In the thread about McCain twice almost switching over to the Democrats, DRJ brought up a great point:

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01:45:31 | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.

1 My own personal impression is that voters don't take the same effort to make a correct decision as jurors. 
1) People take a decision more seriously if they are one of twelve peopel deciding the guilt or innocence of a person in front of them than if they are one of several million casting a vote to decide the person who will decide for them for the next x number years what to do about whatever problems that come up, foreseeable or unforeseeable.
And note how liable juries in civil trials are to vote their emotions, and not according to the facts.
2) Jurors are at least minimally vetted to get rid of people who decide solely on the basis of race, etc. alone.  And when that sort of person does get on the jury, he or she already knows he's not supposed to decide that way.
Then there is the quality of information.   In a trial, at least one side will be attempting to get the information the jury needs to make a decision in front of the jury.   In an election, that is, in our days at least, not the case. In fact, the people who run campaigns seem to go on the theory that the less facts and more emotion they can latch onto, the better.

Also, there is a difference between deciding as a juror and deciding as a voter based on ethnic/religious/gender/party  factors: in an election, where information is lacking, they provide  a very rough guide to what can be expected of the candidates.   For instance, if you are presented with a Democrat and a Republican about whom you know nothing, you can at least make a reasonable guess that the Republican will have more views that accord with yours and make more decisions that would you would agree with, than the Democrat.
I'm Jewish.   For most of my life, I voted for Jewish candidates in an election where I wasn't familiar with the candidates, not because they were co-religionists of mine, but because I could reasonably guess that, coming from the same general background, they would decide things the way I would decide if I was in that position.  And since my political views transformed into libertarian, I've stopped voting for Jewish candidates because I can reasonably assume their opinions are too leftist for my liking.

Posted by: kishnevi at 26 March 2008@10:47:49 (aOQZ3)

2 I am not as convinced that voters do the right thing more often than not, partly for the reasons that kishnevi gives. But also because sometimes they are not presented with the best options. Let me explain.

Jurors are generally presented with their legal options for verdicts be they criminal or civil (let's ignore the juror propensity to overdo punitives). So they know that the options they're deciding between are constrained by the law and the facts of the case. That gives their decision legitimacy no matter what they choose. You don't often find jurors who have to "hold their nose and vote."

Voters, on the other hand, are often presented with choices that are less than satisfactory. Yes, there is always going to be a "most right" or "least evil" option, but that is small consolation for many people. They may also be aware of candidates or initiatives that didn't make it to the ballot. That changes their behavior and not always for the better. Indifference is a serious problem for voters.

However, the key difference between voters and jurors (and forgive me if someone wrote this in the earlier discussion, I'm just coming in now off of doubleplusundead's link) is that jurors do not have a direct stake in the outcome. In fact, the link between a juror and the outcome of a specific case is intentionally attenuated. That is not necessarily the case when it comes to voters. They often have a personal stake, either because they gave money to a candidate or cause or because a specific candidate or initiative promises to impact their life in a specific way. That does not always lead to smart voting (I'm thinking of single-issue voters as an example).

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 26 March 2008@13:44:04 (9wqGc)

3

kishnevi, very good points about the differences between them.  I would note that a responsible voter should have more information than just the candidates party affiliation or they're not all that responsible.  Getting the information out there reliably is going to be the problem (as you said) because so much dirty campaigning goes on... with and without the campaign's knowledge.

Gabriel, welcome... thanks for coming.  If that self-interest predominates in a majority of voters for a particular election, then they will likely win.  If it impacts negatively on enough others, they will organize enough to win a majority the next election.  You're always going to have disinterested, selfish, and/or ignorant voters (unfortunately) who don't vote responsibly.  I agree with DRJ that they're usually a minority though... the others are just too pigheaded to see it my way. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 26 March 2008@20:36:31 (tarqT)

4 It certainly is nice to have someone carefully read and respond to what I said.  I'm flattered, Stashiu.

Now that I've gone out on a limb and compared voters with juries, I want to note one difference.  Voters have access to all sorts of relevant and decidedly irrelevant information about the people they vote for. If they want, voters can find out about a politician's platform on the issues as well as his or her family, friends, upbringing, church, work, and financial dealings.  Voters can gossip about politicians, watch them on TV, read about them in the newspaper, and even talk about them with people who aren't voters.

