Based on conditions as they are right now here’s how I see the potential outcomes of the November elections. In declining order of likelihood:
- Unchanged: Obama re-elected, Republicans hold House, Democrats hold Senate.
- Very slightly behind that: Romney elected, Republicans hold House, Democrats hold Senate.
- Regime change: Romney elected, Republicans hold House, Republicans take Senate.
- Obama’s still reasonably popular but Democrats aren’t: Obama re-elected, Republicans hold House, Republicans take Senate.
- It’s 2008 all over again: Obama re-elected, Democrats take House, Democrats hold Senate.
- Anti-incumbent fervor sweeps nation: Romney elected, Democrats take House, Republicans take Senate.
There’s one more possibility but I think it’s very unlikely so I didn’t include it above. How do you see the potential outcomes in November?
GOP sweep with smaller margin in House and narrow margin in Senate.
Steve
I generally agree with the ordering, but think the chances of the Republicans taking the Senate are higher. More like:
1. Pres.(D); House (R); Senate (R)
2. Pres.(R); House (R); Senate (R)
3. Pres.(D); House (R); Senate (D)
4. Pres.(R); House (R); Senate (D)
5. Pres. (D); House (D); Senate (D)
Somewhat along Nate Silver’s lines I think the odds of the GOP taking the Senate or a GOP sweep have gone down with Lugar’s defeat in the Indiana Republican primary.
My count on the Senate is the Republicans currently have 47, they lose Maine to an independent, hold Massachusetts and Indiana barely, and pick up North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Missouri and Wisconsin, to give them 51.
A tie doesn’t seem unlikely at all though.
I think that Maine goes independent (who caucuses with Democrats), Massachusetts holds, Indiana goes Democratic, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Missouri, and Wisconsin go Republican for a tie but, since the new independent from Maine caucuses with the Democrats, the Senate remains controlled by the Democrats.
I think the most realistic prospects for Republicans taking the Senate are with a real Republican sweep, approaching a landslide with states that were not thought to be in play going for Romney. I don’t that’s very realistic at all so I speculate that the Senate will stay Democratic.
A lot can happen between now and November. One or more sitting senators could die. The economy could tank. China’s economy could tank (which looks pretty likely right about now). Europe’s economy could tank (which also looks pretty likely right now). Israel could attack Iran or vice versa.
The world ends thanks to the Mayans?
I’m with PD Shaw. I think Romney has a slight edge because Obama has largely failed as a President, but he is popular enough and we are polarized enough that Obama has a good chance of pulling a narrow win despite the economy. I think Republicans get the Senate w maybe 2 seats at most to spare, and hold the House with possibly a smaller margin. If Romney starts to pull away, this shifts dramatically in Republicans favor. If Obama starts to pull away, then Republicans will not retake the Senate and will struggle to hold the House.
None of these options is likely to avert economic disaster within the next fifteen to years, except possibly Obama in the WH, Republicans holding both chambers of Congress, and Obama’s executive orders and administrative overreach countered by strong oversight. So basically, I think we are in for 4 more years kicking an ever larger can down the road.
I’m taking a long-shot bet: zombie apocalypse. Put me down for ten bucks.
What steve said. Narrow win all around for the R’s, which they too will interpret as a “mandate,” and proceed to FSU even more royally than it has been.
China’s economy could tank (which looks pretty likely right about now). Europe’s economy could tank (which also looks pretty likely right now).
Wrong. Europe’s economy has collapsed, and China’s is at least (comparatively) lurching to a halt. Two or even three percent GDP growth in China would seem like a recession given recent growth rates.
I’m predicting that a huckster will win the White House, and hucksters will control the House and Senate. Details matter less with each successive kick of the can. At this point a zombie apocalypse is looking like less of a bad option each day. (Still bad, just less bad than it was yesterday. These things are all relative. When the zombie apocalypse starts looking like a GOOD scenario we’ll know that shit has buried the fan.)
That’s premature. At this point it’s basically a north-south thing. Spain and Greece are in depression. Italy is in recession. The UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are not in recession yet. Poland and Russia are actually doing quite well. The Baltic countries, generally, are doing okay.
The UK has already posted consequtive quarters with negative growth. Germany has seen less industrial output in recent months, IIRC, and of course, the entire EU financial experiment is now imploding – runs on banks in Greece and Spain, and I’m sure in Italy soon. Not to mention an entire continent’s worth of pols getting elected to do one thing and then doing another. How long will that work until the commies, fascists and nazis start running things? At some point people are going to want pols who will do what they say they will do, no matter how nasty they are.
