Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough -- Statistically Feasible?
Posted:
Nov 8, 2012 6:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Romney lost because...
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury
After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses
-- because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
we have hit the tipping point where the number of people on unemployment/ foodstamps/ medicaid /disability /and welfare has reached over 50%.....
it does not look good ...
if you have not removed yourself from the stock market ...do so quickly
also
with Obama in office....
2 things WILL happen the only question is WHEN
but I expect in the next 2 years
a) Iran will have a nuclear bomb
b) Israel will do a pre-emptive strike
how bad this is for all of us...remains to be seen
but gas over $5 is going to be the new reality
welcome to Obama the 2nd term
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clyde Greeno" <greeno@cox.net>
To: <mathedcc@mathforum.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough -- Statistically Feasible?
> Then, there are those who argue that many who appeared to be voting "for
> Obama" actually were voting against the Tea Party.
>
> - --------------------------------------------------
> From: "John" <zgraf@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 11:20 AM
> To: <mathedcc@mathforum.org>
> Subject: Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough -- Statistically Feasible?
>
>> Not really sure if this is the correct forum for this, but here goes:
>>
>> After the presidential election, a number of pundits are saying that gov.
>> Romney lost because >> he wasn't conservative enough <<.
>>
>> Thinking about this mathematically, I've drawn a simple number line of
>> political affiliation below.
>> The spectrum extends from 100% liberal (-1) on the left to 100%
>> conservative (+1) on the right.
>>
>>
>> In order to appeal to the MAXIMUM number of voters, isn't it clear that a
>> candidate should position
>> himself/herself EXACTLY IN THE CENTER (i.e., at the "0" point along the
>> number line)?
>>
>> How can one's moving further to the right (away from "0" and closer to
>> "+1") possibly have the effect
>> of attracting more voters?
>>
>>
>> -1........................0........................+1
>> |----------------------|----------------------|
>> 100% Liberal Moderate 100% Conservative
>> ****************************************************************************
>> * To post to the list: email mathedcc@mathforum.org *
>> * To unsubscribe, email the message "unsubscribe mathedcc" to
>> majordomo@mathforum.org *
>> * Archives at http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=184 *
>> ****************************************************************************
> ****************************************************************************
> * To post to the list: email mathedcc@mathforum.org *
> * To unsubscribe, email the message "unsubscribe mathedcc" to majordomo@mathforum.org *
> * Archives at http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=184 *
> ****************************************************************************
|
|
|
|
