Conspiracy Theory: Election 2004

Friday, October 1, 2004 04: 11 AM

I can't resist.

Is any conspiracy theory really beyond the realm of this presidential political race?

First off, the battle for the White House is the most heated, important and incredible battle for power in this country. We should never under estimate the extent bad people will go to retain or gain it.

Conspiracy theory ensues.

• The Equations:
• If JK(FL + MO)/GB(FL + MO) = -P% then -P%
• If -P% then S(M x J) or C(M x J)
• If S(M x J) then GB - A
• If C(M x J) then GB + A
• If -A with S or +A with C then V for GB
• The Variables:
• JK: John Kerry
• FL: Florida Debate
• MO: Missouri Debate
• P%: Positive Polling Numbers for John Kerry (i.e. He closes the gap)
• -P%: Negative Polling Numbers for George Bush (i.e. The gap closes significantly)
• S: National security situation (imaginary, fabricated or real)
• C: Capture of significant terrorist suspect (conveniently timed, perhaps already in custody but not announced)
• M: Media sympathy and support for GB
• J: John Q. Public sympathy and support for GB
• A: Arizona Debate
• V: Victory
• GB: George Bush
• The Long-hand:
• If JK(F + M)/GB(F + M) = -P% then -P%
  If the summation (+) of John Kerry's (JK) debate performances in Florida (F) and Missouri (M) divided by (/) the summation (+) of George Bush's (GB) debate performances yields (=) a significant percentage gap decrease in George Bush's (GB) polling position (-P%) then there is a significant gap decrease in the polls (-P%).
• If -P% then S(M x J) or C(M x J)
  If there is a significant gap decrease in the polls (-P%) then the potential exists that there will be a "national security situation" (S) (imaginary, fabricated or real) that brings media (M) and John Q Public's (J) support and sympathy OR a conveniently timed capture (C) of a significant terrorist suspect that brings media (M) and John Q Public's support and praise.
• If S(M x J) then GB - A
  If a national security situation (S) brings George Bush sympathy from media (M) and public (J) then George Bush (GB) can withdraw (-) from the Arizona (A) debate (thus reducing the risk of loosing more ground because of the debates, if that is the case).
• If C(M x J) then + A
  If the capture (C) of a terrorist suspect brings George Bush support from media (M) and public (J), then George Bush (GB) will attend the Arizona (A) debate (thus attempting to increase his profile)
• If -A with S or A with C then V for GB.
  If no Arizona (A) debate with a national security situation (S) OR the Arizona (A) debate with a capture (C) then increased chance of victory (V) for George Bush (GB)

Wow. That was fun to put together in a sick Philosophy 101 kind of way. The argument of the whole thing is: If George W. loses significant ground in the polls during the first two debates, but still has a slim lead, it wouldn't be suprising if there was a convenient way out of the Arizona debate for him or if there were some bit of convenient news to prop him up prior to that last debate.

(Note: I don't remember remember a whole lot from the Phil 101 days - so my "logic statements" are not true to form. They are just playful re-interpretations of logic days long past.)

UPDATE: The formula has been updated to accurately reflect Missouri as the next presidential debate locale, not Ohio (the location of the VP debate). This error occured while attempting to write up things like this at 4 AM.

Archives.