X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL 	autolearn=no version=3.2.2
Sender: -1.9 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <robfelty &AElig gmail.com>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l86HYQux007232 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:34:26 -0400
Received: from icestorm.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.135]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l86HXtVb030914 	for <dreeves &AElig eecs.umich.edu>; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:33:55 -0400
Received: FROM nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.233]) 	BY icestorm.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E039FF.CB248.25021 ;  	 6 Sep 2007 13:33:51 -0400
Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f1so170516nzc         for <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;         d=gmail.com; s=beta;         h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;         bh=1u6EdwITvKcB2YCtE1wOz+GAxiRV2hbbx8/rVTePPUw=;         b=deS8AfsGR14u9WB6FJrrJYqZD7JccSTpDmyv/Io+1o1Vh4REekUX/4YppN3/Xy/3oHi28rINGMF0gzzz+PN/VhEVoJc+U9m3xaEuHQL4+xKsKzHOOCH/mEHF5ljYMUhl43E23LQvUOvIjdy/zyI2mcnYK4qNY9D4fi7MQsMqBco=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;         d=gmail.com; s=beta;         h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;         b=jtsw4oAPDqqowu2zcooL+87fD4qheXl301SG79h3RpuqjhgJkKKYIl72PiN6VdhGbH8Z7g4aEKiXX+35QPOSddTNWpbGnS1uW2CgGjOIHrpgJ8QiWWbi1QuYTbUSTK2ml7o0rv1SIx6xyM0gNGW8q/5tHk9T3G85HXfMBvoY6So=
Received: by 10.114.149.2 with SMTP id w2mr606881wad.1189100025067;         Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.255.15 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fb769dde0709061033j5ee72900g757246533e5de484 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fb769dde0709061032q165a6ba5s70225950a5aadca6 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051408290.18608 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <582561.78990.qm &AElig web81906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 	 <2ff07e720709051135y423738cci55b2cdcbb5a6aac0 &AElig mail.gmail.com> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051455480.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051524040.27494 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709052029550.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <1189093182.28315.51.camel &AElig hactar> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061155460.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.56L0.0709061108280.12808 &AElig ccl.northwestern.edu> 	 <fb769dde0709061032q165a6ba5s70225950a5aadca6 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on 	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:33:44 -0400
To: "Bill Rand" <wrand &AElig northwestern.edu>
Cc: "Daniel Reeves" <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>,         "Erik Talvitie" <etalviti &AElig eecs.umich.edu>, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: "Rob Felty" <robfelty &AElig gmail.com>
Subject: Re: candidate calculator

Oh, and to Bethany's question about tabbing. This is frequently an
option in many browsers. Look in your preferences somewhere.

