[quote=Prime95;127349]Tallguy is rather asking you to imagine what a 534-vote nationwide difference would look like. An entire nation of bug-eyed election officials examining hanging chads. This would happen far less frequently than an individual state being too close to call, but much uglier to resolve.[/quote]Phew! OK, [I]someone[/I] got it anyway! :smile:

My brain was starting to hurt so I didn't reply to the last post, maybe I'll jump back in later...

[quote=ewmayer;127738]Anyone familiar with the [URL="http://www.realchange.org/"]Realchange.org[/URL] website - are they considered credible and unbiased?[/quote]First time I've seen it. (Its page title is "The Skeleton Closet".)

Initially, it seems balanced to me -- no obvious systematic differences between its Democratic dirt and its Republican dirt ...

[quote]while they have plenty of stuff on most of the other candidates, they really rip Ralphie a new one.[/quote]... or its Green dirt.

They provide numerous links or citations of documentation for the negative stuff they have.

It's thin on Libertarians ("We'll be the first to admit we don't know that much about the Libertarian candidates"), but they admit it and ask for documented information (as they do for all others).

Two of my favorite 2008 candidates aren't listed, but perhaps that's because they dropped out early-on ( (*sigh*) a common trait of my favorites in previous years, also). All the current frontrunners are there, as are those of 2004, 2000, and 1996.

BTW, they do have a [I]positive[/I] page: [URL]http://www.realchange.org/positive.htm[/URL] For example, they support easier ballot access for non-major-party candidates: [URL="http://www.realchange.org/ballotac.htm"][COLOR=#810081]Easier ballot access for other candidates[/COLOR][/URL].

Effect of candidate age difference
 

I was thinking about the age difference between McCain and Obama (or, to a lesser extent, Hillary), and wondered about any past trends. Indeed there are!

Yahoo! Answers ([URL]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080207185216AAstby2[/URL]) says (with my notes in bracketed italics):[quote]In no presidential election in U.S. history has there been a bigger age gap between candidates as between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in 1996. Dole is 23 years older than Clinton.
The age difference in 1992 for George Bush (daddy) and Clinton was almost as great, at 22 years.

With Obama at 46 [I][born 4 August 1961, so will be 47 next January][/I] and McCain at 70 [I][born 29 August 1936, so is actually 71 now, and 72 next January][/I], the difference of 24 [I][actually, 25][/I] years will beat out the old record of Dole/Clinton.[/quote]... but with Hillary (born 26 October 1947, so will be 61 next January) vs. McCain the gap would be only 11 years.

So, does that have any meaning?

Stewart J. H. McCann wrote an article [URL="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-895X(199512)16%3A4%3C749%3APCAASC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1"]http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-895X(199512)16%3A4%3C749%3APCAASC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1[/URL] whose abstract states, in part:[quote]...two hypotheses were tested: (1) winning presidential candidates are older in Schlesinger's (1986) private interest election years than in his public purpose election years; (2) winners are relatively older than corresponding second-place finishers in private interest election years than in public purpose election years.[/quote]That is, (2) says that the quantity [I]winner's age minus second-place finisher's age[/I] is greater in private interest election years than in public purpose election years.

Neither (1) nor (2) says that the winner will be older than the second-place finisher, but that would tend to happen more often in private interest election years than in the others.[quote]Both hypotheses were supported for first-time presidential election victories since 1789 and all elections of the past 100 years. In addition, the first hypothesis was supported for all elections since 1789, with 1812 and 1832 excluded; the second hypothesis was supported for all elections since 1789, with 1812, 1832, 1844, 1852, and 1864 excluded. ...[/quote]

So, we need a definition of Schlesinger's "public purpose election years" and "private interest election years".

At [URL]http://www.atlantic-times.com/article.php?recordID=2[/URL] (Warning: this link will probably point to a different article soon!), an article from The Atlantic Times February 2008 issue explains that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.[quote]drafted a “law” that was both simple and compelling: American history, according to Schlesinger, is a succession of 30-year cycles. They oscillate between “public purpose” and “private interest,” between market forces being tamed and unleashed, between expanding and retreating government.

...

