Algorithm Names Powell 'Ideal' Vice President Candidate 543
CWmike writes "Turns out the ideal vice presidential candidate for Sen. John McCain is the same person as the ideal vice presidential candidate for Sen. Barack Obama, according to a sophisticated online survey based on technology developed at MIT. Mr. Ideal? Colin Powell, a former U.S. Army general and former secretary of state. Affinnova's survey methods doesn't use the typical polling method of asking respondents to pick a name from a list. Instead, it gives respondents larger concepts, including photos, biographical information and possible first-term priorities. Affinnova calls this algorithm 'evolutionary optimization.' Steve Lamoureaux, the company's chief innovation officer, said of the VP finding: 'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'"
An alternative they didn't seem to face (Score:5, Interesting)
is that their algorithm is severly flawed.
For example, most people - dem or rep - want responsible spending, national security, etc. Where the difference lies is in the road to take to get to that point. Any survey that says one of the primary party leaders would be the same person for either party is obviously in error.
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course at this point, the two parties dislike each other so much they'd never nominate the same person. If Dick Chaney changed his affiliation to Democrat, the Republicans would never nominate him for the office just because of that D next to his name. His strong right wing record wouldn't matter. Partisanship is too strong right now.
I'd like to see vice president either a separate ticket (so we could get 1 Dem and 1 Rep) or possibly the 2nd place finishing candidate of the same party (i.e. Obama would get Hillary). Some times it wouldn't work out well (see Obama and Hillary), but some times I think it would be much better than the choices they often make now.
But then again, VP has been a pretty useless job it seems for quite a while. Just a presidential "hot-spare". It wasn't until Chaney that they seemed to do much.
And the Chaney model will probably be outlawed in the next president's first 6 months in office.
nice theory, but for one small detail (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good example of why even the best algorithms are poor predictors of human behavior. Powell probably IS one of the best, if not THE best, choices for McCain's VP. If only the world could fit neatly into the parameters considered by the algorithm. It's just not going to happen. Powell is on record saying that his wife has vetoed him being on a Presidential ticket. Period. She has personal issues around it and it's simply not in the cards. End of story. And end-of-line for El Algorithmo.
huh. (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess everybody else thought he was the lynchpin of deciet. Shows what i know.
Re:mmmkay (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said it before, but it didn't seem like ANYONE reported on the timing of Colin Powell's shift to supporting the war. He was steadfastly the only administration dove, until the week that he gave very off-party-line comments defending affirmative action admissions policies in universities. It was like he was given a bone, allowed to speak his mind on university admissions, in exchange for future devotion to the hawk position on Iraq. I could just imagine the "come to Jesus meeting" that must have happened in 2003. That very week, I lost all respect for the man.
party priorities (Score:3, Interesting)
I was kind of surprised to see the difference in priorities for members of each party:
Given that none of them are the same in those lists, how can Powell be a good choice for both at the same time? Is it simply because he's a yes man like other posters are saying?
The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only am I playing the Race Card. I'm dealing it from the bottom of the deck :).
At the end of Gulf Wars episode one, a lot of Americans were suggesting Colin Powell for president. Then I went online and checked around. Turns out that most of them did not even know he was black.
I don't know what is going the rounds in America but where I live (a Caribbean country where over 90% of the population is at least part black). The popular fear is that if Elected Obama won't survive to inaugeration.
Giving him a black VP would mean bumping him off would still leave America with a Black President.
That calculation of course would just ruin the plans of whichever secret organization conspiracy nuts like this week.
Fool me once (Score:3, Interesting)
Gen. Powell was the only reason I considered giving the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt on Iraq. If Gen. Powell wants to go back into the military then I'd say that would be great and I think we'd benefit from that as a country, but politics is apparently not his thing.
What if we have an actual crisis and he's expected to explain to the country why we need to take some drastic action? I for one would have trouble buying his story after this Iraq debacle.
"Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again!" -George W. Bush, 2002
Re:mmmkay (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually Powell strikes me as a guy who was deceived by his boss.
After all he left the Govt long ago (nobody knows why but I assume that due to some disagreement with bush), however decided not to act like usual politicians (changing sides in a heardbeat) even if it costs him his political career.
I would personally would like to hear what he has to say before making stoning him to death.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me an elitist jerk all you want, but I think you should have to be a property owner to vote.