Rob

On 9/6/07, Rob Felty <robfelty &AElig gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree with Daniel, Erik, and Bill on this one.
>
> 1. Danny -- I think we should all support who we want to, and let the
> market decide who wins. :) You do make a good point though that
> publicly supporting people makes a big difference, which is why I sent
> this to my parents, knowing that they have probably heard little about
> Mike Gravel. If you are interested in learning more about Mike Gravel
> or Ron Paul, look at reddit.com (a sort of news aggregating website).
>
> 2. Bull-headedness and beer drinking.
>
> I once heard Pat Roberts talk on Fresh Air. I was very impressed by
> how articulate he was and he generally seemed to be very educated and
> intelligent, and made well-reasoned arguments. However, I strongly
> disagree with him on some economic issues, and almost all social
> issues. I would like to hear him in a debate, or talk with him in
> person, but I would never vote for him, because his actions would be
> almost the exact opposite of what I would wish for.
>
> Rob
>
> On 9/6/07, Bill Rand <wrand &AElig northwestern.edu> wrote:
> >         I agree with Erik on this one.  When people kept saying that
> > they voted for Bush because he was the kind of guy he wanted to have a
> > beer with, I thought that was the worst possible criteria you could come
> > up with for electing a president.  I want someone who has intelligent
> > views on issues and can even convince me to change my mind on issues, and
> > works really hard to find out everything they need to know about an issue.
> > I want someone who I would pay to go sit in a lecture and hear them
> > discuss the issues of the day.  They provide unique insight, that really
> > makes me think.  In the end I guess I don't like to vote based on
> > someone's view on issues but rather on their articulation and evidence to
> > support their view on the issues.  Then I can go out and see if what they
> > say makes sense based on my own research.  Of course in cases where I have
> > clear thoughts on these issues, if they disagree with me it will of course
> > take them a lot more convincing, but I still won't vote for someone just
> > because they agree with me on everything.  In fact if I saw a candidate
> > just articulate all the things I support, but do it in a poor manner, I
> > would be less likely to vote for them.  So I don't think bull-headed
> > idealogue fixes this problem, but I do like your pre-commitment idea Danny
> > since it could overcome this objection if it was something we negotiated
> > on the list as a group as opposed to relying on the calculator.  Take
> > care,
> > Bill
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> >
> > > Would adding the criterion "not a bull-headed ideologue" fix this?
> > >
> > > And what do you think of my ITW Endorsement Pre-commitment idea?
> > >
> > > --- \/   FROM Erik Talvitie AT 07.09.06 11:39 (Today)   \/ ---
> > >
> > > >> According to yootles.com/candicalc we are overwhelmingly in favor of
> > > >> Kucinich, as are (to a lesser extent) the other 150,000 people who
> > > >> answered those same questions.  The selectsmart page (linked to at the top
> > > >> of yootles.com/candicalc) says I like Ron Paul the best.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the thing about these calculators: they seem to assume that your
> > > > ideal candidate is...you. To me, that's kind of an odd place to start
> > > > from. I mean, obviously it is true that I take the political positions I
> > > > take because I believe if the government were to take the same
> > > > positions, we'd be a better nation for it. That said, I fully recognize
> > > > that if I could perform a government transplant and replace our current
> > > > one with one that agreed with me on every issue, we'd have a big problem
> > > > on our hands. Because *most* people don't agree with me on at least some
> > > > issue that is really important to them, and everything would just grid
> > > > to a halt. So really I'd much rather have a government that most people
> > > > can get along with, but one that is walking in my direction and bringing
> > > > the nation with it.
> > > >
> > > > So when both calculators tell me Kucinich is the best candidate for me
> > > > (yootles: 58, selectsmart: 98), I can see where they're coming from. I
> > > > *like* Kucinich. I like what we has to say and I love to hear him speak.
> > > > I think he's the most legitimately liberal candidate in the field. And
> > > > that's why I would never vote for him. He can't even sell his platform
> > > > to moderate dems, let alone die-hard conservatives. If he managed to
> > > > magically get to the oval office, he'd be a complete waste of time. He'd
> > > > never get anything done because no congressperson (democrat or
> > > > republican) who wanted to get re-elected could have anything to do with
> > > > him. The same goes for Gravel and Paul too, as far as I'm concerned.
> > > > They all have great ideas for the Perfect America but they give no
> > > > indication that they will be able to put that agenda aside and work with
> > > > the contentious, confused, inertial country we've got right now. We've
> > > > just suffered through 8 years of an ideological, bull-headed president
> > > > who knows what's best for everyone, despite abysmal approval ratings. I
> > > > don't want a repeat, even if I share the ideology this time around.
> > > >
> > > > So when I'm looking at candidates, I'm not looking for the one that is
> > > > the best reflection of me, I'm looking for the one that will best
> > > > champion my overall values to everyone else. I'd like the candidate who
> > > > is most likely to be able to convince the nation as a whole that a
> > > > couple of steps to the left ("and then a jump to the ri-i-i-i-ight!") in
> > > > our policies will do us all some good. Even though I don't agree with
> > > > them issue for issue (and even on some issues that are really important
> > > > to me) I actually think the Democratic front-runners are probably the
> > > > best we've got using that criterion (and maybe Biden too, if he could
> > > > just gain some traction).
> > > >
> > > > Just my 2 pyoonies.
> > > >
> > > > Erik
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
> > >
> > > Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the
> > > rest of the evening. Set a man on fire and
> > > he's warm for the rest of his life.
> > >
> > >
> >
>