Things You Were Completely Wrong About (Politics Edition)

I thought both Al Gore and John Kerry would handily beat Bush. I mean, I didn't think it would be close at all.

I will never overestimate the American public again.

I was telling people it was "inevitable" that the race would be Clinton v. Giuliani. Looks like I was wrong on both sides.

No matter who the Democratic candidate was going to be, I knew Bush was going to win back in '04. And I quickly dismissed those early exit polls that had Kerry ahead on Election Day as "Polls mean dick" I seem to recall telling someone.

As a kid I thought that you weren't supposed to ask or tell people who you were going to vote for. I don't know if it was because you weren't supposed to tell people your birthday wish because it might not come true.

Later, during elementary and middle school we'd hold mock presidential elections and I would follow around a group of kids that tried to get others to vote Republican. Sometimes I hate Little Me.

ETA: Yeah, I was with you, Singer.

I convinced myself that Kerry would beat Bush in '04 and then was sick about it when it didn't happen. That's what I get for reading fucking slate.com.

I figured Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and going to Iraq was, if not strictly necessary, probably for the best. I mean, he was a bad dude, and the government seemed pretty sure of itself, and they know more than I do about this stuff, right?

Here's something I will have been completely wrong about a year from now: I predict that the 2008 presidential election will lead to scrutiny and reform of the electoral college system even though the outcome is not contested. This happens because Obama wins most of the blue states by huge margins, while being far more competitive in red ones than dems of the past (and snaking a few swing states), resulting in a situation where the contest comes down to the last state to report even though Obama is clocking almost 60% of the popular vote.

Before I left home for college, I was wrong to think my parents were correct with their theory of single issue voting.

I made some pretty piss-poor decisions because of that. Thank goodness I learned to think on my own.

I actually think Obama is going nab quiet a few red-states. He'd take away a good chunk of the Moderates and Independents like would appeal to McCain if he was facing Clinton in the national election. Not to mention, the lack of support from the conservative-base for McCain and there isn't a "We have to stop him! ! !" feeling with Obama (yet)...like there is with Clinton from the right-wing.

My old man said he'd vote for Obama just to keep Clinton away. And there are a lot of people (of the right, left and middle) who feel that way!

Close. They're very conservative Catholics. I'll let you figure the rest out yourself.

I thought back in 2004 that Americans weren't stupid enough to vote for Bush twice. Yeah.

This is what I'm thinking. If we had an Obama v. McCain election right now, and he delivered on bringing young/new voters to the polls (which he seems to be doing pretty well at), then I think he'd take blue states by an even larger margin than usual, as well as most swing states, and lose by narrower margins the usual in the red ones. This could produce a situation where there is a tight electoral race while the popular vote is a landslide.

There are a couple problems with this theory. One, it assumes that come November, the situation will be much like today, with the Dems excited and rallied around their shiny young hero, while the GOP base is lacking enthusiasm for their pick. Two, it assumes that people would care enough to take a closer look at the electoral college system after it happened. They didn't when it actually resulted in the loser of the popular vote getting elected, but maybe if they're watching TV seeing Obama in a dead heat for delegates while leading by 8 million votes, they'll start wondering "why is this even a contest?"

Probably not, though.

I recall mocking Joe Lieberman after he decided to continue on for his Senate seat when he lost to Ned Lamont. Mainly on the basis that Lamont's win was good news for Republicans and on Lieberman's support for the war. Then all the Republicans decided to vote for Lieberman instead of the Republican candidate.

On the bright side, the press & punditry seems to have laid off the "Situation X is good news for Republicans" assertions no matter what Situation X might be.

I thought Wesley Clark had the stuff in 04.

I think we've all been naive about the depravity of the Bush group to lock in their own power, and too despairing to recognize the wave of discontent out there that will (hopefully) flush them out.

I thought George W. Bush and thousands of others were personally (and actually) responsible for 9/11.

Yeah.

Up until late 2002 I was a staunch supporter of Bush and believed whole-heartedly that the gear up to going after Saddam was justified. Yup, I was one of those who bought the WMD argument hook, line and sinker.