(And I was reading something somewhere on a big finance/economic blog that France apparently has problems too.)
As for calling a recession, they didn’t officially call the last crisis a recession until we were deep in it. In fact the official calls are so late as to be worthless for any purpose OTHER than telling Bill McBride when to shade his historical graphs blue.
You know, it’s not much of a bet when it’s a sure thing.
But I still like my hucksters better than their hucksters.
That’ll be more of a saunter than a run. I’ve dealt with Italian banks. They don’t make it easy to get your money.
But I still like my hucksters better than their hucksters.
Which makes you what, for shilling for them constantly? For telling people your candidates are wonderful even though you know they’re whores and hucksters? For telling poor people to kiss your feet because you shill f0r those whores and hucksters? For calling anyone that doesn’t support everything your whores and hucksters do racists and evil?
It’s funny, because every now and then you actually admit that your political posturing is nothing more than a lie. What kind of slimy piece of feces does that make you, Reynolds? At the very least this all makes you a very loose stool. If you had more fiber, your shit would hold together better.
Um. . . well, setting aside your usual coprolalia, it makes me a realist who understands that my tools are inevitably imperfect, so I get what I can, even from sinners.
When you find the Messiah on a presidential ticket, be sure to let me know, Ice. In the meantime I’ll go on stating a preference for slightly less bad over somewhat more bad.
To slightly edit Michael’s sentiments, i generally think that i am voting against someone or against a party rather than for someone.
Steve
Reynolds, you have called desenters from your side evil and racist, just for dissenting. That isn’t, “well, my guys suck, but the other guys suck more.” That is active cheerleading, that is active shilling, that is actively poisoning the well. That is what you have been doing for years and years now. You have told me personally that everything good that has ever happened to this country is because of the Democratic Party, and that because you are rich and a Democrat I should kiss your feet in gratitude. Where have the shades of gray been in those comments?
I know icepick hates my guts, but he’s making the correct obsevation.
Reynolds stipulates that his politicians are better than yours, even if they are all shit.
No. They have different policy prescriptions. I’ll take Romneys. Michael will take Obamas.
I observe Obama is a complete and total failure. He will differ.
Game on. At one point I had Obama a better guy than Carter. No longer. Simply the worst President in my lifetime. We will see what happens.
Not optimistic.
“. I’ll take Romneys.”
Which one? The one where we attack Iran? The one where we balance the budget during his term while keeping defense spending at 4% of GDP? The one where we (chuckle) magically produce 500,000 jobs a month? The one where we reject $10 of spending cuts if it means $1 of increased revenue? The mystery reductions in tax expenditures? His support of a mandate or his rejection of a mandate?
Steve
Really? When did I call anyone a racist “just for dissenting?”
Drew likes Romney because he thinks he is Romney. It’s narcissism.
I’m not nuts about Obama. When I saw his speech at the 2004 convention, I thought, “There’s an up-and-comer.” I did not expect him to be on the 2008 ballot. I think that his election to president was premature. I voted for him, but that was influenced most by McCain kissy-facing Jerry Falwell. And he and his VP choice drumming the tattoo of war.
But Romney is going to have to show me that he is not bound to Grover Norquist or Tony Perkins. He isn’t doing that. And for goodness’ sake, “Russia”?
Thanks, Janis. Those have been very much my thoughts as well.
I don’t much want to leap to Mr. Romney’s defense but I’d like to put in one small word about Russia. The most important bilateral relationship in the world isn’t between the U. S. and the U. K., the U. S. and Canada, the U. S. and Mexico, the U. S. and China, or any number of other potential candidates. It’s between the U. S. and Russia. We’re the only countries in the world who have the capability of destroying it.
So, while I disagree with Mr. Romney that Russia is our most serious adversary I do think that we need to do much, much more to cultivate that bilateral relationship. “Reset” isn’t what’s necessary. A frank and honest understanding of our own interests, Russia’s interests, the common ground between us (there’s plenty of it), and where we differ are what is necessary and I think we’ve allowed the relationship to fall into neglect heedlessly and needlessly over the period of the last 20 years.
The differences between Obama and the various Romneys are as clear as they can be given the extremely flexible nature of Mr. Romney’s beliefs.