On the other hand, juries only hear what the court lets them hear and it's never the "whole picture" because the only evidence they hear is that which is relevant to the charges that have been filed.  Nevertheless, juries still take many different factors into account in making their decisions.  In a hypothetical criminal case, jurors listen to the evidence but they also notice the defendant's actions and appearance, his/her attorney's actions and appearance, and even what the defendant's family members are like.  Juries notice what the judge does and what the prosecutor does, and they use their common sense.

Now to the meat of the discussion:  Unless a juror or a voter is truly and completely biased against a particular race or religion, I think it's extremely rare that s/he bases their decision solely on one issue. In some ways, it's like the internet.  I don't know what anyone really looks like or if they are what they seem to be or what they say they are.  People don't know if I'm what I appear to be or say I am, either.  But as we get to know each other, we can and do make judgments and those judgments are based on a range of factors and not just one thing.

Even in relatively short jury trials, there is a bonding process that also works that way.  That's why jury consultants aren't consistently helpful.  You may know certain facts about a potential juror's background, but how those facts combine into one person and whether you can successfully use those facts to predict what that person will do is a completely different matter.  As individuals, people aren't as predictable as some may think.

Of course, groups of people can be predictable but they have to be large groups of people.  For instance, I can generally predict how my fellow Texans will vote and even how certain cities will vote, but they aren't always predictable and on an individual basis they might really surprise me.

Bottom line:  I agree with to the extent people vote (as citizens or as  jurors) based solely on one discriminatory factor, but they don't.  People are much more complicated than that.

Posted by: DRJ at 26 March 2008@22:00:39 (wE7Og)

5 Sorry, I omitted a couple of words in my last sentence.  It should read:

Bottom line:  I agree with your point to the extent people vote (as citizens or as  jurors) based solely on one discriminatory factor, but they don't.  People are much more complicated than that.

Posted by: DRJ at 26 March 2008@22:03:47 (wE7Og)

6 I said my piece on what motivates people.  Now I want to address your remaining points.

Maybe I've been a lawyer too long or I've tried one too many cases before a jury, but I what I learned from those experiences is that you have to live with the results, whatever they are.  (That's probably why my approach is more pragmatic than ideological.)  In other words, if you win a jury trial or a political vote, don't worry if some jurors or voters decided in your favor for the wrong reasons. Here's why:

One of the beauties of 6 or 12-member juries and also of mass voting is that the system doesn't require perfection.  If all trials were decided by a judge, it would really matter if the judge was biased or corrupt.  Multi-person juries makes it much harder for bias or corruption to taint the process.  Yes, it's true one juror might base his or her decision on a questionable or even discriminatory reason, but the chances that all of them will is remote in today's system.  I think the same is true of voting.  Whatever imperfections there are will probably be canceled out by the numbers and the diversity of opinions.

When it comes down to it, I think your post is about deciding at what point the perfect is the enemy of the good.  For a lot of people, McCain, Clinton, and Obama are so imperfect that they don't want to participate.  For others, one or other of these candidates is good enough, while still other people think a specific candidate is perfect.  Overall, I think it balances out. 

Finally, FWIW, I don't believe in the theory that the pendulum has to swing far to the left in order for another Reagan to appear.  A Reagan-like candidate doesn't happen because people suddenly decide they want a conservative. Good conservative candidates have to be developed.  The GOP needs more grassroots work to bring candidates into the field, the cream will rise to the top, and the voters will respond.

Posted by: DRJ at 26 March 2008@23:35:44 (wE7Og)

7

I think the same is true of voting.  Whatever imperfections there are will probably be canceled out by the numbers and the diversity of opinions.

I also think this is usually true in large-scale elections. 

Everyone has made excellent points and I think the voter vs juror analogy works well for certain points but breaks down in others as kishnevi and Gabriel noted.  I appreciate the feedback.

Like DRJ, I don't think it's true the country has to swing far left to get a Reagan... I just hope it's true in this case.  I'm certain a lot of conservatives are going to be pretty disappointed with the next administration and hope there are some who will step up because of it.  I'll admit that I'm not one of them because I don't want to be a public figure.  Nor do I have the patience needed to be a good politician (if that's not an oxymoron these days).

Thanks again everyone, sorry the response took so long.  I'm staying with my Dad who just had surgery, my wife and I just had our 23rd wedding anniversary (same day as Dad's surgery), and my youngest daughter's birthday is today... so it's been busy here.

 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 28 March 2008@14:28:25 (tarqT)

8 A surgery, anniversary and birthday all at once is quite a handful.  I hope everything went well for your Dad and best wishes to your family.

