Politcal Science
The best summary of the election process that Ive read comes from.... you guessed it: Stephen Colbert. He and John Stewart recently had a conversation with
Entertainment Weekly:
JON STEWART: I was convinced an Obama/McCain campaign would be measurably different on almost all standards. And to watch it become Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore, has been one of the most dissatisfying experiences.
STEPHEN COLBERT: That means it's not an Obama/McCain campaign. It's a Guys Who Work for Bush/Guys Who Work for Kerry campaign. Both sides have people who are just smart enough to know ''We need to tweak this dial right here,'' so of course voters are divided 50/50 between the parties. When the 2000 election was down to 14 voters in Boca deciding the whole thing, I thought, ''Wow, that's great! It really is a political
science! They've found a way to put electrodes in people's hands, and a probe up their butt, show them images, and say 'See how they respond!'''
I had read this a few days before the debates, and it really hit home seeing those two men on TV. Politicians, especially presidential candidates, are always
on. They must play a role 24 hours a day, because they are little more than cogs in a machine - a political science machine. And the people running the machine definitely have it down to a statistical/marketing science. I think we will continue to see 50/50 elections in the US until some catastrophe - larger than the several that have happened in the last 8 years - occurs.
That said, I think the Obama campaign has done some things, mostly behind the scenes, to change this in the long run. Perhaps the
very long run.
