The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Electoral College Math||Date: 10/11/2012 3:50 PM|
|Author: woodymw||Number: 1823468 of 1962043|
Or ... Does that concept require too much context, background, exposition, nuance ...
Actually - yes, I think it does. The battleground state dynamics are so particular to individual states this year that I think a broader discussion is important. The keys to winning Florida and Ohio are very different because the demographics are so different and the issues are weighted so differently. And the issues that people care about in those states may or may not align with folks in Virginia, or Colorado.
For example, I could easily see Romney winning Virginia on defense budget fears and winning Nevada on general principle. Those two things are in many ways independent of whether he wins Florida, which is going to hinge on how well they can do damage control on Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan. If you're going to make the assertion that whoever wins one wins them all, I think you need to be able to give me context, background, exposition, or nuance that will let me understand what Nevada's electoral profile has to do with Ohio's, or any other states.
My position is that much of the gridlock and enmity that we are dealing with in today's system is based on an inability and unwillingness to have that kind of nuanced discussion. We're too busy saying things like "two out of three wins" without a real understanding of any of the underlying dynamics and how that impacts broader policy direction, political efficiency, and ability to govern.
Mileage varies, I know, but "whoever wins 2 out of 3 for those three states" doesn't explain enough for me.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|