Posted by: DRJ at 29 March 2008@21:07:45 (wE7Og)

9 Thank you.  I'm staying with Mom & Dad because it's too hard for Mom to take care of him.  Fortunately, we only live a few blocks away (planned that way, we bought them a house here and moved them close).  I'll be here full-time at least a week, then come by daily for a month or so to help out during the day.  This is his second major surgery since November, but I expect he'll do well from this point.

Nice to be retired and able to spend the time.  My wife and kids come over often, so everybody's pretty happy with the arrangements. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 29 March 2008@21:21:45 (tarqT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Depending on who is telling the story, either McCain sought invitations to switch or was approached about switching over to the Democrats.

Still, Democrats were stunned one Saturday in late March when, by their account, John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s longtime political strategist, reached out to Thomas J. Downey, a former Democratic congressman from Long Island who had become a lobbyist with powerful connections on Capitol Hill. In Mr. Downey’s telling, Mr. Weaver posed a question to him over lunch that left him stunned.

“He says, ‘John McCain is wondering why nobody’s ever approached him about switching parties, or becoming an independent and allying himself with the Democrats,’ ” Mr. Downey said in a recent interview. “My reaction was, ‘When I leave this lunch, your boss will be called by anybody you want him to be called by in the United States Senate.’ ”

Mr. McCain, who has rarely spoken publicly of his talks with Mr. Kerry, said last month that he had dismissed the vice-presidential offer out of hand. “He is, as he describes himself, a liberal Democrat,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Kerry when he was asked about the episode by a participant at a public forum in Atlanta. “I am a conservative Republican. So when I was approached, when we had that conversation back in 2004, that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”

Yeah, and I'm an X-man.  He's not a conservative, he's not a Republican except in name only, and nobody has multiple talks about something they're not even considering.  That John McCain can't be trusted on this type of thing has been demonstrated time and time again.  The only thing I trust him completely about is for him to do what he wants... no matter how it impacts others.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 08:32:29 | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

1

Ugh. No matter what, I'm going to hate our next president.

That's so depressing.

Posted by: S. Weasel at 24 March 2008@09:19:58 (rasT+)

2 The election isn't over... we still have Nader, right?  /sarc

Seriously though, although it's probably around 99.9% sure to be one of these three, we still have both conventions to go.  If one or both become brokered, things could get even more interesting.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@09:26:00 (Q5ggV)

3 Sudden nightmare vision as I read this.  IIRC, the Republican convention is after the Democratic convention.  
This is the nightmare;
Obama is nominated.  McCain offers the VP slot to Hillary.
(Saving grace: I think she wouldn't take it.  She has no wish to be anybody's second fiddle.)
More nightmarish,  but less likely because I think Obama will be nominated:  Clinton is nominated, and McCain offers the VP slot to Obama.  And Obama just might take it.
All three of them can wrap this poison up in nice sounding justifications.

Does that sound possible to you?

Posted by: kishnevi at 24 March 2008@18:03:42 (aOQZ3)

4 I think Hillary will take the nomination and don't think John McCain would offer Obama anything. If Obama does take the nomination, McCain might consider offering Hillary the VP slot because they're buds and she would bring in votes he wouldn't otherwise get. Most people who support Hillary are not going to vote Obama... they'll vote Independent (Nader) or McCain.

The Dems are too polarized right now and the leadership knows it. Hillary will pursue a "scorched-Earth" policy and completely split the party to punish it for abandoning her. The Dem leadership will test her and she'll convince them that she's willing to go all the way. Look for Hillary to get the nod and Obama to strongly endorse her to keep the party together. Obama will be promised the next shot after Hillary (whether he gets it is another story, the Dems aren't very good at keeping those kinds of promises... hence the problems they're having now).

The sad thing is, Hillary will beat McCain in November after Obama swings his supporters over to her because then the MSM will have the clear choice they're looking for and every story/poll/editorial will be slanted for Hillary and against McCain. They've mostly held off on McCain so far because any weakness they attack is shared by one or both of the Dem candidates. When it gets down to one Dem, they'll focus on the McCain faults where the Dem looks strong (or at least neutral).

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@19:05:21 (Q5ggV)

5 I don't blame anyone for being disillusioned with McCain or for refusing to vote for him.  That said, McCain isn't that much different than Bush. I think McCain will be as strong as Bush on the military and the war on terror, and I have about as much confidence in McCain on judicial appointments as I did on Bush before he was elected.  Bush's appointments ended up well but there was that problem with Miers ...

Finally, Bush often talked the conservative talk but most of what he did was talk, not act.  He rarely used his veto except on war-related matters.  His position on illegal immigration is much like McCain's.  Who knows what McCain will do on taxes but, frankly, who knew what Bush would do either? 