While what you're saying probably comes across as a step (or several) in the wrong direction to many people (it is very politically incorrect after all), I understand where you're coming from. It kind of reminds me of the political system at work in Heinlein's Starship Troopers [wikipedia.org]. From that link:
I don't know how well it would work in our situation, even just considering the difference in scale, but I do find it interesting. I admit I wish we had a system where people who have no idea what the issues are or what candidates (supposedly) claim to support don't vote, but finding and perfecting such a system would be impossible I think. We're doomed to have our future chosen largely based on the candidate that's thrown the most buzzwords around and has the worst^H^H^H^H^Hbest MySpace page.
(Oh, and has the strongest lobbyists. You want to seriously try and fix the system? Start with getting rid of them.)
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is not that McCain is too old, the problem is that he looks and moves like a mummy and people might start to believe that he thinks like a mummy too... being a Repubilican doesn't help in that respect either.
Leave out the "vice" (Score:3, Interesting)
No. He's the ideal presidential candidate for either party.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry if that's harsh. We certainly do a lousy job honoring our senior citizens in this country. They should be much more respected and valued for what they've been through and what they have to offer. But they should also be less entitled than they are. Bad reflexes, an often fuzzy mind, a full pharmacy in their cupboard w/ all the side effects of that. And often a set of values that doesn't reasonably translate to the world of today. We could certainly find better ways to value and honor our most senior population, like making them an important part of the community, spending more time with them, not sticking them away in a home, etc. Blindly handing them the keys to cars or the White House, regardless of age, isn't respect, it's irresponsible appeasement.
If they want those things it's only sensible that they regularly pass the same tests a 30 year-old would have to pass for the same privileges. Being old doesn't give you the right to be dangerous. Proving your driving ability every 5 years starting at 65 or 70 is not the least bit unreasonable.
How about a 200 question *timed* multiple-choice test at a surprise time like 4am for eligibility for public office?
However it's done, testing a candidate's mental capacity and stamina would be quite helpful. The last 8 years would have been completely different.
Obama & Powell (Score:5, Interesting)
And I think you hit the nail on the head there, but there might ba a deeper insight there.
Powell has always struck me as an excellent choice for a presidential candidate: He has spent time 'on the inside' in the whitehouse, so he understands the job. He does not aspire to power (or he covers it far better than most), he is intelligent, and he does not seem tied too closely to the idiology of either party. In short, a competent guy who isn't a professional politician.
Now, if a VP candidate has qualities like this that are desireable to the public at large without a strong tie to the political left or right, they will of course be desireable to both parties. The interesting thing is that qualities that make Powell an good candidate (intelligent, honest, outsider) are the same qualities that Obama seems to posess.
McCain is a war hero, and a passable senator but I think hes going to get stomped in November. An interesting election would have been if the Republican had put up Powell.
Except he has already said that he will not run (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Algorithms... bah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Only in the United States would a war criminal (Score:2, Interesting)
It does not shatter my perceptions. The Lords of the first world love to lie to us, and we eat it up. I refuse to spout the party line and participate in murderous activities that reduce human life to a bar fight between two junkies. If I hear a lie like Weapons of Mass Destruction I call bullshit.
You know the rule of law has to mean something or it means nothing.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Interesting)
Drive behind a 72 year old for awhile and see if you think you want them at the wheel of the country.
(...)
Bad reflexes, an often fuzzy mind, a full pharmacy in their cupboard w/ all the side effects of that.
Selfinsight to realize they're not quite as young as they once were? Driving at a speed suitable for their poor reflexes? Nevermind that many people that age drive completely like normal folks. I can't say I know any extremely old people, but my old neighbour was past 90, still healthy enough to get around and with a clear mind, but he couldn't drive a car anymore. Some elderly aren't all there, but if they aren't I doubt they vote much in any case.
And often a set of values that doesn't reasonably translate to the world of today.
They LIVE in the world of today, it's their world too even if they're not the young and hip anymore. Just because you're not happy with their opinions, what makes them less valid than your own?
If they want those things it's only sensible that they regularly pass the same tests a 30 year-old would have to pass for the same privileges. Being old doesn't give you the right to be dangerous.
Oh god, how I think this one can be turned around. Make all the highschoolers and college kids that have never had a real job take a "maturity test" if they really understand enough to vote. Something tells me you'd see huge dropouts at both ends and only a power elite left to vote.
Re:Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices i (Score:4, Interesting)
Powell claims that he didn't know at the time all the caveats and questions and known faults surrounding the intelligence. In other words, that he was as much a recipient of white-washed intel as the U.N. council who received his speech. And of all the officials who were involved, his story is the most plausible by far. Already the Bush Cabal had started blocking him out of their decisions due to his tendency to disagree with them. As Rice later found out, the State Dept. had been fire walled away from Defense and the intelligence agencies. Any caveats that survived to reach the admin would have reached Powell only on the inner circles' say so. And the result is perfectly typical of the administration: Send the one guy who isn't "loyal" enough to agree with everything out to make the phony case and ultimately be the fall-guy for it.
