I have heard several times in the media the following
that Obama will win the election.
They, of course, do not call it a nonconstructive proof
Since politics is far less predictable and rigorous than
math I do not really buy the argument, but its of some interest
to me that there is a nonconstructive argument in politics.
Here is how we might phrase it.
There are two cases.
The Iraq war goes well. Then the Iraq war is off
of the front pages. In this case, McCain's advantage,
that he is seen (rightly or wrongly) as being better
to have as prez when we are at war, is nullified.
Hence Obama, which is seen (righly or wrongly) as being
better on domestic issues will win.
The Iraq war goes badly. Then Obama can say (or he might
not even need to say so explicitly) that he was right about
the war being a mistake in the first place.
What is wrong with this argument?
The election may hinge on so many other things: a scandal,
a mistatement, obvious things I am not mentioning, nonobvious
things that have not come to light yet.
The Iraq war might go (or be portrayed as going) some intermediary
thing which is neither well or badly.
In fact, the very terms well and badl are not well defined.
More generally, its very hard to apply simple logic to
an election. Or complex logic.
Posted By GASARCH to Computational Complexity
at 7/23/2008 11:26:00 AM