This weekend, The New York Times Magazine ran a long analysis of the 2012 election headlined, “Is Obama toast?”
It uses a mathematical formula to conclude who will win this race.
In other words, it says neither you nor Barack Obama has a role to play in this election, because the outcome is essentially predetermined.
We disagree.
Wait. What?
The model is wrong? The science that backs the model isn't to be believed?
How can this be coming from a campaign that insists that failing to believe the much more complicated models for climate change is actually "denying" "science?" I mean, doing everything the climate scolds tell us we have to do still won't stop the global warming--according to their models. Isn't it "predetermined" even if a model is just off by a fraction of a percentage point or degree based on what we do?
I just don't see how we can fail to see that Administration Change (or "Administration Weirding," if you are a Tom Friedman fan) is inevitable.
It's sad to see denial in action.
