U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently offered a $10,000 bet to competing candidate Rick Perry, regarding what Romney said in his book. Pundits say this hurt Romney’s image: The $10,000 bet … reinforces a narrative already swirling in the political world: that his wealth makes him out of touch with the economic concerns of average folks. …
Is "controversial" really the word you want? Maybe it's an extremely widespread belief (eg, school children are taught about Washington stepping down), but I think it is extremely controversial to say it.
Well, I think one of the least controversial things to say about presidents is that they help with the general legitamacy of government. So, it makes sense that we'd want signal savantes in the presidency. Separate is the problem of hecklers raising the bar of sufficient signal savanteness to be President (at the expense of more mundane proficiencies like administrative competence).
The thing is, I think it is less offensive to call someone a liar then to actually prove that they are lying. You call someone a liar, he calls you a liar back, that's it. If you propose a bet, a real one, people know who's sincere.The strategy most people choose, never to take bets, for whatever reason they have, may at the end of the day help them get away with a lie when they need to.
I quite liked Mitt's bet offer.It would have been better yet if he had said "loser to donate to the salvation army" or something similar.
ignoring the value of the bet(which i really don't think all that significant), i like the tactic of forcing a bet or standing down from a statement.
if one is to be taken seriously, he should be willing to back all of his assertions by betting on them. if one is not willing to bet on an assertion, he ought not assert.
This is a variation on a very high profile and straightforward theme in American politics: presidential candidates have to pretend to be an American average-Joe. How man times have you heard the quesiton 'who would you rather have a beer with?' during a presidential race. How many times was the electoral success of Bill Clinton and W. Bush attributed to be people wanting to hang out with them because they are just like them.
Obama doesn't fit this mold, but that is why he is slightly distrusted by the American public, and his re-election chances are not helped by his elitist demeanor. Still, he has to awkwardly go to things like Texas bbqs and have beer summits in an attempt to fit the pose.
"People you want to have a beer with" don't make $10k bets to make a point, thats what fat-cats you don't know do. It's the same gaffe as Kerry not being able to navigate a fastfood restuarant. This isn't about Americans demanding sociopath-signalling machines as presidents, its much more innocent and naive than that.
The issue, while not a biggie, doesn't strike me as terribly meta or contrived.
Romney's choice of a bet amount some three orders of magnitude above the comfort level of typical betting Americans somewhat increases my guesstimate of his level of disconnection with his fellow citizens concerning economic matters, which slightly decreases my guesstimate of his effectiveness in handling those matters, and (to an even lesser degree) those of the Presidency generally.
That said I agree it must be a pain to be a presidential candidate. Or a president.
I think it will happen, but not as predictions of events going forward but about simple matters of fact which many of Obama's opponents simply get wrong.
For example the idea that Obamacare increased the deficit. It didn't, but no conservative is able to think that thought because it conflicts with their ideology.
There is also the idea that social security is responsible for some of the deficit. It isn't, but people who hate social security have a difficult time keeping their facts about social security separate from their feelings about it.
The reason there has to be a distraction is that people may be offended by the suggestion that they would be offended by a test of their sincerity - and so on.
I wonder if bets are offensive because it is considered a violation of someone's privacy to test their sinceriy. The whole "it's too much money" issue is a distraction. People are offended by real bets. One dollar and million dollar bets are not real bets.
Obama wouldn't dare help solidify such a precedent. What if senators started proposing bets on the outcome of his favored "jobs programs" or "stimulus packages"?
"Geez it must be a pain to be a presidential candidate."
Or any political candidate. Which I think is why the pool of candidates one sees in a given election is remarkably disappointing, given the importance of the positions, in light of the overall level of talent in this country.
This line made me laugh:"We don’t much care if they understand supply and demand, but they damn well better know who might try hard to be offended by what."
It was a lazy word choice, but it seemed good enough to get the sentence done.
Is "controversial" really the word you want? Maybe it's an extremely widespread belief (eg, school children are taught about Washington stepping down), but I think it is extremely controversial to say it.
Well, I think one of the least controversial things to say about presidents is that they help with the general legitamacy of government. So, it makes sense that we'd want signal savantes in the presidency. Separate is the problem of hecklers raising the bar of sufficient signal savanteness to be President (at the expense of more mundane proficiencies like administrative competence).
The thing is, I think it is less offensive to call someone a liar then to actually prove that they are lying. You call someone a liar, he calls you a liar back, that's it. If you propose a bet, a real one, people know who's sincere.The strategy most people choose, never to take bets, for whatever reason they have, may at the end of the day help them get away with a lie when they need to.
I quite liked Mitt's bet offer.It would have been better yet if he had said "loser to donate to the salvation army" or something similar.
ignoring the value of the bet(which i really don't think all that significant), i like the tactic of forcing a bet or standing down from a statement.
if one is to be taken seriously, he should be willing to back all of his assertions by betting on them. if one is not willing to bet on an assertion, he ought not assert.
This is a variation on a very high profile and straightforward theme in American politics: presidential candidates have to pretend to be an American average-Joe. How man times have you heard the quesiton 'who would you rather have a beer with?' during a presidential race. How many times was the electoral success of Bill Clinton and W. Bush attributed to be people wanting to hang out with them because they are just like them.
Obama doesn't fit this mold, but that is why he is slightly distrusted by the American public, and his re-election chances are not helped by his elitist demeanor. Still, he has to awkwardly go to things like Texas bbqs and have beer summits in an attempt to fit the pose.
"People you want to have a beer with" don't make $10k bets to make a point, thats what fat-cats you don't know do. It's the same gaffe as Kerry not being able to navigate a fastfood restuarant. This isn't about Americans demanding sociopath-signalling machines as presidents, its much more innocent and naive than that.
The issue, while not a biggie, doesn't strike me as terribly meta or contrived.
Romney's choice of a bet amount some three orders of magnitude above the comfort level of typical betting Americans somewhat increases my guesstimate of his level of disconnection with his fellow citizens concerning economic matters, which slightly decreases my guesstimate of his effectiveness in handling those matters, and (to an even lesser degree) those of the Presidency generally.
That said I agree it must be a pain to be a presidential candidate. Or a president.
I think it will happen, but not as predictions of events going forward but about simple matters of fact which many of Obama's opponents simply get wrong.
For example the idea that Obamacare increased the deficit. It didn't, but no conservative is able to think that thought because it conflicts with their ideology.
http://krugman.blogs.nytime...
There is also the idea that social security is responsible for some of the deficit. It isn't, but people who hate social security have a difficult time keeping their facts about social security separate from their feelings about it.
There's something to this, but Perry was already attacking Romney's sincerity.
The reason there has to be a distraction is that people may be offended by the suggestion that they would be offended by a test of their sincerity - and so on.
I wonder if bets are offensive because it is considered a violation of someone's privacy to test their sinceriy. The whole "it's too much money" issue is a distraction. People are offended by real bets. One dollar and million dollar bets are not real bets.
PredictionBook: http://predictionbook.com/p...
Obama wouldn't dare help solidify such a precedent. What if senators started proposing bets on the outcome of his favored "jobs programs" or "stimulus packages"?
"Geez it must be a pain to be a presidential candidate."
Or any political candidate. Which I think is why the pool of candidates one sees in a given election is remarkably disappointing, given the importance of the positions, in light of the overall level of talent in this country.
This line made me laugh:"We don’t much care if they understand supply and demand, but they damn well better know who might try hard to be offended by what."
Sad, but true, unfortunately.
Why did you stop at bets and suits?
Why not album preferences, haircuts, religious beliefs, etc.? Society went nuts a long time ago.