I don't know for sure. It is possible that Colin Powell was a knowing and willing conspirator in the effort to push a war he had been against from the first ('the first' being when Rumsfeld suggested invading Iraq on 9/12/2001, if you believe Richard Clarke). If that's the case, may he burn in hell. On the balance of evidence, though, I simply find it implausible. I think he was a dupe and a patsy, and ultimately this is why he resigned, and called the U.N. speech a 'permanent blot on his record'.
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:3, Interesting)
Powell - because nobody expects honesty in a vice president anymore.
His really quite insulting WMD presentation to the UN ensured that he is never going to be taken seriously internationally.
Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am absolutely sick and tired of this "white America is overtly racist".
I am a white man. At least, that's what I have to check when filling out those goddamn affirmative action questionnaires on employment applications. But I, nor any white man I know, is racist. The only racists I have ever met have been black, Mexican (ie, 1st or 2nd generation American inhabitants), and Asian (Chinese and Japanese). I once heard of a crazy motherfucker named Dewey, who was always talking about killing niggers, but he's the exception to the rule, and was chastised and shunned as a result.
I see a lot of hatred for the so-called "black culture" which is manifest in rap music. But no self-respecting black man (or man of any color) would call the things talked about in that music "his". It's more likely, in my experience, for only the criminally minded types (many of which are white) to adhere to things like that.
White Americans are, by and large, afraid of even being thought of as racist. Many are so incredible fearful of such a labeling - because it is quite often a label which will result in job termination, social chastisement, lawsuit, and any number of other things - that they'll go out of their way to side with the race card holders and claim themselves that whites are racist. The only claim I can imagine them having is against the institutional nature of racism, and even that can be easily dismissed by things like affirmative action, various social programs and, well, the fact that there's a black presidential candidate.
If whites are so overtly racist, then why are groups like the KKK almost universally reviled amongst whites (yes, even out in the sticks), but groups run by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan are praised and heralded by the media while they preach that all of society's ills are the whitey's fault? That doesn't sound like racism against blacks to me.
Yes, there are fringe groups. There are always fringe groups - in every culture, hating every other culture. But let's have some fucking intellectual integrity, people: any racism against blacks, above that of any other cultural group, is manifest almost exclusively by the media.
If Obama doesn't "survive to inauguration" as you suggest, it isn't because whitey hates blacks - though that'll surely be the accusation across the country. If it happens (and I highly doubt it will), it would most likely be for some other policy or holds, or simply to leverage his death has a martyrdom by the establishment to enforce more totalitarian measures upon us.
(And don't even think for one second that "the establishment" I'm referring to is the Republicans or "Neocons". The establishment permeates every single layer of our federal government now: the Presidency, Congress (House and Senate) and the various bureaucratic and law agencies which compose the federal government.)
Think of it this way: if someone were to assassinate Obama, wouldn't it make more sense - for the simple purposes of ease of execution and the matter of self preservation - to have assassinated him, oh, maybe before the Democrat primaries took off and he was just a fringe candidate?
Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Interesting)
Powell is rumored to be about to endorse Obama. But that is as far as his support is likely to go. Powell is still a Republican albeit a disappointed Republican. Powell is certainly not going to sling mud at the media darling McCain, point out that while the McCain camp is trying to make Obama's wife an issue, McCain's wife is a drug addict with a history of pilfering prescriptions from her charity, &ct. &ct. The McCain camp have been playing a dirty game for some time and Obama needs a veep who can return fire with like.
Powell makes no sense as a veep for either candidate. He is not likely to bring in any group of supporters. His term as Secretary of State damaged his reputation. He does not bring experience of working with Congress. He is certainly not a credible candidate for the party in 2016.
The last point is just about the only one that is relevant at this point. There is no LBJ out there who can deliver a major swing state. Obama might benefit from a veep who beings in a lot of experience of the executive branch, can make things happen, but there are plenty of slots available for that.
Clinton would be the best choice on offer if not for the 2016 issue. She is not going to be a credible contender then, even with 8 years as veep, too old. A deputy should be a credible successor.
The calculus is different for McCain, there is absolutely no value in having a second military man on the ticket. McCain needs a veep who has interest in domestic affairs, McCain has displayed none. Its pretty easy to rail against pork when you have nine houses, a private jet and you and don't care about any government issue other than starting more wars.