1) We’re less likely to have a war with Iran under Mr. Obama because Mr. Romney has made it clear he’s all the way up Netanyahu’s butt.
2) Mr. Romney will appoint anti-abortion and — if they can be found — anti-gay justices.
3) Mr. Romney has pledged to back a constitutional amendment to reduce gays to second class status permanently.
4) Mr. Romney will veto RomneyCare — excuse, I mean, ObamaCare — though he has proposed no alternative.
5) Mr. Romney will cut social programs for the poor — and only for the poor — while increasing defense spending.
6) Romney will oppose any tax rate increase.
7) Whatever argument you care to make about Mr. Obama as a candidate in 2008, he is now the more experienced of the two.
8) Mr. Obama is slick and slippery. Mr. Romney is a man utterly lacking a core.
9) Romney makes creep the flesh of decent men. Obama is at least an actual human.
Nonsense. Mr. Obama is a half-breed Kenyan communist usurper. Where do you get your facts, Mr. Reynolds?
the common ground between us (there’s plenty of it),
Yeah, neither nation wants China to take over Siberia.
Mr. Obama is a half-breed Kenyan communist usurper.
Well, anyone calling Obama Kenyan-born would be getting their information from – Obama’s agents!
Barack Hussein Obama II – the world’s original BHO birther conspiracist! LMAO! You were so right, Reynolds, when you said Obama was going to usher in THE AGE OF COMPETENCE! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Re: Michaels’ points:
1) Israel will become more stable and less likely to attack Iran because of the friendship/trust between Romney and Netanyahu.
2) Romney will appoint more conservative Constitutional jurists dealing with smaller less intrusive government. Abortion, gay issues is simply a red herring brought up by social progressives as a scare tactic. Romney, not being an ideologue, will concentrate on the economy, cutting back regulations etc.
3) Romney believes in marriage between a man and a woman. It’s all about traditional marriage beliefs, and not in making anybody a 2nd class citizen. That is a ridiculous claim.
4) If the court doesn’t invalidate the HC act, Romney will appeal it and replace it with a more competitive, marketplace type of Health care.
5) Romney will cut spending in all areas, including overlapping programs and defense.
6) Romney has already said he will bring down the tax margins for all. He will also deal with loopholes, bring corporate tax rates more in line with other countries around the world.
7) Obama continues to be a inept leader, with no sense of business acumen. Romney will inspire confidence in business people, and his election will kick-start the economy to the surprise of all the progressive, Keynesian ideologues.
Finally, Romney is a decent man who has been cited for his integrity throughout his career. While being less charismatic than Obama, he will work well with both sides of the aisle, and promises made will be promises kept
And Reynolds, don’t even try that about “when have I called anyone a racist for dissenting” line. Every time anyone mentions they’re against an Obama policy for four years now you’ve rushed right into the breach to say “YOU GUYS ONLY OPPOSE THIS POLICY BECAUSE HE’S BLACK! BIGOT! BIGOT!” Like hard-core private enterprise guys like Drew wouldn’t be opposed to government expanding evermore into their realm. Like Libertarians wouldn’t be opposed to more government PERIOD. Like someone that thinks Social Security was a step too far wouldn’t be opposed to more government healthcare. Please, you’ve done that so often it isn’t even credible to deny it.
Finally, Romney is a decent man….
Tell that to Newt the newt and Santorum. They stayed in the race longer than they should have purely out of dislike for the man, whom they felt had slandered them beyond the bounds of mere politics. Santorum still can’t bring himself to make an unqualified positive statement about Romney. And if Newt thinks you’re a slimeball, well that speaks for itself.
As a girlfriend from way back once put it, “No good man gets to be President.” I would add that none even get close. No decent, thoughtful person would want the job. Presidents get to decide who dies, order others to do the killing for him, and decides who’s lives aren’t worth saving because the political cost would be too high. Anyone with a conscience would collapse from the responsibility. And that is the more straightforward stuff – it gets a lot trickier when other policy options are considered. It’s a job fit only for a sociopath, and sociopaths are all that will ever get the job.
In other words, as usual, you got nothing.
Here’s how you do it: do a site search for here and OTB. Search terms, “Michael Reynolds,” and “racist” or “racism.” Then show us your work. Given that I write that kind of stuff “Every time anyone mentions they’re against an Obama policy” you should have no problem finding all kinds of examples.
Or consider it this way: everyone complains about politicians, but who is willing to step up? We’ve got at least three people* that comment here regularly that could run for some sort of office. Do they? Of course not. They don’t even seem to consider it. Why is that?
* I could tell you who they are, but I’ll let you decide for yourself. Besides, your three might well be different than my three. And for clarification, I will state that these people should be able to run CREDIBLE campaigns for SOMETHING. That means NOT ME – no one is going to vote for an LTUE househusband with a penchant for telling people to go fuck themselves with chainsaws. Now if I were rich and liberal, those other things wouldn’t matter. For proof I offer Alan Grayson. But I’m not rich and not liberal, and therefor would not be a credible candidate for anything.
Okay, here’s the quick search version. The search algos can’t be that good, because I only saw you calling TangoMan a racist a couple of times. I just don’t think they pick up comments that well. My comments will be in brackets -> [ like so ]
From 4/8/2012:
I would have answered that yes, Mr. Obama probably has been less effective because of his race. The racism that is still pervasive in the GOP explains in part the GOP’s leap into nihilism and its absolute refusal to participate in governing this country.
From 7/23/2010:
The GOP continues to win elections by deliberately exploiting racism with dog-whistle appeals to the lowest elements of society.
From 3/29/2012
A substantial portion of the GOP is simply opposed to anything that negro in the White House proposes.
From 7/17/2011
On the subject of race, yes, Icepick, I despise racists. I don’t like them. I haven’t been fond of them since the KKK delivered a warning to my family when I was a child. I think they are evil people. I think a man who will hate another because of the color of his skin is a man who will march a Jew to Auschwitz. And no, I don’t think they all suddenly disappeared from American life. I think they’re still out there, and still a big part of the GOP. [Icepick – I will note that Reynolds doesn’t care about jew hating blacks in the Democratic Party – they’re all good because they’re Democrats. I will also note that the casual racism against white people of Barack Obama also doesn’t trouble Reynolds.]
From 1/9/2011
In the meantime it would behoove the right wing to stop fetishizing guns, stop the dog-whistle racist rhetoric, stop the apocalyptic rhetoric and the self-congratulatory revolutionary posturing because right now they are one pysch evaluation away from being on the hook for this. One of the reasons not to talk crazy is that you end up finding yourself associated with crazy people, whether that was the intent or not. [Icepick – this was Reynolds stating that the guy that shot Gabby Giffords out West was probably inspired by the “dog-whistle racist rhetoric” of the Republican Party. Yeah, no rush to judgement there. And when the guy turned out to be crazy, Reynolds never bothered to apologize for blaming the entire party. Being a Democrat means never having to say you’re sorry.]
From 12/29/2010
Because we can only be color-blind going forward if we keep our boots on the necks of racist scumbags — however much they may dress their seething hatred up with pseudo-scientific claptrap. [Icepick – that was directed at TangoMan, but note that since Reynolds thinks the Republican Party does the “dog-whistle” thing, he undoubtedly thinks the boot should be put on the neck of all Republicans. In other words, complete repression is the goal.]
From 9/15/2009 [commenting on the Tea Party town hall protests]
When I see old people carrying signs that say “Means-test Medicare†or “Means-test Social Security†I’ll start believing it’s something other than rent-seeking, race-panic and generational resentment. [Icepick – in other words, protest against Obama was race based.]
From 6/10/2010
Drew:
You’re a guy who starts with an idee fixe and fits reality to support it.
Denigrating Obama as just a community organizer is stupid. Lincoln was a railroad lawyer. Grant was a firewood salesman. Truman was a haberdasher. Jefferson was a farmer.
Now, I understand that in your case “community organizer†is code. But you might try a bit harder to disguise your shall we say pre-conceptions? [Icepick: That was sublte. NOT!]
Here’s a bit from another blog entirely, from back on8/10/2009:
Commenter Ennui (discussing those opposed to healthcare reform):Here’s another take on the opposition. People have interests. When they believe that a given policy proposal will negatively affect those interests, they like to register their opposition. If you are any measure of the attitudes of the Health Care Plan supporters towards those poor benighted bastards who oppose it, I think the poor benighted bastards are right to be concerned.
Reynolds response: Sorry, no. They’re panicky racist idiots.
Icepick in the here and now: Subtle! So spare me the bullshit, Reynolds, you said it right there: those opposed to Obama’s health care reform were just panicky racist idiots. Hell, they probably even wanted the bill to be read before it was passed and signed. Can you imagine such racism can exist in modern America!
Heh. He’ll do that all by himself. Emperor Romnatine.
Look, perhaps you should read this by David Frum, Mitt Romney’s Leadership Secret. I’ll give you a hint: Mittens dissembles like a motherfucker. But, as Frum says, the conservative base’s will to believe is a tenacious thing. Here is the pluperfect Romney. After dumping on the alleged Ricketts plan to interject the Rev. Wright into the campaign, a reporter pointed out to Romney that he’d done the same thing in February. Mitt the Deatheater:
That’s the vessel into which you’re pouring all your hopes. Good luck to you.
sam, Emperor Obama?
Obama: “As president, I will pass a [health insurance] plan that covers every American and will lower a typical family’s premiums by as much as $2,500.”
Ice:
And yet not a single on of those quotes is what you promised. Not even close.
You didn’t say, “Reynolds accuses the GOP of harboring racists.” You didn’t say “Reynolds called TangoMan a racist,” (which he is.) You didn’t say, “Reynolds thinks some of the opposition to Obama is motivated by racism.”
Had you said any of those things, I’d have agreed. Because they’re true.
You said, “Reynolds, you have called desenters from your side evil and racist, just for dissenting.”
A case you have manifestly failed to prove. You cherry-picked a bunch of quotes on the subject of racism, which even so, even out of context, do not make your case. All they prove is that I don’t like racists,a fact I’d have happily acknowledged.
You apparently think the entire subject of race is off-limits. It’s not. I’ll keep talking about it.
You remain, as usual, full of crap.
There are good emperors and bad emperors. And that would be Emperor Obamatine (for rhetorical consistency…).
Are there? Or are there merely bad emperors and less bad ones? Are there also good and bad slave owners?
Nice move. Emperor = slave owner. But you tell me Dave, was Jefferson a good slave owner?
No, he wasn’t. Owning slaves tarnished him forever.
Empire is a form of slavery. Let’s consider another way of looking at it. There is behavior that is simply wrong. Both imperialism and slavery fit into that category. They are just wrong.
“Empire is a form of slavery.”
I wonder about that. One could imagine a benevolent empire, and hence, a benevolent emperor.
I certainly don’t agree that empire is intrinsically wrong. I would evaluate an emporer like I would any leader or state: are the constraints or orders imposed on society to the greater good of the society, or are they entirely self-interested?
Reynolds, refering to the Tea Partiers from the summer of 2009: Sorry, no. They’re panicky racist idiots.
The rest of that post did nothing but further explain that you though opposition to Obama was racist in nature. Also, I did that in a few minutes time using Google, so I hardly spent much time on it. It’s all right there. Keep screaming for your hucksters and whores, keep calling everyone that doesn’t bow and scape before your hucksters and whores racist. Keep lying about it when called on it and when evidence is presented. It just makes your repugnant lying nature all the more obvious.
Also, I did see that over at OTB (when I finally bothered to look) you have been very enamoured of the OWS movement. I guess you like the parts where they’ve been trying to commit terrorist acts, too? After all, you Dems are encouraging and harboring them so that must mean, by your logic, that you are in favor off those things, because you don’t start every single post with a denuciation of those activities.
I also find it funny that you keep writing over at OTB as though you aren’t rich, one of the privileged few. “Oh yes, I decided to move to Italy for a few years to enjoy the lovely scenery and the wine, but I am SOOOOOO not rich!” What a joke….
Dave,
Before it gets lost, re: Russia – I think what you’ve offered is more a defense of GW Bush than a defense of Romney. Bush was mocked a lot for his “looking into his soul” comments about Putin, but it was a defensible thing to say given the nature of our nations’ relationship.
What Romney said, however, was just completely fucking idiotic. It was never likely he would get my vote, but he lost any remaining chance then and there.
Ice:
Here’s why you’re wasting your time: I’m a professional writer. Which means I usually do a pretty good job of translating thoughts into words. Not 100%, of course, but say 90%. So, knowing what I believe, I also know what I said. Which is how I knew you wouldn’t be able to prove your original assertion.
I’ve probably written 200 comments dealing with racism, and even with out-of-context cherry-picking you couldn’t make your case.
So, here we have an example where your own lack of discipline loses the contest for you. Had you said, “Sometimes you overstate your case,” I’d have agreed. The above statement would be that 10% referred to above. Add the word, “largely,” between “they’re” and “panicky” above and I’d stand by it. I apologize for the lack of an appropriate qualifier.
Of course even without the qualifier, it doesn’t make your case.
James Joyner and Doug Mataconis, and the other headliners, and most of the regular commenters, all know what I do for a living. Unlike you, I use my real name, and I mention the books I write, and my pen name, and I even plug when I hit the NYT list. So no one is under any illusion that I’m washing dishes or mowing lawns.
Mentioning that I lived in a villa in Tuscany for a while is not exactly a claim of poverty. Rather, I think most people can figure out from that that I do pretty well. As for being “rich,” I’ve repeatedly identified myself as part of the 1% in terms of income. But I honestly don’t know what “rich” means — I take it to mean, “doesn’t have to work.” And since I’m definitely not in a position to quit working, I don’t usually apply that word to myself.
I’ll tell you again: I don’t lie. I have lied in the past, I don’t have a huge moral objection to it, I’m not claiming sainthood, Jesus did not speak to me, but for whatever reason I’ve grown to dislike dishonesty in myself. So I don’t lie, aside from the,”Your hair looks great,” sort of thing. So your effort to prove me full of shit just isn’t going to work.
So many perfectly true bad things you could say about me: a very bad friend, innumerate, temperamental, sketchily-educated, a mile wide and an inch deep, self-indulgent, arrogant. . . Wow. So much.
I suppose it depends on whether you mean lifestyle or class. In lifestyle terms I think that anybody in the top 1% of income earners (roughly $350,000 per year) is rich and anybody in the top .1% of income earners is ultra-rich. In class terms it’s a bit more complicated. Things like where your money comes from play a part. The rule of thumb would be that if you’re paid by the hour or a wage you’re not of the wealthy class. Members of the wealthy class receive most of their income from the ownership of assets—rents, dividends, royalties.
You’re an artist. That’s a special circumstance. You’re successful enough that you’re rich in lifestyle terms but your situation is precarious enough that I wouldn’t put you in the wealthy class.
“Drew likes Romney because he thinks he is Romney. It’s narcissism.”
Heh. I damned good at what I do, and I’ve got the investment returns to prove it. But I’m not stupid, or without understanding, or delusional, as Michael gets when he’s desperate to criticize me.
Unlike Michael, I’m perfectly rational and free, and do, acknowledge his talents and success in his field. I wouldn’t pretend to be a book author.
However, he can’t come to grips with mine because his narrow talents and understanding conflict with his economic and political worldview. So he pretends to be a business and economic guru as well. At least its good for a few chuckles and guffaws.
As for Bain, they blow us away. We are the proverbial upper quartile for years now. That pretty much puts you on the All Star Team. But Bain? They are simply the best. Think Michael Jordan. Magic Johnson, or in a nice essay by James over at OTB, Larry Bird.
People really need to take their political glasses off. Romney’s firm was spectacular. And unlike the usual political BS, there are metrics. Their metrics are spectacular and verifiable.
Dave:
Yeah, that’s about right I think. Probably if I weren’t amazingly bad with money I’d be rich.
Drew:
See above comment to Dave, one which I’ve made on many occasions. I don’t pretend to be any such thing. In fact the idea makes me laugh. On matters economic I tend to ask questions. Sorry if the questions make you uncomfortable. Sometimes I make clearly labeled personal observations or guesses or speculations. Sometimes I snark, but you’re all adults, so I assume you recognize that.
The single biggest point of contention on economics has come when various people tell me that I can’t possibly be doing exactly what I am doing: working harder and being more productive because I’m heavily taxed. It’s true that I refuse to deny I’m doing what I’m doing in order to fit within your theoretical framework. I maintain I’m the expert on understanding why I’m doing things I’m actually doing. Call me crazy.
Drew:
By the way, this:
Unless it was a joke, is without question the dumbest thing you’ve ever said. No one is perfectly rational, and to even approach perfect rationality you’d have to be aware of your own irrationality.
As for acknowledging, dude: I’m clearly identified as an actual, real person, you’re a first name. For all I know a made-up first name.
