On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:55:05 -0600, 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.

as usual, george will (along with many others) is full of shit.

your pal,
blake