Then I turned 18 and discovered it was OK to disagree with your parent's political beliefs.

Set the wayback machine, Sherman.

I thought there was no way on god's green earth that Ronald Reagan could beat Jimmy Carter out of a second term. I mean, Carter had gotten the middle eastern nations actually talking to one another, while Reagan's speeches were full of air. Who the hell was going to vote for a bunch of empty platitudes?

That was my first political bucket of cold water in the face. Bush Jr wasn't nearly as much of a shock to me because of that.

I know this is kind of a sore subject for you, but what ended up changing your mind? Was it just a slow realization that his all-encompassing incompetence was not an act?

Well to start, my political views beginning in my early adulthood were really influenced by my radically, and suddenly changed views on religion. Granted those views were largely correct. But it didn't come about so much from seeing the very apparent lack of logic in religion, as it did through being very fucking pissed off.

Add to that the climate of greed, hypocrisy and self destruction we live in, while I was having to carry my own load and others at a young age, and it was hard not to see things through such an extreme eye. The lack of voices really speaking out against the injustices happening everywhere around us and the lack of people believing that change through a positive means was a real possibility if only they'd DO something about it, also was difficult not to adopt such an extreme view of things.

What started the change from this sort of believe system altogether, was very close to the reasons I fell away from religion in the first place. The people who spout this kinda shit, that were in my circle really had a completely twisted worldview. And I started to veer a little too close to the edge for comfort. The gaping holes of logic were too obvious not to see, as was the fact that it just wasn't something I really wanted to get into in the first place so much as that I fell into.

It also helps that I never actually was a crazy nutball with a tinfoil hat, living in my mothers basement. In fact, I pay my mother's rent.

A conspiracy of that magnitude is just not possible, even in theory. Without serious brainwashing of the mass populace. People in this country are very inundated and conditioned by media, but they're not all a bunch of brainwashed zombies. It just isn't that way. And the people who claim that media has inundated the populace that much are mostly pretentious, elitist assholes, and/or massively retarded people. They tend to forget that politicians and news editors are people too. There's only so much you can take of these idiots making this outrageous claim of them alone seeing beyond the veil before you just want to pound their face in with a brick.

I still don't have the world figured out, and the major different is that today I find it actually comforting, rather than a huge obstacle that constantly needs to be worked around. Because no one else gets it all either, and some alot less than others.

EDIT: Oh yeah, on a more specific level, I began to question alot of this bullshit when I encountered more and more people who were seriously calling out Noam Chomsky (who I really admire, and had a long email correspondence with, which culminated in a planned interview for a documentary I never got around to making - partially because of this 9/11 crap) for intellectual dishonesty because he believes and holds by the official explanations for 9/11 and JFK.

The people that believe this shit are sheep and the think they're shepards. It's really fucking pathetic. Even more pathetic than extremely religious types. At least they have centuries of history to fall back on for why they believe in what they do.

EDIT 2: Fuck it I'll just tell the whole story. Or at least the best part of it.

The straw the broke the camels back for me, and I swear I'm not bullshitting at all, was a homeless guy that was stalking me who claimed to be a CIA agent (although I knew better, because again, I wasn't actually crazy, and I actually have a friend whose is ex CIA). Anyway, he approached me in Palisades Park in Santa Monica, in the middle of the day and proceeded to reveal to me the truth behind the government's reasoning for covering up 9/11 and told me that Governor Schwarzenegger had sent him to offer me a fucking job. I kid you the fuck not. This guy had hacked into my yahoo email account, and accessed copies of screenplays I had written in final draft that I emailed to myself, and did a very piss poor job of hiding that fact when he was telling me all about myself.

I found out later he used to be a regular at the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf I used to work at.

... wow ^^

Intense post up there.

I was wrong that Bush II would be voted out come 2004 but I predicted this back in 2000 when historic facts were against him (liniage to a former president, close general election etc..) I recanted this after 9/11 but it was still a mistake.