Frankly, I'm not happy with everything Bush did but I'll probably never be happy with everything an elected official does.  But I know I'd be more happy with someone like Bush than I would be with Clinton or Obama.

Posted by: DRJ at 24 March 2008@22:50:57 (wE7Og)

6 Hi DRJ, I agree that McCain is similar to Bush in a lot of policy areas... I don't think he holds a candle to him in honesty though. That said, I don't have a problem with anyone willing to vote for McCain, or any other candidate for that matter, as long as they're voting their convictions. (short rant here)I disagree with people who vote for someone;

1. out of party loyalty when that person doesn't reflect your beliefs,
2. because of their race (or against another person's race),
3. because of their gender (or against another person's gender),
4. anything resembling 2. or 3. that doesn't have anything to do with their political positions or character.

If the Democrats have a spiritual and intellectual awakening and start representing conservative ideals, I'll join the Democratic Party. If the Republicans have a spiritual and intellectual re-awakening, I'll rejoin the Republican Party. Right now, neither major party represents my ideals so I'll be an Independent. I'd rather have a much smaller voice in support of what I believe than help represent something I don't believe in. It's about being right, not about being in office.
(/rant)

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@23:05:19 (Q5ggV)

7 Stashiu,

In theory, I agree with everything in your last comment.  In practice, however, my opinion is colored (no pun intended) by my experience with juries. 

Juries make decisions for all sorts of reasons - some logical, some  cockamamie, and sometimes a little of both.  However, in my experience, they almost always end up doing the right thing even if it's for the wrong reason.  I look at voting the same way.  

Posted by: DRJ at 25 March 2008@23:22:36 (wE7Og)

8 I don't disagree with anything you're saying and believe it's completely compatible with what I said above. Juries are presented with both physical and circumstantial evidence which they combine with their own experience and knowledge to render a verdict. Voters are presented with both a candidate's record and their campaign platform which they combine with their own experience and knowledge to decide their vote.

I would have a problem with any juror who rendered their verdict based solely on the defendant's nationality, race, gender, etc... anything beyond the physical and circumstantial evidence and their understanding of the law. I expect the same from a voter.

You are absolutely correct that juries do the right thing more often than not. They are also cautioned prior to deliberating that a responsible juror renders their verdict in good faith, not based on any preconceived stereotype of the defendant. Shouldn't voters receive the same caution? That's the point of my rant above. If someone honestly believes that voting for McCain is the best use of their franchise, they have my unreserved support. If they're voting for him because he's the "only white guy running", they deserve nothing but contempt.

I don't like crossover voting to influence another party's candidate, nor do I like party-line votes just because "I'm a Democrat/Republican", so I don't do it. If somebody else chooses to, that's their choice. I'm just throwing out my reasons for being against it for whatever worth they believe my opinion holds. Barring some kind of brokered convention miracle, I am not going to like whoever wins in November. Tough cookies for me, but I'll be fine... the military lived on cookie crumbs during Clinton's administration and survived.

Despite what people say about McCain now, our military is going to be getting some more crumbs even if he's elected. That will be the "bipartisan" bone he throws to try and placate the Dems. I don't think we'll have a chance to see if that's correct though, because once the Dems decide a nominee, we're going to see a media blitz against McCain that makes Bush Derangement Syndrome seem mild. We've got at least four years of "Socialist Lite" coming and I'm hoping that the phrase "It took a Carter to give us a Reagan" has some truth to it.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 26 March 2008@00:36:35 (Q5ggV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I am not a fan of John McCain.  Not at all.  I am less a fan of the MSM and hate dishonest smears against anyone., even those I disagree with politically.

McCain wrote two letters in late 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications. He urged quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh, although he did not ask the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal. At the time, one FCC commissioner's formal nomination was pending before McCain's Senate committee, and the FCC chairman complained that McCain's letters were improper.

Why was it improper?  Because the FCC chairman felt pressured to do his job?  I think that's an appropriate use of Senatorial influence.  Telling someone it's time to make a decision is much different than telling them what the decision will/should be.

So who was this FCC Chairman?  According to wiki, it was William E. Kennard, a Democrat from California who is now a member of the Board of Directors of Sprint Nextel Corporation,  The New York Times Company, Hawaiian Telcom and Insight Communications.  Funny how that "reaching across the aisle" only works one way, isn't it?  Democrats are all about the "bipartisanship" when Republicans do the reaching... the other way, not so much.

