This is a concise account of why President Obama won the 2012 election. Well-stated.
Originally posted on Scholars and Rogues | Progressive Culture:
If there’s one word that seemed to characterize Romney supporters’ immediate reaction to Obama’s victory, it’s “shock.”
A conservative Facebook friend posted this status: “For the first time in my life I am at a loss for words…absolutely baffled by the electorate and the election results, especially considering the current state the country is in.”
A radio reporter interviewed a woman at the Romney campaign party in Denver shortly after the election was called. Her response simmered with anger as she pondered the reality of how more than half the nation had voted: “What don’t they see?? It’s mind-boggling!”
What they don’t see are people like me.
I’m a 50-year-old white woman who lives in the swing state of Colorado. I’m married, I’m a mom, I have a PhD, and I’m a Christian. In Boulder. I can’t imagine trying to explain the world without faith and science. I’m upper middle class, but I come from blue-collar stock. I believe in capitalism, but I also believe its inevitable excesses must be tempered with regulations – you know, Genesis, original sin, the human propensity for greed and all. I’m pro-life in the fullest sense of the term. I’m happy for my gay friends who want to marry – I’m all for commitment when it comes to sustaining the social fabric. My evangelical grandmother, whom I treasured, was a member of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. I’m a Democrat who likes hymns and red wine. Try squaring all that when it comes to putting me in a political box.
Like a great many voters who helped tip the election to Obama, I see social complexity that the poles refuse to acknowledge. I’m a reasonable centrist. And I think Republicans write us off at their own expense.
If one had spent the campaign watching only Fox News, following only conservative pundits and pollsters, it’s no wonder the election results seemed so inscrutable. Daniel Larion, doing some Wednesday morning quarterbacking in The American Conservative, observed that the entire Romney campaign was organized on “flawed assumptions.”
“Romney and his allies not only didn’t understand their opponent, but they went out of their way to make sure they misunderstood him, and in any kind of contest that is usually a recipe for failure.”
Likewise, Romney supporters misunderstand many of us who sent Obama back for four more years. Why on earth, given this economy, would tens of millions of Americans choose to do that?
The right-wing radio blowhards think they have it figured out: we’re dupes of the mainstream media, a giant liberal-elite faction engaged in a conspiratorial embrace with the Left; Hurricane Sandy and turncoat Chris Christie joined forces in an eleventh-hour PR move for the president; or – and this is emerging as the dominant narrative – we simply want more stuff that we don’t have to work for. We’re takers, not makers. Romney was right when he talked about the 47 percent, only it was 51 percent – apparently there were more slackers in the country than he counted on.
All of those explanations are as wrong as they are offensive.
I would like for my bewildered Republican friends to know how I could possibly have voted for Obama without being a far-left ideologue who is simultaneously blind, immoral and lacking in patriotism.
Here are five reasons. And I’m pretty sure I speak for the bulk of the moderates who broke for the president on Tuesday night.
1) I don’t believe Obama is a closet Muslim with a radical socialist agenda to undermine America. I don’t believe he has a false birth certificate and a fake Social Security card. I think he is a deeply sincere, smart, principled man who is far from perfect but deserves a chance to continue what he has tried to begin.
2) I’m more comfortable taking a risk on Obama’s economic agenda than Romney’s. The numbers are starting to look up. I’d rather hedge my bets with Keynes than Adam Smith. Mitt wants to cut spending and slash taxes, and give most of those tax breaks to the richest Americans. That doesn’t square with my sense of what’s rational or what’s just. We’ve tried that before, and that Kool-Aid does not trickle down for me.
This isn’t just about politics — this is about rational decision making. Kind of like they had the ability to make the 6 million dollar man, we now have better insights into decision-making. If only people, organizations, and governments would start to value intellectualism again! But selling intellectualism in industry is sometimes hard because “academics” don’t understand the real world. Selling intellectualism to the masses is viewed as some kind of liberal conspiracy. Selling intellectualism to the government…well, it’s a bureaucracy — it doesn’t like logic.
In the end, it’s time to embrace the reality — we need smart people to run the country. Not everyone’s smart. Not everyone is good at decision-making. It’s now time to critically evaluate our relative skills and attributes!
