I have to do a paper on this and I was wondering if anyone saw any Catch 22's in the 2008 Presidential Election.
Catch-22 is a term coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, describing a false dilemma in a rule, regulation, procedure or situation, where no real choice exists. In probability theory, it refers to a situation in which multiple probabilistic events exist, and the desirable outcome results from the confluence of these events, but there is zero probability of this happening, as they are mutually exclusive. [Catch—22: A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions.]
All right then, would this work: going into the debate, mccain was in a kind of strategic gridlock in order too make the campaign a contest once again, he must arouse new doubts about obama, but by hammering obama, mccaiin seems only to be undercutting his own image.
Off the top of my head........ McCain's possibility to remove Palin from the ticket weeks before the election. If he did, would show the lack of judgement in picking her...which would be a disaster to overcome.....staying with her almost guaranteed he would need a miracle to win anyway. Thats the only one I can think of now.......hit you back if something pops.
the increased democratic minority turnout blocking gay marriage rights is one obvious one kind of ironic that a group celebrating a sort of "liberation" would in turn use that power to immediately bar rights/equality from another minority group
Most obvious: McCain's attempt to pander to the Republican base and moderate voters. He couldn't win without either of them and couldn't focus too heavily on either for fear of losing the other.
This isn't ironic or a "catch 22" situation. Its hypocritical. And I mean in the sense for one democrat to judge another democrat for their beliefs.
McCain had to pretend that he was in the race to motivate his voters and save some down-ticket Republicans, but as long as he claimed the race was close, it would also energize Obama voters.
Actually it could be, given that we assume that the bans would pass under both circumstances. In other words, without Obama on the ticket to boost democratic turnout, the bans would pass. But with Obama on the ticket, he brings a host of conservative minorities whom cause the bans to pass. A catch 22.
I think this is a false dilemma as since Republicans voted for Prop 8 in a far higher percentage than Democrats if McCain had carried CA Prop 8 most likely still passes. Obama or McCain was going to win CA and while many minorities voted for Prop 8 but voted for Obama it wasn't like if they stayed home and tipped the election then the McCain supporters turning out for McCain would've voted against Prop 8.
The catch 22 (for me, not Obama supporters) is that the country has finally progressed enough to elect our first african-americam president, but it's Obama (the most liberal of the liberal).
I don't see it as a catch-22, or ironic, or hypocritical. The people of California wanted Obama as president and to outlaw same-sex marriage. That is all. There's nothing particularly contradictory or self-defeating about that.
Most of these aren't Catch-22s. How about drumbum had to write a paper on Catch-22s in the election, so he explained what they are to the BBS, but the explanation made the posters understand it less.
Catch 22? How about "fundamentals of our economy is strong"? McCain should've kept his mouth shut on this. Usually, a political leader should not send panicking signals about the economy, because that will deflate further people's confidence and make matters worse. It's a typical multiple equilibrium argument. As it turned out, that was the case. McCain probably wanted to sound optimistic and confident. And a case can be make that fundamentals - market structure, entrepreneurship - is strong. But he is crucified for being "out of the touch". What if he said "We are in fundamental trouble"? He would likely to crucified for being negative and sending panic signals. It all depends on how you define and frame your message, or be defined, be framed.
This works, probably better than most of the others mentioned. As I recall, the most prominent of the catch-22s was: 1. Many pilots were cracking up because of the intense stress of dive-bombing under intense enemy fire. In order to be sent home for post-traumatic stress (today's term), an Army doctor had to deem a pilot medically insane and therefore unfit for duty. 2. By going to a doctor to seek this status, a pilot revealed he was concerned for his own safety, and therefore sane. 3. Therefore, no one was ever unfit for duty, and no one was ever sent home due to combat fatigue. You can play a lot with perceptions of McCain's reputation: McCain's reputation was built on the John Wayne model of warrior stoicism, a man reticent to speak about his heroic forbearance during his imprisonment as a POW. This was his biggest selling point. However, as the campaign wore on, his advisors stressed the need for him to make the audiences/public more aware of his POW past, first creating campaign commercials e.g. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-QYIP7o2-A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-QYIP7o2-A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> featuring his POW status, then, when that wasn't completely successful, urging him to talk about it on the stump. (For example, when questioned about how out of touch he was on the economic hardships faced by most Americans because he was married to a beer heiress worth tens of millions of dollars and owned 7-13 homes, McCain replied with a non-sequitur about his POW past: via Talking Points Memo The more he talked about it on the stump, the more he answered questions about non-relevant issues, the economy, taxes, healthcare, etc. with references to his status as a POW, the more self-aggrandizing McCain seemed for his former heroism, the more he undercut the central perception of himself as reluctant hero, the less likely he was to be elected. (aking to Biden's take on Rudy Giuliani in a debate: "a noun, a verb & 9/11.") So: 1. In order to get elected, the public had to perceive McCain as a stoic war hero who suffered for his country as a POW. 2. In order for the public to perceive McCain in that way, he and his campaign had to constantly inform/remind the public that he was in fact that POW. 3. The more he reminded the public, the less reluctant he appeared to speak about it, the less heroic his sacrifices seemed, and the less likely he was to get elected. 4. Result: McCain lost.
thats not a catch 22 in the least. its more of a poster on a basketball site posting about something that didnt happen. it was just brought up in situations like this because conservatives didnt want to talk about the real issues because they have been driving this country into the f***ing ground the last 8 years, so thats all they really had. not saying this about you. but its sad and pathetic because while our country is suffering we are talking about damn ayers.
If you nominate a candidate with no meaningful experience (Obama), you have to trust him to surround himself with qualified advisors. When looking to see if he has done that historically, you notice that he has chummed around with such folks as Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. So that's not sad or pathetic to bring them up - it was quite relevant.
