A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Mitt Romney

Obama, Republicans and Choice

by Leave a Comment

Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...
Image via Wikipedia

I went running Saturday with a Republican friend and a friend who is now a former Republican. In between admiring a purple house and numerous friendly dog encounters, we talked  a bit about the 2012 election.

One rather interesting point that came up is that a majority of voters prefer a Republican over Obama, yet prefer Obama over any of the candidates who have declared their candidacy. This reminds me a bit of some of the odd examples and counterexamples brought up when we discussed decision theory in graduate school (like people preferring A to B and B to C, yet preferring C to A). It also provides just a hint of metaphysics: people prefer the universal Republican over the particular Democrat Obama, but prefer the particular Democrat over any particular Republican. As such, if the Republicans could put the Platonic form of Republican up against Obama, they would win in 2012. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they have to run specific Republicans.

While these preferences might seem odd, they can be explained easily enough. When people claim they would prefer a Republican over Obama, this most likely reflects three facts. First, many people do not approve of his performance. Second, because of this, people would prefer and alternative. Third, the only viable alternative to Obama is a Republican. In terms of Obama being preferred over any specific Republican, this can be explained in at least two ways. One, which is favorable to Obama, is that Obama is actually seen as being better than the Republican candidates. To use an analogy, this would be somewhat like being low on food and having only canned peaches and canned pineapples to eat. I might like pineapples more than peaches, but I might like the  the specific brand of pineapples less than I like the specific brand of peaches. Hence, I would rather have a pineapple than a peach, but I’ll pick the specific canned peaches over these specific canned pineapples. If this explanation is correct, then Obama has a decent chance of winning in 2012.

Another explanation, which is less favorable to Obama, is that the preference for Obama is created because of the competition between the Republican candidates. Going back to the food analogy, I might like pineapples more than peaches, but the pineapples might be of so many varieties that my preference is thus divided up. So, I go for the peaches because there is only one sort to pick. If this explanation is correct, then things might improve for the Republicans when they finally settle on their candidates. At that point, the choice would not be between Obama and numerous Republicans, but between Obama and a Republican. As such, even if the specific Republican is not well liked, enough voters might vote against Obama so that the Republican is elected.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mormon vs Mormon

by Leave a Comment

Governor Mitt Romney of MA
Image via Wikipedia

While Mitt Romney seems to be leading the Republican pack, Jon Huntsman has thrown his hat into the ring. Huntsman was a rather successful governor and was appointed by Obama as the ambassador to China. He, like Romney, is also a Mormon.

The Mormon faith is still looked at as being a bit odd, at least by mainstream Americans. This has raised some questions in certain circles as to whether or not a Mormon could be elected president. Since the same sort of thing was asked about Roman Catholics not too long ago (and answered by the election of Kennedy), I suspect that this will not be a major factor. As such, I think that both Romney and Huntsman will not find their chances diminished by their religion (at least not significantly).

Huntsman’s major worry at this point is not how people see his faith. Rather, it is his perceived dalliance with Real America’s greatest enemy: the Democrats. As noted above, Huntsman was appointed by Obama to be the ambassador to China. He can probably avoid the damage from this by contending that he was not serving the Democrats but was serving America. Of course, he will still have that Obama taint upon him. His family also gave money to help Harry Reid get elected and he also appointed Reid’s son to the Uta Board of Regents, which has raised some concerns among the Republican loyalists. He is, of course, trying to put as much distance between himself and Reid as possible and this nicely illustrates how cross-party interaction is viewed these days. However, Huntsman’s conservative credentials can probably be beefed up enough to make him more appealing to the base, while making him less appealing to the middle.

Romney also has the Democratic taint upon him. His stint as governor of Massachusetts left him with some liberal seeming marks on his record, such as Romneycare. As such, he will need to work hard to disavow his own successes as governor in order to appeal to the more conservative elements of the party. As with the other candidates, the more he steers right to appease certain base elements, the more he will move away from the moderate voters.

As such, both Mormon candidates need to worry more about the liberal/Democrat taint on them than they need to worry about how their faith might be perceived. Of course, the Mormon factor might be more significant than I believe-perhaps America is not ready for a Mormon president.

Enhanced by Zemanta

My Picks for the Republican Candidates

by Leave a Comment

Governor Mitt Romney of MA
Image via Wikipedia

While the race is still wicked early, I am going to give my current picks for the Republican candidates.

Michelle Bachmann: She enjoys strong support from the Tea Party folks, but seems to strike moderates as a bit too extreme. However, the Republicans need a woman or a minority to run against Obama. At this point, I think she has a good shot of being the Sarah Palin VP candidate of 2012. If she gets the nomination, I predict that she will cost the party votes among the moderate independents.

Herman Cain: He has an impressive background, but does not seem well-established enough to secure the nomination. As the only black Republican running, he is probably being considered by some Republicans. Since the Republicans need a woman or minority to run against Obama, I can see him in  the VP slot.

Newt Gingrich: Once a powerhouse, Newt is limping  on one smoking engine. Barring a miracle, he is done.

Ron Paul: Too honest and too libertarian. Not a chance unless all the other candidates are eaten by wolves or sex scandals.

