Romney Moving Ahead in South Carolina Too?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Because they were convinved that it was self defence or a retaliation for sadams "involvement" in 911.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we disagree. People are pretty good at rationalizing an initiation of force. Hence why it's not some guiding principle most people adhere to.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Misled much says hello?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if people were misled:

"Yeah, cause most people have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

Alex was being sarcastic, but most people *don't* have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force". "Initiating" force is something many people are entirely comfortable with doing if they feel threatened or scared or angry or hurt or vengeful or one of the many common human emotions that prompts violence and force. I realize that propaganda artists are capable of bringing on these emotions, but people are really good at rationalizing the initiation of violence and force anyway. I don't think any of this really needs to be said -- I think there's a long track record known as "recorded human history" that bears this out.

Put differently, I'm sure "do you support the initiating force?", most people probably say something like "no, not really". Pose the question as "do you support initiating force against that Middle Eastern looking guy with a backpack in Times Square" or "that creepy registered sex offender down the street and his ability to walk his dog by the local elementary school" and I'm guessing you get entirely different answers.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they were convinved that it was self defence or a retaliation for sadams "involvement" in 911.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we disagree. People are pretty good at rationalizing an initiation of force. Hence why it's not some guiding principle most people adhere to.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do adhere to it. They're just not trained to see it. In fact they are trained not to see it. If you teach someone from birth that X is good very few people have the time or inclination to figure out for themselves whether X is good or not. We can't all be moral intellectuals just like we can't all be mechanics, it's the divisional of labour and one isn't better or worse than another. They want to be good but they've been lied to about what good is.

That's why it;s up to us to get this stuff right for them and to get the ideas out as far and wide as possible so peoples natural goodness can shine through.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Misled much says hello?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if people were misled:

"Yeah, cause most people have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

Alex was being sarcastic, but most people *don't* have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your overall point. I am just saying that most people would not at that time have considered invading Iraq "initiating force."

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if Giuliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, Paul is going to win pretty much every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Polling is hardly ever quite this bad, especially in a Presidential election or primary where tens of millions of dollars are poured into polling. Maybe in a local school board election, mayoral race, or some other small local election, you'll see pollsters completely miss the mark, but if a reputable pollster with a standard moe says Guiliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, I'd happily give 50 to 1 on a "Paul will win" bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intrade.com you can sell $10,000's of pon paul for much better than 50-1 odds and he's polling way less than 16% from a bunch of reputable posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe I misunderstood scary tiger, but I thought he meant something like "if it's Giuliani vs Paul and the night before an election and Giuliani is polling at 24% and Paul is at 16%, Paul is going to win everytime because of the huge swath of voters out there all the pollsters will miss and will turnout for Paul", then that's ludicrous and I'd happily spread big odds Guiliani would win in that scenario.

If scary tiger means something like "Candidate X is at 24%, Candidate Y is at 16%, and it's November and the first primary election is in March" or something -- ie., what the Intrade market trading on, then that's entirely different -- and yes I understand that. See John Kerry & Howard Dean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was saying neither of these things and I was talking about the primaries. I don't think the pollsters are wrong, it's just the Paul supporters will turn out at a higher rate. Say 8% of the Giuliani supporters and 15% of the Paul supporters.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your overall point. I am just saying that most people would not at that time have considered invading Iraq "initiating force."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does that matter?

I mean, the question sort of centers around Paul's electability and the cute "don't initiate force" slogan, right?

Well, like I said, "don't initiate force" probably resonates on some level with people. Many might hear Paul in a vacuum and say "yeah, I can agree with this, this guy isn't so crazy".

But then put him on a stage with Giuliani or Clinton or whoever, who can probably come up with some scenario where initiating force sounds not only justified but a categorical imperative ("zomg Iran has a bomb pointed right at us"), and yeah, he's going to look 'crazy' if he sticks with the "don't initiate force" standard. I'm not saying this is how *I* feel -- so please don't argue with me. Just take a step back and consider the current American landscape. We're waaaaay beyond anything nearing that level of moral debate in this country. Consider that 'morality' debates in this country currently center around whether or not we should torture random people we pick up in the "battlefields" of Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere because they might have some information about some attack somewhere that might save an American life somewhere.

And that's outright torture, which says nothing about "initiating force" to stop sex offenders from working around children, or gay people from marrying, or to stop someone from taking heroin, or stopping someone from gambling online, or collecting taxes to pay for medicine for sick orphaned children, or to run courts, or enforce Civil Rights law, etc.

I think we're a long way from "don't initiate force".

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the pollsters are wrong, it's just the Paul supporters will turn out at a higher rate. Say 8% of the Giuliani supporters and 15% of the Paul supporters.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense; for one, reputable polling controls for various 'turnout' aspects. Ron Burgandy threw out some inane objection about pollsters are only querying "likely Republican voters". The reason why pollsters query "likely party voters" in primary elections is because time and time again, that's had the strongest correlation to the actual election day results. If he's talking about states where open primaries are held, most pollsters are entirely capable of taking that effect into account as well. Second, if you don't think that the pollsters are wrong, then I'm not sure why you think Paul would have some magical turnout that the pollsters can't measure.

Since ACists and libertarians of most stripes stake various claims about how efficient the market is, I don't quite understand how those same people have become convinced that the polling industry violates those rules, is completely inefficient, and is actually some billion dollar money sieve where people pay all this money when they could just light it on fire or give it to random internet posters instead and get just as much value.

These guys (these guys = good pollsters) get paid big dollars because they produce accurate results -- accurate results that correlate strongly with the real results that are produced on election day. Random internet posters and their crackpot theories about magical Ron Paul voters who will be missed in some terrible oversight by pollsters get paid considerably less for their prognostications. There's a reason for this.

[manbearpig]

Maybe I am just being dense and if so I apologize.

But I think the majority of people are against us preemptively bombing Iran because they might someday be able to make a nuclear weapon. I would consider that initiating force.

But if Iran had a bomb pointed at us I think we would be justified in stopping it. I dont think that is initiating force. Dont know how Paul would respond to that, although I *think* he would agree that we would need to take action.

Again, I think your overall point stands. The MSM, the leading candidates, etc all try to drive us into this state of fear (have you seen the Tancredo ad?). And because of that Paul *looks* weak to the random bystander. Education is the key with this as it is with everything.

[Scary_Tiger]

Hey DVaut1, you posted a lot of words, but you responded to lots of things I didn't claim.

[iron81]

I'll respond to it with fewer words. Pollsters account for the number of supporters showing up by asking for "likely voters". If a respondant does not affirm that they will probably head to the polls, that respondant's answers aren't included. In the context of the primaries, I believe that this means voters who plan to vote in the GOP primary, not just registered or self-identified Republicans. This has historically addressed your concerns.