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. I see this as the main problem with the electoral system in the states, only allowing two parties to have a real show of winning means that they both have to appeal to a range of swing voters, thus it's not particulary suprising that they are very similar in certain policy.
I've hypothesized that a two-party system tends to approximate the desires of the median of the voting populace, while a multi-party system tends to approximate the mean. Both have their pros and cons, but I think I prefer a government based on the median, because it tends to lessen the impact of what people on the fringe want, placing more emphasis on the center. Of course, many of us on slashdot disapprove of such a system, since we tend to be on the fringes ourselves.
Most of us in the US knew it was a sham too (Score:4, Interesting)
I was really disappointed when I saw Powell loyally say what his master wanted said; before that I'd had some respect for the man. And as Secretary of State, he should have been seriously using diplomacy to build negotiations and prevent a war, instead of using his position as Bush's representative to prevent diplomacy from breaking out.
I was less bothered by Condi Rice doing much the same - she was always Bush's protege, and while she was clearly very bright and opinionated on her own, it was also pretty clear that she was using Bush to get power just as much as he was using her to exercise power.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:1, Interesting)
No, it's entirely the fault of the Republican party. Denying it makes you look impartial, but you're really just being disingenuous. Republicans manufactured perjury charges against Clinton. Republicans made a farce of two elections in a row and turned the American media into a propaganda machine. Republicans fired US attorneys for not being conservative enough. Republicans lied to the people and made a mockery of the law and the Constitution. The Democratic party is not to blame, they are the victims, and American politics will not start being sane again until the current crop of Republicans are gone.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not American, but I see the same crap starting to happen in my own country (and others). And it annoys the hell out of me. We are probably just following an overall trend. If anything it's probably driven by media ratings and the internet providing a way for loud mouthed nutjobs on either side to gather together and shout at each other.
Politics is moving away from policies and towards petty bullshit and personal point scoring. Our two main parties are probably closer together policy wise than ever. But you'd almost think it was the Spanish Civil War the way each sides supporters paint the others as Fascists or Communists.
Anyway, that was my unfocused rant off my chest :)
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some elderly aren't all there, but if they aren't I doubt they vote much in any case.
Think again. The majority of Americans who actually turn out for elections tends to be much older, and that will probably be true even in this election, despite Obama's youth pull. And, indeed, these seniors have been found to be less likely to make wise decisions [miller-mccune.com] when voting.
Re:Obama & Powell (Score:4, Interesting)
"The interesting thing is that qualities that make Powell an good candidate (intelligent, honest, outsider) are the same qualities that Obama seems to posess."
I would maybe agree excepting for Powell's role in selling the Iraq war. Either he wasn't intelligent or he was dishonest. Either he was seriously dumb to buy the case for that war, or he was dishonest selling that case if he knew it was a fabrication. That war pitch to the U.N. with the vial of Anthrax was really contemptible. He was also completely walked over by the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense which suggests he can't compete in the shark tank that is Washington.
He was probably the ONLY insider in the Bush administration who had a slim chance and the motivation to derail the rush to war in Iraq and he failed miserably at it, since he ended up carrying the neocons water for it instead and got in front of the world at the UN and sold a lie. The U.S. paid dearly for his failure. Needless to say he had to do what his boss told him to do or resign, but if he had fought it tooth and nail, spoken out before the war and then resigned he might have derailed that whole misguided cluster fuck. He was also head of State during the time State could have salvaged Iraq but instead he let Bremmer and Rumsfeld completely screw the place up leading to a multi year insurgency. Allowing Bremmer to disband the Iraqi Army and de-Bathification were colossally stupid and practically created the insurgency that got thousands of Americans killed and maimed.
Were it not for that one giant blemish on his record I would support him for VP.
I'm also frequently flabbergasted that Condolezza Rice is often mentioned as both very popular and a leading VP candidate. Because she has also either been malevolent, incompetent or completely outmaneuvered by Cheney and Rumsfeld and was a disaster both at the NSC and State. She has apparently nearly wrecked the State department and she seems to never deliver tangible positive results on her major initiatives.
normally one pays attention to the world around (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, anonymous coward, we don't exist to fill the enormous gaps in your knowledge of the world in which you live, nor to compensate for your laziness. It takes about 2 seconds for you to verify this for yourself. If you're going to snidely demand "references" whenever someone makes a statement that you are not directly familiar with, at least have the courtesy to do so using your login ID so the rest of us can filter you out.
Anonytard.