I still believe the Bush administration at the very least let it happen, and certainly covered up any culpability after the fact. The fact that loonies also latch onto the idea of conspiracy is incidental. But it's pointless to argue about it. I also believe we're hardwired to be willing to accept uncertainties like this or refuse them.

Let it happen in the sense that they were lazy and ignored warning signs? That I can get down with.

I will admit in 2000 my response was "what's the difference? I'm going to vote for Nader again" which I did in 1996. My feelings have since changed, though I feel less horrible as Gore carried Oregon, as Clinton carried in 96.

With his performance in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I thought W may have been one of those guys who can really step up to the plate in a time of crisis, as opposed to the Ivy frat-boy who stumbled into the presidency that he appeared to be up until that point.


I should have "FUCKING WRONG" branded onto my forehead for that one.

I also bear the stigma of being a "Nader traitor" - which usually gets the person who is making that argument a quick "go fist your own ass." If the Dems want to win elections, run fucking politicians who can carry their HOME STATE.

And if it goes further, well, Gore carried Wisconsin and won the popular vote. What the fuck more do you want?

Again, I don't feel bad as I knew what the results would be and believe in the idea of a third party candidate. I did not make that choice in 2004, and won't this year, though I may have to hold my nose if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. She may be plasticine, but McCain is truly toxic.

I know this is off topic, but it has to be asked: A homeless guy hacked into your yahoo account, Isildur?

Well, it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination that the Bush Administration did not do all they could to stop it.

When Condolezza Rice, or whoever said it first, said there was no way they could've ever expected this to happen, it was a flat out lie. This very sort of incident had been in the books for decades.

I believe they really are evil, greedy bastards. That they cared much less about capturing those responsible, as they did of taking advantage of the situation and creating a climate that would make it possible for them to launch war throughout the middle east, and claim their oil fields by way of the liberating citizens "paying" for the damages we inflicted upon them.

I also believe they truly are completely incompetent assholes.

I'm assuming he was homeless based only on his appearance. But that story is no bullshit.

I also ran into him more than once. Several months after that incident I was walking out of a bar in Hollywood with a bunch of my friends and dude was like fucking waiting for me, he didn't seem honestly surprised at all to see me.

I really prefer not to really get into it too much though, because it was pretty scary. I didn't even have a cell phone or a known address at this time.

That's really f'ed up, Isildur. You're remarkably calm considering.

Dre, whether it was laziness and incompetence or Cheney calling the shots on behalf of his corporate/military industrial complex friends (while everyone else sticks their heads in the sand/are incompetent/etc.) we'll never know. A case can be made for either one. But it's just so far on the other side of the looking glass that I think a lot of people just can't take the possibilities on.

That they continue to do this with zero consequences is what bothers me the most. It's not even on the table. That's where we come in. That's where we share culpability. If Exxon/Mobil and Chevron/Texaco et al walk away with 30 year oil rights to Iraq, the blood is on all our hands.

I can kind of see the case to be made that bringing a standing President up on charges might be bad for the country. I wouldn't be surprised to see some people facing criminal action after this administration is out the door, though.

Oh I wasn't then. I moved away from LA for a few months not long after that (it wasn't just because of that, but that had alot to do with it), and still havn't gotten back on a permanent basis. But yeah, it's all good. Craziness happens, it builds character.

Exactly, and while people need to make a living and they need transportation to do that, it's a damn shame that for most of us, one of the most major concerns is high gas prices. They've really royally screwed this country. It's going to be a very long time before we're able to not only recover, but to move forward from where we were before this whole mess started. Alternate fuel isn't really going to be an option when we need the oil to aid the slinking economy.

That Americans have woken up....only a small number of us have.

I'm not sure this sentence makes sense, but if Ron Paul is what we wake up to, please everyone keep sleeping.

Waking up to Ron Paul would be the ultimate coyote ugly moment for the country. We'd have to gnaw off Florida to get away.

Your terms are acceptable.

Wait, I haven't been to Disney World, yet.

