Chilly

Indeed. My understanding is that the term "Scientist" didn't actually become popular until the late 1800s as a way to refer to someone who studies the natural sciences, which was around the time that "Science" stopped referring to social sciences as well - after the time that "Political Science" had been coined, and, of course, when Darwin's publications became popular. I had one prof who was particularly obsessed with defending Political Science as a real Science, even though it isn't by today's lexicon - but he would undoubtedly try to invoke the history of the term to claim it was - I think he had penis envy of the natural sciences. I found it quite ironic that he worked for one of the few Universities in the US that calls its program "Government" and not "Political Science". My mistake.

Cool. Good first step.

And I won't argue the point that its not a "Science" in today's lexicon. I was pointing out that when the term was formed (in the 1800s), the word "Science" had a different meaning. ^^^ What he said, although I'm being more hostile about it, since you chose to be sarcastic and combative.

By the way, I suggest starting by comparing most articles and pundits (which lack information from true political scientists) to this one (which references Leonard Williams and Neil Wollman). Then, explain how this is the same as pundits giving their opinion.

Prove all of what you just said about that article.

Be offended all you want, but the use of the term has evolved, especially in the 1900s, to refer to just the Natural Sciences. Back in the 1800s, when Baxter Adams coined the phrase, it was applicable.

I lol'd

Neither. Notice I said "tend", which means (from dictionary.com): to be disposed or inclined in action, operation, or effect to do something: The particles tend to unite. Notice how his day job is working for a polling firm (aka not a pundit)? Notice how he also talks to other political scientists for his article? Notice how he doesn't talk in definites, unlike the way you characterized it? Notice how he sets up an overall picture, while acknowledging multiple things could happen? The article goes against your characterization of political science.

John McCain's campaign message caused Barack Obama to win the nomination? Logic concedes.

What does having a good rating in Madden have to do with his intelligence?

Yup, its pretty awesome. If I had the money, I'd consider it.

Um, real political scientists tend not to work for the media... hell, most of the ones I took classes from often pointed out all the problems with the media and pundits. Most also don't tend to talk in definites...

Right. The one who discredited Political Science as complete BS isn't the arrogant know it all, I am. Its obvious you didn't do any research, or you would have realized what I was talking about.

Ah, yes. The ol' switcheroo - if you can't discredit what you originally wanted, try to use sarcasm to focus on something else instead (this time the system).

