Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Computational Complexity] A Nonconstructive argument about the election

Expand Messages
  • GASARCH
    I have heard several times in the media the following nonconstructive proof that Obama will win the election. They, of course, do not call it a nonconstructive
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 23, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I have heard several times in the media the following nonconstructive proof 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.
      1. 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.
      2. 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?
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. 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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.