Also, like FilmNerdJamie...I was convinced up until about a year ago that the general election this year was gonna be Clinton vs Giuliani. I kept saying that the Republicans would have to run somebody with some sort of celebrity status to contend with her or they'd be out. At this point, I'd kill to have Giuliani run so that he'd get the shit stomped out of him.

The reason they will never get rid of the electoral college is because all the small and rural states would never agree to it. The presidential candidates would never campaign outside of large populated states (California, New York, etc.) in the General Election if the Electoral College system was abolished.

The President is still elected by popular vote, just 50 separate popular votes instead of 1 big national one ever since the Electoral College votes were tied to the popular results of their state. Compromises between the large and small states goes all the way back to the founding fathers making exceptions so the different sized states could have a more equal voice in how the country is run. (The differences between the Senate and the House was their solution for the Legislative branch - I don't see calls for reform in that.)

I guess they could reform it so the electoral college votes were proportional to the popular vote in each state, instead of the first-past-the-post system in most states. But that would not completely eliminate the possibility of the national popular vote not matching up with the electoral vote.

If a presidential candidate can't win the majority of the individual state popular votes, he probably doesn't deserve to be president. Both candidates have to win under the same system, that is what makes it fair.

Up until the current administration took power, I used to think that modern political liberty, as practiced in the United States, was a good thing. Now, I realize that Benjamin Constant's warnings about the potential dangers of a representative system were spot on and that the public at large is either too scared or too lazy to take the responsibility such a system requires. I now favor Plato's view that the ideal state is governed by laws and managed by the wise.

But who get's to choose who the "Wise" are?

Ideally, I'd like for the government to actually take the state of our education system seriously and fix it to the point that a kid from the inner city has the same quality education as a kid from an affluent neighborhood with two college educated parents. Then, actually make it so every person who has the desire and ability to attain a college education can do so without drowning himself or herself in debt.

If that could be done--and it can be--I would want everyone who is of legal age to vote and hasn't attained at least a BA or BS within five years of the reforms to lose the right to vote. That would be my approach to creating an aristocracy. You really can't have a solid understanding of policy proposals without at least a basic knowledge of (at the very least) civics and statistics.

So you'd expect all the retired old people who never got a college education to go back to college just to retain their right to vote? And all the adults who are working full time jobs and raising children have five years to get a complete degree? Yeah, that's fair.

He never said it would be fair. He said it would be an aristocracy. Which isn't.

Fuck that. There are plenty of people without degrees who are pretty fucking intelligent (in fact some of the most brilliant among us are college drop outs), and plenty of people with degress are really really dumb or they're just conservative assholes, or fundamentalists.

You want to block people from voting, create some sort of test people have to take when they register. With questions like:

Do you believe in Jesus Christ as a literally person who is going to come back soon to rule the world?

Would you vote for a guy because he seems like the sort of person you'd like to have a beer with?

etc

Shit. Still havn't gotten used to the incredibly tiny keyboard that came with my mac.

The small states do not benefit from the Electoral College system since the Electoral College votes are distributed by population. Arkansas will never matter as much as California (for a variety of reasons). If the founders wanted equal representation they would've used the Senate model, which is equal representation regardless of population.

Either way, since the Electoral College delegates (are they called delegates?) are supposed to vote in line with the results of the popular election in their state, the system is worthless. Why even have it if the popular vote is what supposed to determine how the EC delegates vote? Do they have discretion? If they don't, then this the EC system is just another level of unneeded complexity.

I'm sorry, but, as much as we might want it to, this will never, ever happen. We can certainly make vast improvements to the quality of education in our struggling schools, but quality education tends to follow money. I hate to be so cynical, but our society is so rife with indifference, imbalance, and elitists just like you (more on that later) that it would take a massive upheaval over the course of decades in our daily lives for this to even begin to happen in a way that would make your bizarre system work.

God, I hate playing this card, but you've left us little choice...

Oh, I know you! I've been you. I went to UW-Madison, was heading over to Trinity, and was planning to come back to Cornell. English, not Philosophy, though. You sit in your dorm room, grad school bound, having done very little other than study for your entire life, full of big, big ideas that make excellent sense as long as you don't open your door. Understand, I don't blame you - it's really hard to see the value in different ways to learn and be intelligent when you've got professors kissing your ass all day.