I think McCain is more immediately focused on winning over the core Republican party then going after the "change" crowd, though he has been doing some of that with his calls for governmental reform. Is there really all that much difference between the level of detail in: McCain - http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...cf2edb527cf.htm Obama - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ The argument that when he became the presidential nominee he inherited doomed policies might stand up if he hadn't previously embraced those platforms. See, thats the thing: I do agree with you that Clinton would be the better candidate, but its not because she's more or less liked overall by the American people, but because she's better in the swing states. For example, a Rasmussen poll from yesterday has Obama 46-McCain 46, and Clinton 44-McCain 46. Both of these polls are a tie. Yet, if you break it down by state polling, here are all the states that Clinton is better than Obama vs McCain by 5% or more in (note that this does not include states that McCain would lose to or beat both by >5%): NV MO AR OH KY OH WV NC FL Total: 97 Delegates Here are all the states that Obama is better then Clinton vs McCain by 5% or more (again, not including states where McCain is winning or losing by >5%): CO IA WI VA Total: 39 Delegates If you remove all the states that are statistical ties, the view goes like this: McCain 202 vs Obama 251 If you remove all the states that are statistical ties, the view goes like this: Clinton 312 vs McCain 168 Now, these numbers I'm sure would change greatly, but it gives Clinton a much bigger head start than Obama. Even though the American public is essentially split on their numbers in a "general election poll", Clinton currently would have a much, much bigger edge. In fact, even though that is the case, most Democrats still prefer Obama, and those same Democrats believe he is electable and should be their candidate, from the individual voters all the way through the super delegates. If the super delegates believed he had no shot of winning, they wouldn't support him. Now, instead of claiming a system failed at its goals, lets take a look at why the system achieved the results that it did: Clinton performed strongly in traditional democratic states like California and New York. She also performed strongly with populations of white working class voters, women, and latinos. Obama peformed strongly in more traditionally Republican states, such as Texas and South Carolina. In addition, he also performed strongly in populations with large African American voting blocs, upscale white males, and he was better organized, so he won caucus states. In political primaries, momentum means a ton, and most of the time will determine the winner after multiple states. Given Clinton's strength and appeal, Obama would need all he could muster to compete. The democratic primary schedule for primaries that counted looked like this (with reason for win in parenthesis): - Iowa (caucus) - Obama - New Hampshire (strong women voting bloc) - Clinton - Nevada (caucus) - Obama - South Carolina (Large AA) - Obama - American Somoa (latino) - Clinton At this point, Obama clearly had some momentum, with the only actual US state Clinton had won (extremely closely) being New Hampshire. Now, Super Tuesday happened: - Alaska (Caucus) - Obama - North Dakota (Caucus) - Obama - Delaware (large population of upscale whites) - Obama - Utah (large upscale popluation) - Obama - New Mexico (large female and latino voting blocs) - Clinton - Kansas (Caucus) - Obama - Oklahoma (Large downscale white males) - Clinton - Arkansas (Large downscale white males) - Clinton - Connecticut (Upscale white males, African Americans) - Obama - Alabama (Large African American segment) - Obama - Arizona (Large White Female, few AA) - Clinton - Colorado (Caucus) - Obama - Tennessee (Large downscale white males and females) - Clinton - Missouri (Mix) - Obama - Minnesota (Caucus) - Obama - Georgia (Large AA) - Obama - Massachusetts (Large old & white, large female) - Clinton - New Jersey (large old & white, large female) - Clinton - New York (home state) - Clinton - California (large White Women, large latino) - Clinton At this point, Obama continued to build momentum, winning 11 to 9 in the states on Super Tuesday. However, the next states are what determined the winner. The rest of February: - Nebraska (caucus) - Obama - Louisiana (AA) - Obama - Washington (caucus) - Obama - Maine (caucus) - Obama - Maryland (large AA) - Obama - Virginia (large AA, upscale white) - Obama - Hawaii (caucus) - Obama - Wisconsin (large upscale white, independent vote) - Obama Unfortunately for Clinton, states that contained Obama's voting bloc came during this period of time, leading Obama on to 8 consecutive victories in states (9 if you count DC). Clinton's states came later, and while she was able to tighten up the race, was never able to recover from the momentum Obama built from winning 8 states in a row. The support that various Democrats gave Obama after he showed he could string together a decent amount of victories, combined with his lead in the delegate count, gave him enough momentum to win. In contrast, if all of these primaries were held on the same day this year, there is no doubt in my mind that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. Obama's coalition was very well served by the momentum he received, and by the gaffes of Florida and Michigan. Really? The Democrats who are happy about it are the ones who believe that Obama best represents their interests, which turns out to be about half of the Democratic party. In any event, the system is setup to achieve its goals nearly every time. The only way it would ever not do what it was set out to is if the super delegates felt that a candidate nominated by the people was completely unelectable, which has never happened. This line of thinking begs the question: Has the Republican process always nominated the best general election candidate? Its impossible to say, since no contest has ever gone that far. So, what has been the difference in the recent presidential elections? Well, the Democratic base is much, much more wishy washy than the Republican base. As a result, Democrats have had to take a much larger segment of the middle than Republicans have, putting them at an inherent disadvantage. When they've won, such as Clinton in 1996, they've sucked large portions of the middle and right to their candidate to overcome the defection rate disadvantage. You could place the blame on the candidates that have been elected, or the system, or the democratic base. Given that the defection rates have been relatively stable over time, I'm more inclined to blame the base than anything else. Many Democrats view Obama as the better candidate because of his ability to be a "uniter". They view his message as having lots of crossover appeal, and that he will be able to win more of the centrist vote and some defection vote that Clinton would not be able to win. In addition, they believe that he will be able to unite the Democratic base around him. There is some validity to electing a candidate who has the largest crossover appeal: if they can get the base behind them, they should be able to win the general election easily. This is, however, in contrast to history, which says to wrap up your base first, then go after the middle. It is completely possible that in a month, if Obama has wrapped up the Democratic base, we will be proven wrong, and he will have been the stronger candidate. I'm skeptical, but it could happen. My point being: Its likely too early to "for sure" declare Obama the weaker candidate. Is this due to the candidate that the Democrats have elected, or their campaign strategy?