I've got to give McCain a pass on this.  The Keating Five scandal is still his to own however.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 18:35:25 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 3 kb.

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton pulled ahead of Barack Obama in polls of likely Democratic Party voters after the Reverend Wright scandal hit the news.  Several days later now, she is maintaining that lead.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 22:52:25 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

The National Archives has announced that the majority of former First Lady Hillary Clinton's daily schedules will be released Wednesday.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 23:33:44 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Watching the Democratic primaries go through their meltdown has really been fun and it's not over yet.  But something has been bothering me about conservatives switching parties to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries.  Even if they're registered as an Independent, voting for someone you don't want to win is a bad idea.

I understand the strategic reasons for doing it and certainly can't dispute the results.  This has been as divisive a campaign season as I've ever seen, especially for the Democrats.  Keeping Hillary in has helped keep focus on the major flaws of the entire progressive movement.  This is fine as far as it goes... the more scrutiny the better.  I don't think Obama would have been hit nearly as hard on the Rezko connection, his wife's blunders, or his "spiritual adviser" if Hillary wasn't there to stoke the flames of identity politics.

I'm also going to avoid the, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it" reasoning.  You've probably also heard, "We need to be better than they are" speeches, "They do it too" excuses, "Ends justifies the means" platitudes, and the always-ready standby "That's politics" rationalization.  All of those have a measure of truth to them and are worthy of consideration.  None are very convincing to me however.

This is the biggest reason it is a mistake to cross-over and meddle in the Democratic primary.  One of the early statistics that so disheartened Republicans and convinced many that they had no chance in November was the sheer number of Democratic voters.  This trend has continued throughout the primary season... Democratic turnout has been pretty  consistently twice the Republicans, or higher.  That is unlikely to change because the Republican nomination is clinched and the Democrats' is still being fiercely contested.

The media and the nutroots see this huge turnout as validation of the progressive movement and are emboldened.  It makes the moonbats look more mainstream than they really are.  With "Rush Democrats" adding to these numbers, it's going to be difficult to advance a conservative agenda.  The progressives will feel stronger than they actually are and be less likely to give up an inch on any issue.  With the encouragement of the MSM at every step, the meme will be, "We're the majority, look at the numbers we turned out in support of our agenda."

With the Republican Party already abandoning conservative principles, why would we conservatives make things harder on ourselves?

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 03:19:48 | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.

1 That Democratic turnout may be a fata morgana.  A lot of it is the Obamaniks.  If he's not nominated, then those people aren't going to vote for Hillary.  Blacks won't be able to forgive her, and the rest won't be motivated to vote for her.  If he is nominated, then at least some of his magic will be gone by November, so he won't get that turnout either--but probably more than Hillary

How any conservative could get themselves to vote for Hillary is beyond me.  Don't they realize they're making it easier for her to get to the White House?  I can understand Ann Coulter's statement--if you have a choice between a fake Democrat and a real Democrat, you may as well vote for the real one--but not this latest thing.  It will be the height of irony is Hillary wins in November,  because of the help she is now receiving from the VRWC^TM

Posted by: kishnevi at 16 March 2008@11:24:18 (456EJ)

2 Yep, I think the "be careful what you wish for" caution is certainly valid and believe that most political machinations backfire to one degree or another... "Law of Unintended Consequences" and all that.

Beyond that, if conservatives are going to claim the moral high ground (which we do by pointing to the practical results of conservative policy), then behaving dishonestly undermines that. Vote for what you believe, not what is popular. Vote for who you believe in, not who you think is electable. Vote your conscience, not a strategy. Let the chips fall and deal with the reality.

That Democratic turnout may be a fata morgana.

Ok, I admit I had to google that, heh... nice.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 16 March 2008@12:41:44 (Q5ggV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Iranian government is refusing to officially endorse a candidate for President of the United States.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 22:57:30 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

I've said on other blogs that I don't think Hillary would accept a VP slot, nor would she accept Obama as a running mate.  Now that she and Bill have suggested Obama join them to unite the party, it seems that Senator Obama has the same thoughts:

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 20:27:40 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

As I mentioned before, it is becoming standard for some people to challenge election results if you don't like the outcome, even without proof.  As long as they can rationalize the possibility of something wrong, they claim that it happened and must be investigated...

Zyuganov announced that he would appeal alleged violations in court.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 22:08:00 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Nicholson gave his endorsement to Hillary Clinton.  No problem, I'm just not very impressed by celebrity endorsements.  This caught my eye though:

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 00:27:02 | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.