, "I am ultimately responsible..." and he supported that by saying he's working to bring the perpetrators to justice. It seems to me that his main job is to protect Americans, including our consulates and embassies, and he should have been aware of the danger there and made sure there was adequate protection, at least as much as at our French consulate. And I simply do not understand why the administration kept saying for 14 days that the event was a demonstration about the video on YouTube, when news video made it obvious from day one that it was a coordinated attack by trained and well-armed terrorists. Obama's words of respect and care for his personal friends that were lost there sound hollow considering the blatant withdrawal of security around these people.
I applaud Obama for supporting community colleges and training in the skilled trades. That seems to be a real help for people and the economy. I have personally seen such programs move many persons into a new income level and help mature them from kids into productive and confident professionals.
Well, this is getting lengthy. I think I'll finish this topic in the next post.
There were a lot of "factual" statements that ought to be verified. I'll try to check on those or at least give some links to others who have.
Regarding how the candidates' statements match their own published plans, I have an outline for some posts on that.
I'm also currently working on several posts comparing both Parties' platforms, and I'll include some comments on how the candidates' statements in this debate match their own Party's platform.
Please let me know what other issues you would like addressed. If you see things differently, let us hear about it. Different viewpoints usually provide a fuller picture (like the blind men and the elephant).
Thursday, October 11, 2012
HOW TO DEAL WITH POLITICAL CHOICES
The Difficulty of Getting to the Meaningful Truth
(1:00 pm) As the first real post to this blog, a good place to start seems to be to lay out an approach to the task. The thing that I find most frustrating about politics is the difficulty of getting to the meaningful truth.
A hypothetical example: One spokesman says, "Our program saves $2 billion," but the opposition says, "No, it only saves $200 million." Of course, neither one is the meaningful truth, because the OMB ( or the CBO or some "think tank") says its calculations show that it will only save $1 trillion, but those savings will be over the next 10 years (not in next year's budget alone), and it does not include the administrative costs of the program ($200 million per year) nor the fact that in 10 years, inflation will have made the costs double and the remaining savings amount becomes negligible.
Were you confused by that paragraph? Welcome! So, what can we do?
Over the decades, I have tried several ways to cut through this problem, and have come up with this 6-step* approach:
Figure out who I can trust the best to help me make the best decision.
With those concepts in mind, let's get busy! Expand my mind with your views! Check out a few links below. Let's get ready to digest the VP debate tonight!
*This step was contributed by a reader/commenter (see Robb Wilson's comment below). I think he is correct, and it is a distinct and necessary step. Thanks!
LINKS:
Debunking Romney-Ryan Medicare Myths
Obama frequently attacks Ryan's Medicare plan -- but is he correct?
Ω
(1:00 pm) As the first real post to this blog, a good place to start seems to be to lay out an approach to the task. The thing that I find most frustrating about politics is the difficulty of getting to the meaningful truth.
A hypothetical example: One spokesman says, "Our program saves $2 billion," but the opposition says, "No, it only saves $200 million." Of course, neither one is the meaningful truth, because the OMB ( or the CBO or some "think tank") says its calculations show that it will only save $1 trillion, but those savings will be over the next 10 years (not in next year's budget alone), and it does not include the administrative costs of the program ($200 million per year) nor the fact that in 10 years, inflation will have made the costs double and the remaining savings amount becomes negligible.
Were you confused by that paragraph? Welcome! So, what can we do?
Over the decades, I have tried several ways to cut through this problem, and have come up with this 6-step* approach:
- Listen to as many viewpoints as I can (based on available time and my brain's ability to deal with ambiguity). Keep an open mind for new ways to see things.
- Learn to translate the code words*. What do they mean by "spending cut?"
- Assess the credibility of each source (as best I can).
- Compare the information with my best understanding of how the real world actually works.
- Compare the issues/candidates with my own values and ethics (religious, social, economic, etc.).
- Come to some decision on WHO DO I TRUST to accomplish the best thing as events unfold differently than planned (as they usually do).
- Let each step help the others.
- Pay close attention to steps 2, 3, and 4.
- Rely on a few (trustworthy) others to do some of this work, and share their results/opinions.
Figure out who I can trust the best to help me make the best decision.
With those concepts in mind, let's get busy! Expand my mind with your views! Check out a few links below. Let's get ready to digest the VP debate tonight!
*This step was contributed by a reader/commenter (see Robb Wilson's comment below). I think he is correct, and it is a distinct and necessary step. Thanks!
LINKS:
Debunking Romney-Ryan Medicare Myths
Obama frequently attacks Ryan's Medicare plan -- but is he correct?
Ω
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)