o hi, wheres my pm

Christ. Both candidates are making themselves appeal to the independents, which is why they are in play. McCain and Obama are both viewed by large groups of people in the middle as centrist, largely due to both having governmental reform messages. It has to do with tailoring campaign messages toward what the electorate wants to hear, which is all that really matters in politics nowadays. I guess you've never been to his website which shows his policies. Also, Obama has voted for most of these Democratic policies that you claim have been a problem. Yet, Obama doesn't have a policy problem, but the Democrats do? Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you think. To the majority of Democrats, he's the best candidate, and he's electable. You asked if Obama and McCain should be close. I said that they should be close, because they both appeal to independents. You said that according to me, Democrats SHOULD be be having a white woman revolt I said that my only comment that referred to the way anything SHOULD be happening was that McCain and Obama were close. Look, the race between Hillary and Obama was extremely close, and one group of minorities was pitted against another, both who are represented by the same wing. To think that there won't be some fallout from that, no matter who the nominee was, would be not looking at reality. In the end, the system worked because it nominated a candidate who is the popular vote leader in the official count, and who is considered electable by his party. This is what I'm trying to tell you - it doesn't matter how we view someone (whether electable or unelectable), it matters as to whether the super delegates believe they are electable or not. I may view a Democrat as an ideological extremist, but the party officials may not view him that way. For example, you view Obama as extreme left, so you claim the system doesn't work. However, to the Democrats, Obama is viewed much more as a centrist and appealing to independents. Since it is the DEMOCRATIC primary, and only THEIR opinions matter, Obama is viewed more as a centrist and electable. The system was designed to have two results: A.) Put forth someone who represents a majority of the Democratic party's views B.) Put forth someone who they view as electable Unfortunately for the Democrats, who they view as electable and who actually is electable has been disconnected. If the system was setup to provide the most electable candidate regardless of how many Democrats presonally agree with him or her, then it would be a failure. However, this is not the case. If you were judging it purely on whether they won or lost, then yes, you would be correct. Except that its not a valid argument, because Obama "officially" won it (as much as I think its fair also to say that Clinton did). No doubt, I think she would too. However, the system wasn't designed to give the absolutely best candidate. See above. And I've never said that it was "good" for the Democrats, just that the system worked as intended (and thus was successful). No argument from me that they blew some of their advantage. They did so by nominating the candidate who is less strong in the swing states, and who will need to form a new coalition to win. Its not that they are trying to "not vote against the black guy", its that they are definitely not voting against the guy who is "popular with blacks and young people" and go for someone who didn't officially win the process, making them disenfranchise some Obama supporters who feel he won fairly, the blacks, and the young voters, in the hopes of winning one election.

The average NFL player scores a 20. Further, a 16 indicates a likely IQ of around 92, just slightly below the national average. Football players (and coaches) give canned responses? SHOCKING. Two issues with these statements: First of all, of course you are welcomed to have an opinion (why the hell are you apologizing), but I challenged you to back it up. Saying "I just don't like him" is not proof of him being stupid, or proof of anything else. Furthermore, it is ironic that you are calling him the moron when you use "I just don't like him" as proof that he's a moron. In addition, the statement that you don't like him because he's overhyped is an irrational - shall we say, moronic - way to form an opinion about someone. Instead of saying "I dislike him because he has not been a very good quarterback, as evidenced by his QB rating", you are saying "I dislike him because other people really like him, more than I judge him to be worth", essentially letting other people's opinions form the basis for your own.

He's a moron for having second thoughts about his chosen career path, but then realizing that it is what he wants to do? Who the hell hasn't had that at some point? You mean a 25-year-old male parties? WHAT A SHOCKER. Got proof?

There are plenty of morality issues to drive out religious voters, and they'll paint Obama as the devil, so you better vote for McCain. They'll turn out (some of the most reliable voters of all time). Both of their records are going to hurt them: Obama's continual voting along Democratic party lines, and McCain's "not so straight" talk. This will be where the battle will be that wins the election: Who is going to get these middle of the road voters? Most likely, the Obama campaign doesn't agree with you, sees those numbers, and recognizes that he will have to spend some time this month appealing to the base (much the same way McCain was last month). Should those numbers come down? Most likely, yes, but it does depend on Obama's actions.