Tim Pawlenty: T-Paw is T-boring. He has some conservative cred, but doesn’t seem to have what it takes to stand out. Might be a VP candidate if the Republicans go for the traditional male mayo on white bread approach (two white guys).

Mitt Romney: He seems to be the top dog. He made a serious run in 2008, so the Republicans might see him as having paid his dues. His success in Massachusetts is, ironically, seen as a mark against him. While his business background will appeal to Republicans, a closer look at his business practices might worry moderates. His being a Mormon should not be an issue, but probably will be.  But maybe he will do for the Mormons what Kennedy did for the Catholics. My money is on him, at least for now.

Rick Santorum: Google “santorum.” If Romney drops out, he might have a chance.

At this point, I’m thinking a Romney-Bachmann or Romney-Cain ticket.

But, it is still early and there are some wild cards that have yet to be played.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Republican for 2012 is…

by Leave a Comment

Governor Mitt Romney of MA
Image via Wikipedia

While I am regarded as a liberal, I do have Republican friends and recent conversations with them have often been about who the Republicans will put up against Obama in 2012. What follows is my somewhat shallow assessment of some of the possible candidates.

While its seems a bit surreal, Donald Trump is actually polling competitively against some of the other likely candidates. He does have some appeal, given his fame and wealth. However, by appearing to take up the birther line it seems likely that he has damaged his credibility among more serious minded voters.  I am with Karl Rove on this point. I don’t think he has much of a chance of getting the nomination. However, I would not count him out completely-just imagine what a Trump & Palin ticket would do for the ratings.

While the liberal media loves keeping Sarah Palin in the news, her standing with Republicans seems to have been steadily declining. While she is a Tea Party darling, I doubt that she can pull together enough support to get nominated as the presidential candidate. However, she clearly has a shot at the VP slot again.

Mike Huckabee has quite a bit going for him, not just his winning first name. He has the charisma and experience to make a solid run. However, he is hindered somewhat by his track record and some voters will be uncomfortable with his religious views. He also has a sweet gig on Fox, which he might be reluctant to give up. However, he does seem to be a far more substantial candidate than either Trump or Palin.

Mitt Romney is doing well in the polls and looks like a movie version of the president, but has to worry about the horrible specter of his success as governor of Massachusetts . As governor he was able to work out a successful health care plan for the state-one that served as model for some parts of Obamacare. He also seemed liberal in those days-no doubt due to the infectious nature of Massachusetts’ liberalism (or maybe due to the lingering effects of Innsmouth). Ironically, Romney will have to distance himself from his past self in order to get the nomination. After all, much of what he did to turn Massachusetts around goes against the Tea Party/Republican agenda today. There is also the fact that he is a Mormon-although Kennedy was able to overcome comparable worries about his being a Catholic.

Michelle Bachmann is a Tea Party darling and seems to appeal to certain base elements of the Republican party. However, her historical errors, lack of understanding of the Constitution, and amazing lies will probably hamper her appeal as a candidate among more moderate Republicans and the general population.But, some folks really love her anti-gay stance and perhaps she can parlay this into nomination success.

In any case, a Bachmann-Palin or Trump-Bachmann ticket would both be ten ring media circuses and supply comedians with material for decades to come.

Off the top of my head, I would say that a Romney-Huckabee ticket would be an excellent choice. They both seem reasonably rational and have significant experience in politics. Plus, Huckabee can rock. There are, of course, some other folks who might throw their hats in. Feel free to bring them up.

Enhanced by Zemanta

51%

by 49 Comments

the 44th President of the United States...Bara...
Image by jmtimages via Flickr

A poll of 400 Republican primary voters revealed that 51% of them believe that Obama was not born in the United States. 28% believe that he was born in the United States while 21% were unsure of his place of birth.

This is hardly surprising. First, the birther movement has been quite active in pushing this idea and it has also gotten support (if only via innuendo) from Republican leaders. Second, Obama is disliked (or even hated) by most Republicans and people are inclined to believe negative claims about people they dislike-even when actual evidence is lacking. Third, Obama’ “exotic” background (non-American father, time spent outside of America and  so on) help create the impression that he is not a proper American. Fourth, some folks on the left (such as the fine folks at MSNBC) have been harping on the birther movement and their attacks might, ironically, serve to encourage people to accept it as correct-or at least to feel sympathy in response to their dislike of these left leaning folks.

While I am well aware that most people are poor at critical thinking and reasoning, the fact that 51% of those surveyed hold a belief that has been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt and that only 28% believe in a claim that has been established as true beyond a reasonable doubt worries me. After all, this would seem to indicate that these people base their beliefs on something other than evidence and reason and this bodes ill in regards to their ability to assess the candidates they will be voting for and against.

Of course, it is well worth considering that some or even many of the people surveyed gave the response they did based not on their actual belief but based on their dislike for Obama. If so, this would not be a case of people simply denying facts and holding to a delusion. Rather, it would be an indirect way of expressing their dislike of the man. This does have  a certain plausibility and is worth considering when pondering the implications of the survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
%d bloggers like this: