Kevdawg (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} kev_dawg) wrote,@ 2008-05-06 02:02:00 |
|
A contrarian's guide to Election 2008
This is based on a different kind of thinking. Everyone knows how bad things are now as opposed to eight years ago. Let me count the ways on what Dubya's successor has to deal with and clean up:
1. A war that may or may not expand to include Iran
2. A housing crisis that could get even worse
3. An economy that could slide into a depression if there are more companies that go the way of Bear Stearns or Countrywide
4. A significantly weakened dollar
5. Oil at $200-350 a barrel/$5-15 a gallon gas
6. Worldwide food crises due to the (corn-based) ethanol hoax (I'll discuss this later)
The thing is that whoever wins in November may end up being the biggest loser come this time in 2012. Given how Americans have an extremely short attention span, Clinton, Obama, or McCain could go down as the 21st century's Herbert Hoover. So, given all of this, it may be in a person's best interest to vote against his/her favorite candidate in the hopes that person is so damaged in four years' time that the incumbent is dead politician walking.
Would the contrarian strategy work? Would it be a wise move? I have thought long and hard about this and the answer to the second question is a resounding no. Voting for the least favorite candidate could easily backfire because the next president could get America out of its current messes and if that happens, that voter will have egg on his/her face. If the contrarian strategy works itself out to where the ruling party after this year's elections is swept out of power for a generation in '12, voters admitting to selecting against their best interests ON PURPOSE will be seen as "part of the problem." So, as a result, it's in everyone's best interest to NOT vote contrarian and hope that America can get out of its current malaise by 2012.
This is based on a different kind of thinking. Everyone knows how bad things are now as opposed to eight years ago. Let me count the ways on what Dubya's successor has to deal with and clean up:
1. A war that may or may not expand to include Iran
2. A housing crisis that could get even worse
3. An economy that could slide into a depression if there are more companies that go the way of Bear Stearns or Countrywide
4. A significantly weakened dollar
5. Oil at $200-350 a barrel/$5-15 a gallon gas
6. Worldwide food crises due to the (corn-based) ethanol hoax (I'll discuss this later)
The thing is that whoever wins in November may end up being the biggest loser come this time in 2012. Given how Americans have an extremely short attention span, Clinton, Obama, or McCain could go down as the 21st century's Herbert Hoover. So, given all of this, it may be in a person's best interest to vote against his/her favorite candidate in the hopes that person is so damaged in four years' time that the incumbent is dead politician walking.
Would the contrarian strategy work? Would it be a wise move? I have thought long and hard about this and the answer to the second question is a resounding no. Voting for the least favorite candidate could easily backfire because the next president could get America out of its current messes and if that happens, that voter will have egg on his/her face. If the contrarian strategy works itself out to where the ruling party after this year's elections is swept out of power for a generation in '12, voters admitting to selecting against their best interests ON PURPOSE will be seen as "part of the problem." So, as a result, it's in everyone's best interest to NOT vote contrarian and hope that America can get out of its current malaise by 2012.