First, let us ask how well the Schlesinger pattern fits the 20th century. Pretty well — as long as one doesn’t confuse the 30-year cycle with the much faster alternation in power between the two political parties. Let’s look at the past three decades by way of example. Eight years of Bush junior (R), eight years of Bill Clinton (D), four years of Bush senior (R), eight years of Reagan (R) and four years of Jimmy Carter (D) who governed from 1977 until 1981. This mish-mash doesn’t quite add up to a clear-cut 30-year party cycle. But upon a closer look, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican occupied the White House, politics obeyed the primacy of the “private interest.”[/quote]It goes on to support this assertion, but let's just accept here that the U.S. has had a "private interest" cycle for the past 30-or-so years.

According to Schlesinger's theory, 2008 will be either the last "private interest election year" for quite a while, or the first in a long string of "public purpose election years" [I](... or maybe it'll be an in-between?)[/I].

If this is a "private interest election year", then McCann (not to be confused with McCa[I]i[/I]n) would predict that the winning presidential candidate will be older than the average age of the winner will be in the next 30-year cycle (or was in 1947-1977). Advantage: McCain.

Also, McCann would predict that the quantity [I]winner's age minus second-place finisher's age[/I] will be greater this year than the average value of that quantity over the next 30-year cycle (or was in 1947-1977). Advantage: McCain.

OTOH, if this will be the first "public purpose election year" in over 30 years, then McCann would predict that the winning presidential candidate will be younger than the average age of the winner in the just-completed 30-year cycle. Advantage: either Democrat. Also, McCann would predict that the quantity [I]winner's age minus second-place finisher's age[/I] will be less this year than the average value of that quantity over the past 30 years. Advantage: either Democrat.

[quote=cheesehead;127816]At [URL]http://www.atlantic-times.com/article.php?recordID=2[/URL] (Warning: this link will probably point to a different article soon!), an article from The Atlantic Times February 2008 issue explains that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.It goes on to support this assertion, but let's just accept here that the U.S. has had a "private interest" cycle for the past 30-or-so years.[/quote]I'd absolutely agree... although I'd say that it never turns on a dime in one election cycle -- there is an ebb and flow. The last transition:

Nixon:[LIST][*]top marginal tax rate - 70%[*]established Environmental Protection Agency, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration"]NOAA[/URL], and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Security_Income"]SSI[/URL][*]proposed universal health care in 1974[*]imposed wage and price controls from 1971 to 1974[/LIST]This man was a Republican?!? :smile:

Carter:[LIST][*]de-regulated [URL="http://www.mises.org/story/1322"]oil pricing[/URL] in 1980[*]de-regulated the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act"]airlines in 1978[/URL][*]initiated creation of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Deployment_Forces"]Rapid Deployment Forces[/URL] in 1977[*]Created "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine"]Carter Doctrine[/URL]" stating that outside attempts to gain control of Persian Gulf oil would "be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."[*]stopped the wheat trade with the USSR[*]boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow[/LIST]This man was a Democrat?!? :smile:

Now certainly, I recognize that one could grab some random facts from any two Presidents and make a similar case, but isn't the juxtaposition between the two fairly striking -- particularly in the case of Nixon? Would he have a prayer of being re-nominated if he ran on that record today?

The worm definitely turned between 1972 and 1980 from liberal (public) to conservative (private). Hard to imagine we aren't headed for a similar turn today. I'm a conservative myself, but I doubt McCain will win.

We've had 20 years of Republican administrations with 8 years of centrist Democrat in the middle. The winds of change are a blowin'.

An interesting 3rd party effort that I'd not heard of until today...
[URL]http://www.unity08.com/[/URL]

The account of their demise (temporary, they say) on the home page is telling.

[quote=tallguy;127860]The last transition:

Nixon:

< snip >

Carter:[/quote]I think Gerald Ford's record ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford[/URL]) shows that he continued Nixon's "public purpose" slant. So, "Nixon/Ford".

