Why our side will win? Article.

[chaska]

This article is so brief that there's no way to really evaluate the theory effectively - too many holes in the argument. But what the heck, here it is anyway.

http://www.requisite.org/info/press001211.html

[On the Road]

1. I Get Everything Except the Last Part

The ability to handle complexity shows clearly when people are heavily engrossed in argument, as in the case of candidates engrossed in debate or in responding to intensive interviewing. It is observable by listening not to the content of a person's argument, but by the complexity of the process the person uses in organizing the information used in the argument.

The findings were obtained by an analysis of records of debates and unprepared interviews in the following campaigns: Lincoln manifested higher complexity than Douglas; Kennedy than Nixon; Carter than Ford; Reagan than Carter; Bush than Dukakis; Clinton than Bush; and Clinton than Dole. Then in the current election, George W. Bush and Al Gore came out dead even.

It's an interesting thesis, but I don't see how Bush and Gore could be dead even.

[chaska]

2. Yeah, like I said lots of holes, but....

we should remember that Gore did win.

I don't see Reagan as more complex than Carter or Bush I as more complex than Dukakis. I think more information is needed to know how they determined that.

[Bucky]

3. Gore did his own share of dumbing down ("lock box","social security Plus")

Gore did not run a smart campaign. He pandered, he simplified, he talked in that damn "Barney-voice" of his. Sure he won the vote, but only on a last minute surge once people started to realize what a moron Bush was. Clinton always talked to voters like they were smart and could handle bad news. Gore rarely did.

[forgethell]

4. I certainly hope this research

wasn't government funded.