"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:26:22 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:37:42 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >> > Felice wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> So what are those of us who are celebrating going to have for lunch on
> >> >> Tuesday? The best I can come up with is Chicago deep-dish pizza from Uno via
> >> >> Dining In. Someone has to have a better idea.
> >> >>
> >> >> Felice
> >> >> .
> >> >
> >> > Very close to half the population of the US will not be celebrating. I
> >> > expect close to 100% are hoping for the best however.
> >> >
> >> > It's pretty sad how the perception of the election is drastically
> >> > different when the reality is that it was only a few percent further
> >> > apart than the election folks still haven't stopped bitching about.
> >> > Those few percent can largely be attributed to those voting based on the
> >> > novelty factor of making a historic election, and not on political
> >> > positions.
> >> >
> I didn't reply to this when I first read it, but this afternoon I want
> to caution against this sort of analysis to the extent that it is
> based on a conception of voters' motives. George Will said something
> about voters' motives back in October after Colin Powell's endorsement
> of Obama:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl_ivLT-Zm0&eurl
>
> And it's just downright odd. Millions of Americans, including Powell,
> weighed statements of policy and estimations of character, evaluated
> the candidates' evident grasp of ideas and issues to make their
> decisions, and along comes a commentator who alleges that if he had
> the right tools, he could measure their motives -- motives which he
> suspects he already knows according to his special ability to divine
> what they're really thinking.
>
> Geoge Will does not know what I think. He does not have that sort of
> psychometric tool. Asserting my motives is my job, not anyone else's.
> And that goes for all of us, regardless of our politics.
>
> The net effect of such assessment is to subvert the concept of
> reasonable choice.
>
> Similarly, to assert that voters, whom you do not know, were motivated
> by a "novelty factor" is to claim a special knowledge of their
> psyches.

Do you find it unreasonable that a good portion of that 3% of the
electorate that swung us away from another tie did so for reasons other
than political positions? Certainly we saw plenty of folks admitting on
camera that their votes were based solely on non issue factors. Is it
unreasonable to think that those folks represent a couple percent of the
electorate?

Again, my main point is that this country is doomed unless we find a way
to pull the bulk of the population back to the center. Both main parties
have put their political ambitions ahead of the good of the country and
they are playing a dangerous tug of war to try to pull voters into their
wings. They are rejecting finding compromises and middle ground on
critical issues in the fear that it will somehow validate the
opposition.

We need to end the left wing, right wing nonsense and find that middle
ground if the country is to survive. There are too many critical issues
that have been ignored while the pointless winger battles have raged.

I wish Obama well, he has some very difficult issues to deal with, but
ultimately if he or someone else doesn't find a way to bring some unity
to this country, issues like the economy, health care, terrorism, etc.
don't matter.