BTW, for his pardon of Nixon, which many view as the main reason he lost the 1976 election, "the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_Library"][COLOR=#810081]John F. Kennedy Library Foundation[/COLOR][/URL] awarded the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy"][COLOR=#0000ff]John F. Kennedy[/COLOR][/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_in_Courage_Award"][COLOR=#810081]Profile in Courage Award[/COLOR][/URL] to Ford". Ford certainly fits in with the others Kennedy cited in his [I]Profiles in Courage[/I] book.

[URL="http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Gerald+Ford/Award+Announcement.htm"](http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Gerald+Ford/Award+Announcement.htm[/URL])

([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_in_Courage_Award[/URL])

But I'm getting off-topic here ...

[quote]The worm definitely turned between 1972 and 1980 from liberal (public) to conservative (private).[/quote]I haven't read Schlesinger's writing, but I think "public purpose" is not a synonym for "liberal", nor is "private interest", for "conservative".

The Wikipedia entry for "Cyclical theory" at [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclical_theory[/URL] states:

[quote]Public Purpose and Private Interest do not correlate directly with liberal or conservative, or the ideals of specific political parties.[/quote]

[quote=cheesehead;127924]I haven't read Schlesinger's writing, but I think "public purpose" is not a synonym for "liberal", nor is "private interest", for "conservative".[/quote]Maybe... but I think it is fair to say:

a) Those that label themselves "liberal" (progressive, etc.) are generally interested in shielding the public at large from the threats inherent to unfettered capitalism or unfettered anything else for that matter. "I'll gladly pay twice the price for something if it's labeled as 'organic' or 'fair trade' and it has earth toned packaging" is the spirit.

b) Those that label themselves "conservative" (libertarian, etc.) are generally interested in shielding individuals or other entities (i.e. corporations) from the threat of having their rights impinged by the government. "I'll trust the free market and my .357 Magnum to work things out" is the spirit.

Obviously these are caricatures, but.... am I wrong?

The one clear exception to all this is the Defense Dept -- where conservatives suddenly realize that their collection of assault weapons for "hunting" ain't going to do the trick against a scary world out there. Suddenly they can't seem to spend enough of the $2bn bombers. All fiscal discipline goes completely out the window.

tallguy,

I was denying the synonymity, or direct correlation, of "liberal" and "(public [purpose]" or of "conservative" and "private [interest]", that you showed in your statement

[quote]The worm definitely turned between 1972 and 1980 from liberal (public) to conservative (private)[/quote].

- - -

[quote]a) Those that label themselves "liberal" (progressive, etc.) are generally interested in shielding the public at large from the threats inherent to unfettered capitalism or unfettered anything else for that matter.

< snip >

b) Those that label themselves "conservative" (libertarian, etc.)[/quote](Aren't "libertarians" usually considered to be neither "conservative" nor "liberal"?)

[quote]are generally interested in shielding individuals or other entities (i.e. corporations) from the threat of having their rights impinged by the government.[/quote]Well, those are common stereotypes all right, but inaccurate in some respects.

Their inaccuracy is illustrated by your "clear exception", which actually fits the conservative worldview quite well even though it doesn't fit the inaccurate stereotype. Don't confuse conservative propaganda catchphrases like "limited government" and "fiscal restraint" with the actual conservative views. Conservatives have no problem justifying extensions of government power into private lives, or vast government financial expenditures, whenever those suit their actual goals.

(BTW, please don't ring in with another annoying "Liberals do that, too", Zeta-Flux or anyone else. I didn't say "[I]Only[/I] conservatives have no problem ..." and I shouldn't have to double my writing time to explicitly set out a bunch of mirror-examples to satisfy you just because you can't refrain from imagining that there are a slew of implied [I]only[/I]s in my statements about conservatives. Surely all you math-oriented folks are capable of generalizing around various symmetries on your own.)

[quote=tallguy;127954]
b) Those that label themselves "conservative" (libertarian, etc.) are generally interested in shielding individuals or other entities (i.e. corporations)[/quote]
A clear example of the use of "i.e." when you mean "e.g.":down:

[quote=davieddy;128117]A clear example of the use of "i.e." when you mean "e.g.":down:[/quote]Nope... I meant what I said. The only entities I can think of that are germaine to the conversation are individuals or corporations (which includes non-profits, and so on).