You misread my point. Neither candidate is all that strong with the party's base (comparatively speaking to other candidates in that party), and a big part of each's candidacy is attempting to win over the center part of the electorate. That is *my* point: They *both* appeal to the middle, and they are both attempting to take the same group of people, thus it makes sense they are splitting it about even. The main point was that Obama has an *image* problem, NOT a *policy* problem. You were arguing that he had a *policy* problem. You read way too much into what I said. I said they *should* be close because they have similar appeal to independents. I said nothing about women. Wait, are they to nullify what all the groups combined say, or nullify one specific group? I actually didn't say anything about the intention of the super delegates, except to say: Which means, they kept Super Delegates to insure that they are not going to nominate a candidate who is viewed by the Democrats as unelectable, because they had no idea what kind of candidates were going to be selected. A lot of times, this is simply reduced to saying an ideologically extreme candidate, as it is generally considered an ideologically extreme candidate wouldn't win an election, but that phrasing is wrong. Remember, the Democrats are not in the business of putting up centrist candidates, they are in the business of putting up "electable" candidates who represent their platform (even if they do a poor job at it). Really? That's funny, I thought the primary system was setup to nominate the candidate who represents the most voters in the Democratic primary, as long as the party views them as an electable candidate. If a candidate appeals to more Democratic party voters than the other candidate, then its working. It may not be traditional Democratic voters, but he is appealing to people who voted in the Democratic primary. A much more valid argument would be to say that it hasn't worked, by arguing that Clinton won the popular vote. What? No. Trump the primary system = continue bad press that they are undemocratic and unamerican. They won't vote against Obama, because they think that to do so would disenfranchise new voters who voted in it = losing the opportunity to party build with voters who historically turn out in their favor, but at very low numbers. I don't think any party building in this case will be successful, but that is their argument.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. My point in all of that (with the of % number) was that even on prior years where candidates have "driven out" the youth vote, the increase was not all that significant. Clinton winning the base of the party combined with a large chunk of the middle had much, much more to do with him winning in 92 than anything that 21% of the youth vote did. I don't really see the "youth" vote breaking out all that much. I do think it'll be more along Clinton in 92 with around 21% of the vote, and the split will likely be around 60-40. So, lets say you're accurate, and its 22%. 60% of a 5% increase is a 3% increase in the vote. *If* Obama is able to drive out the base to vote for him, and such a vote actually happens, it'll be significant. However, Obama is facing record defection rates, between 13-17% right now. That 3% increase is dwarfed by that 13-17% defection rate, in a party with historically high defection rates. He's relying on a risky group of voters to overcome the loss of traditional democratic voters, which is highlighted by the fact that he's only breaking independents at 40-40 margins. Right now, that's not a good sign. If he can get the Democratic base to rally around him better, THEN getting the youth/AA vote for him will be successful, as long as he stays about even with Independents. For Obama, its tricky, he needs to: A.) Secure the Democratic base better B.) Keep independents about even with McCain C.) Bring in new voters McCain, on the other hand, needs to: A.) Secure the Republican base (which he has so far - he's looking at an 8% defection rate, exactly along history's lines for McCain) B.) Win over the Independent vote or win over a large portion of defected Democrats Its certainly possible for Obama to do all three things; he's off to a good start with B.) and C.). A) might happen when Hillary drops out, and if it does, then Obama will be in good shape. Basing estimates in a general election turnout on primary turnouts has been historically sketchy and inaccurate, so its pretty hard to tell. Its quite easy to find some to bring out the niche groups you were talking about: Gay Marriage and Abortion

Isn't it funny that you left this part of the article out of that post: On May 31, when asked by a news reporter for WAVY-TV whether there was evidence that placed Vick at dog fights, Poindexter replied "Yes". Gee, I wonder why?

Not quite. Young voters (18-29) actually broke with Gore (48% of 17%) and Kerry (54% of 17%) more than they did with Clinton in 92 (43% of 21%), although Clinton got a slightly higher number because he drove more out, but not enough to make much of a difference. In 1996, Clinton drove out the usual 17% young people (and received 53% of it). So will the people who are motivated to vote against that black candidate. Don't think theres a reasonable way to estimate either one. We'll see, but the Republicans are experts at using wedge issues to drive out their base. I don't see that slowing down. Which remains to be seen if this will win over the middle of the electorate. Right now they are split 40-40, and Obama has fallen fast with the middle of the electorate. I suggest you do some research into the techniques used by political science in the US and the power of Party ID, among other things.

Erm, its not referring to the use of Science as a shorthand for the term "Natural Science", but rather as an indication of a soft science ("Social Science").