One last point, Drew, just calling yourself an expert doesn’t mean the whole world has to shut up and defer. This: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8811134-fear is the Goodreads page for my latest. 1,830 people have offered their opinions of what I do, 427 have taken the time to write about it. Am I an “expert?” Sure, why not. Does that mean I get to tell everyone else to shut up an accept my magnificence? Not really.
Dude, that’s some guy named Micahel Grant.
PD:
Indeed. My pen name. One of, I believe, 13 all told, including KA Applegate (with my wife), C Archer, Nicholas Stevens (IIRC), AR Plumb, Katherine Michaels, Katherine Kendall, Pat Pollari and a bunch I forget.
I knew that; its just amusing in the context of criticizing drew’s handle.
I think we know drew’s identity for purposes of what his background is. He would have to be a great creative writer to craft a consistent personality like this. Perhaps drew is michael reynolds? Nah.
PD:
I actually agree. I’ve long since accepted that Drew is essentially what he says he is. But how successful is he? Eh, who knows? Pseudonyms give you wiggle room even when the basics are accepted as given. I can’t claim to be 10X when a simple Google search would reveal me as, say, 4X.
The larger point is, Drew is not THE businessman, any more than I am THE kid book writer. We each represent expertise, but not the final word. No one needs to bow down to either of us as singular geniuses in our respective fields.
michael, I have been meaning to share a story with you. A couple of months ago, I was in the kid’s/young adult section at the Page & Palette bookstore in Fairhope, Alabama, waiting for my kids to pick out a book, when I spotted your recent series. I picked it up and leafed through it, wondering if it was age appropriate for my eldest, and then glanced at the biography at the back, when a staff member came over and asked if I had read any of your stuff before? It was a somewhat awkward encounter since I had read some of your stuff, just not any books, so I said “no, . . . but I kind of know the author.”
The staff member said he’d read the first book in the series and thought it was great. He looked at me expecting me to say something more, and a few thoughts crossed my mind (michael used to live a couple of hours from here, Pensacola, but he didn’t like it; the author’s name is from the Civil War general, but here I am in the deep south), so I said: “It’s not his real name.” awkward pause “It’s Reynolds.” awkward pause “He’s o.k. though.” The staff member smartly moved on to talk with my kids about the books they liked; he was very good at what he does, and certainly was prepared to promote your work if he had a less eccentric customer.
You’re o.k. though, even with the fake names.
PD:
That’s very funny. But don’t worry, anyone reading books today automatically qualifies as eccentric.
Maybe I am too trusting, but I take Drew at his word. What I find frustrating is the inability to recognize the bias one has from working within a given profession. I listen to my fellow docs complain all of the time about the problems with medicine, but it is never the fault of physicians, especially the costs. I think this holds true across a lot of professions.
Steve
i hope they don’t blame lawyers and insurance companies for everything; that’s just not right.
On the meta-narrative here,
I really appreciate people of different backgrounds providing a view point from that background; I am enriched by it.
Actual names do not matter to me. Many people who could enrich my understanding of the world are not going to post under their names.
I wish more people would loosely i.d. their backgrounds, at the very least the city/state of residence. Because sometimes people say things that sound foreign to me, and I don’t know if they’re crazy or if things work differently somewhere else. I would love to know.
I am growing to hate a related concept of identifying the bias as a way of dispensing with the argument. That’s an ad hominem fallacy, perhaps the proposition should be scrutinized, but it can’t be false solely because of the speaker’s motivations.
@PD- Well said. I learn a lot.
Steve
PD:
I agree. Even the devil may make a valid point.
That’s part of the reason for not only tolerating but seeking out the views of people whose views differ from your own. There is the potential for learning from them. If the only people you will listen to are people who believe as you do, all you’re getting is confirmation.
There’s this place called theglitteringeye.com. . .
Dave Schuler
Speaking of Russia, have you read this?
http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf
Yeah, I saw that when it came out last year. The author notes a couple of Russia’s health problems (alcohol and smoking) but, somewhat surprisingly, I found no mention of what is likely Russia’s most serious contributing factor in population collapse. Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world. Something like ten times the rate here or in Japan. It’s been the preferred method of birth control in Russia for a half century. Repeated abortions under the conditions prevailing in Russian medicine contribute directly to reduced fertility rates among Russian women.
@Dave Schuler
It’s always fascinating the things which don’t get mentioned you would think matter. In the continued hand-wringing over Japan’s looming demographic crisis, almost no one ever mentions that the birth rate has been increasing since 2005.