Originally posted on InsideTimsHead:
As the election drew near, many political and stats junkies (like me) became fans of Nate Silver, aka @fivethirtyeight, the shrewd political number-cruncher and blogger for the New York Times. His way of aggregating the most reliable presidential polls into megapolls, and factoring in those polls’ historical accuracies, was considered by some to be as revolutionary as the introduction of “Moneyball” — or use of undervalued stats — on baseball.
Like anyone who develops a following, Silver soon drew his shares of detractors. Newsmen, pundits and politicians alike scoffed at his methodology, and Silver tended to respond quite intelligently with an unrivaled grasp of statistics. Even as the news networks hyped the election as anyone’s game last week, Silver said his estimations “represent powerful evidence against the idea that the race is a ‘tossup.’ A tossup race isn’t likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other – any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses.” And, yes, unless Florida reverses course, he will have called 50 of 50 states correctly. That he even triggered the briefly popular Is Nate Silver A Witch? website tells something about his crossover success.
But let’s forget politics for a moment (please!); what’s impressive here is the rise of analytics writ large. Silver succeeded by keen understanding of statistics, willingness to discard dubious assumptions and eagerness to innovate. In higher education, we always talk about working smarter not harder and trying innovative things … then everyone rushes to “best practices” and well-plowed ground and research (like that on “Millennials”) based on questionable assumptions.
Today happens to be Bonfire Day in the UK — a commemoration of Guy Fawkes day here. The story behind it is interesting (heck anyone who’s see V for Vendetta should know the basic story) and it’s a novel piece of history to commemorate.
That said, my little neighborhood in Wincobank (Sheffield) South Yorkshire has sounded like a bloody war zone for the last 4 to 5 hours. And while the shiny flashing light through the window is pretty and our neighbors clearly have spent a good chunk of cash on something that ends up being community entertainment, why can’t they just have a damn bonfire and be done with it? Or organize a few city fireworks displays and people who want to go, can contribute to the fireworks fund.
Now, I know I’m American and we have our Independence Day — but in most of the US fireworks are heavily regulated and in many states anything that makes big bangs and goes up in the air is illegal (we have enough problems with out of control forest fires in the half of the country that is high and dry… we don’t need more hot sparks to contribute to them). So, for the most part we rely on town displays or have cute (i.e., pathetic) little home displays of sparklers.
I don’t just say this because after the 3rd hour the artillery shelling gets a bit annoying, but because there are two populations that are actually negatively affected by this. I’ll begin with the ones who are the most helpless — the dogs. Not surprisingly dogs find them mc-scarry and pretty much the only advise is to make sure they don’t hurt themselves or run away… and if they do run away make sure they’re microchipped so if they don’t get hit by a car, you can get them back. I’m not trying to be macabre but Dani — my normally happy-g0-skippy beast has been going bat shit crazy for the last 4′ish hours. Xander, my tough guy, is sitting on my feet just to make sure that I’m not scared by them ;).
However, our furry friends aren’t the only ones affected — our veterans are likely to be as well. And after a decade of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq both the UK and US have plenty of veterans likely suffering from PTSD. In the UK, while the percentage of veterans suffering from PTSD is a debatable question, the numbers seem to be rising. In the US, the numbers seems to suggest between 25 and 30% of those returning from war are affected by PTSD, a number that’s consistent no matter what conflict/war they fought in.
Not surprisingly, not only do fireworks and dogs not mix, but fireworks and PTSD veterans don’t mix. For the veterans, is it any wonder? I’m surprised the numbers aren’t higher for soldiers and residents in war zones… the now 5 hours of ‘shelling’ is about to do me in. For people who have actually been in war zones, 360 degrees of shelling sounds from fireworks is likely to produce a reaction, even if they don’t suffer from PTSD.
I enjoy fireworks — they’re pretty and shiny. I don’t suffer from PTSD and while the 5 hours of the craziness is annoying, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, but I think we should probably think of our furry friends and our veterans. Portland State University has a number of recommendations for consideration of both veterans and pets … bottom line use common sense and be considerate!