A Nonconstructive argument about the election |
| Published: July 23, 2008, 12:26 pm |
|
I have heard several times in the media the following nonconstructive proof that Obama will win the election. They, of course, do not call it a nonconstructive proof. Since politics is far less predictable and rigorous than math I do not really buy the argument, but its of some interest to me that there is a nonconstructive argument in politics. Here is how we might phrase it. There are two cases. The Iraq war goes well. Then the Iraq war is off of the front pages. In this case, McCain's advantage, that he is seen (rightly or wrongly) as being better to have as prez when we are at war, is nullified. Hence Obama, which is seen (righly or wrongly) as being better on domestic issues will win. The Iraq war goes badly. Then Obama can say (or he might not even need to say so explicitly) that he was right about the war being a mistake in the first place. What is wrong with this argument? The election may hinge on so many other things: a scandal, a mistatement, obvious things I am [ Full article ] |
 Blog link
|
No Comments...