I have a father who barely made it out of high school who I would rather have casting votes than about half of the college graduates I know. I've done seven years of postsecondary education and I get the sinking feeling that he's probably smarter than me. Would you have my father or, more importantly, entire socioeconomic swaths of our society, disenfranchised just so some masturbatory illusions you have about a perfect society, founded upon the ideas of a man from a society much smaller and radically different than ours who died centuries ago, can be fulfilled? What about those who choose to learn a trade and thus do not need a college education? What about those who must delay their education for financial and personal reasons? What on earth makes you think that the only place that one can learn about how our political system works is in a university setting? Your ideas are offensive.

10 PRINT "Rep Rep Rep Rep Rep"
20 GOTO 10
RUN

I would ask MissZooey to marry me based on that post alone. But DaveB would probably find me somehow.

I really have to disagree with the idea that extending a quality education to every citizen of the country is a thing of pure fantasy. Just think for a minute about how much money we put into the military-industrial complex and corporate welfare compared to how much we spend on education. If you spent a fraction of the money that we give those two groups on education, you could fund a K-12 system that featured fully equipped classrooms from coast to coast and salaries that would attract top talent. In fact, one of the reasons I like Obama's ideas about education so much is that he would, in fact, help fund college for students on the condition that they would do something like that.


From this section--and how others have reacted to it--one would swear I stated that every single person lacking a college education is a retard. Have some people managed to educate themselves in a non-traditional way? Yes. However, the reason that college dropouts like Bill Gates and anecdotes like the one you present stick out so much is that they are exceptional cases. Most persons lacking a formal education simply do not have the skills that the educated do. Are there persons who have a formal education and still lack these skills? Yes, we need only look to our current president to see a fine example of that. However, I still think an educated populace would make generally better decisions than a less educated one would.

Also, if you'll notice, I don't endorse Plato's ideas from the Republic . The city state and the modern nation are very different beasts. I'm endorsing his ideas from the Laws.

You mention the cases of people who, for one hardship or another, didn't get an education and call my suggestion that we disenfranchise them offensive. However, it seems like, after denying the suggestion in the first paragraph could ever be executed, you wholly divorce the ideas from the first paragraph from the second. What is so bad about giving people an incentive to pursue the education they had to put off if it's no longer a hardship? Most of the people I've encountered--including all four grandparents, whom I loved dearly--who never got an education expressed that that was their one regret in life. The aim of the idea is to improve rather than to punish and simply exclude those persons who do not wish to improve. (Also, completing a full degree in five years would mean devoting a whopping nine hours of lecture time per week to your schedule in twelve weeks blocks--including summer sessions--for five years and the big, bad consequence of that is coming out of it with a formal education and a new skill set. Most people devote much more than nine hours a week to freaking television.)

Finally, I don't live in ivory tower. Not that it makes a difference, but the source of my funding for both my time at Cambridge and Berkeley came from the following two sources: 1) Americorps: I worked for a year for the California Conservation Corps, which entailed engaging in backbreaking labor--carry trees and construction equipment up and down mountains and breaking granite with a sledge hammer--for sixteen hours a day seven days a week. I was paid a grand $6.75 an hour for this and received a modest scholarship at the end of it. 2) American Cancer Society: I have Basal Cell Carcinoma Syndrome, which has given me the great fun of experiencing a pineoblastoma (malignant and metastatic cancer of the pineal gland) hydrocephalus, and various forms of jaw and skin cancer. For surviving all of that and continuing through treatment in both work and school, I get $7,500 per year from the ACS. Also, I lived under the poverty line due to the medical bills most of my life andm y parents are the only two people in my entire family who received a college education.

That is, I've been a member of the worst off in American society and I'm tired of seeing the uneducated led to vote against their own interests all the time. I think a "fari" society that followed Rawlsian principles is only a possibility if this changes. Those are my "elitist" motivations.