Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ZalmayKhalilzad

What Does Winners Win Mean?

Recommended Posts

If the president spends political capital (i.e. invests his personal influence) in an issue or piece of legislation that is publicly controversial, and that legislation successfully passes, then (s)he gains a boost in influence with which (s)he can push future pieces of legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically when something is controversial like a large bipartisan split on let's say HSR, and Obama manages to get it passed, Obama is perceived as a super awesome mega strong leader and so he is able to use that new found leverage on the next piece of legislation as ppl are more likely to side with someone as they percieve as a leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the if the President wants, the President gets? And when he does that that only gives more polcap?

 

No, capital would be lost if it was unsuccessfully invested. Winners win does not say the president always wins, it says he gets a payoff when he does win. However, in the entirely non-real world of debate and fiat, the plan always passes, so that's not really the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guarantee that there are good psych studies on issues related very closely to this, if not on this issue specifically. That could be some very useful evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are multiple ways you can frame winners win; Obama gets seen as an awesome dealmaker able to get things done in an especially partisan congress, intimidates the competition into picking their battles more wisely, fires up the base and allows the dems to overpower the GOP, etc

 

 

I guarantee that there are good psych studies on issues related very closely to this, if not on this issue specifically. That could be some very useful evidence.

Newsweek 11

“Why Winners Win at…†Jul 11, 2011 edition of Newsweek by Nick Summers, senior writer for Newsweek.

What is it that separates winners from losers? The pat answer is that, in sports at least, winners simply have certain things that mortals don’t—as one might conclude from watching the suddenly indefatigable Novak Djokovic, the Wimbledon and Australian Open champion, who has lost exactly once in his first 49 matches this year. But fitness doesn’t tell the full story. “There are more players that have the talent to be the best in the world than there are winners,†says Timothy Gallwey, the author of several books about the mental side of tennis, golf, and other pursuits. “One way of looking at it is that winners get in their own way less. They interfere with the raw expression of talent less. And to do that, first they win the war against fear, against doubt, against insecurity—which are no minor victories.†Defined that way, winning becomes translatable into areas beyond the physical: chess, spelling bees, the corporate world, even combat. You can’t go forever down that road, of course. The breadth of our colloquial definition for winning—the fact that we use the same word for being handed an Oscar as for successfully prosecuting a war—means that there is no single gene for victory across all fields, no cerebral on-off switch that turns also-rans into champions. But neuroscientists, psychologists, and other researchers are beginning to better understand the highly interdisciplinary concept of winning, finding surprising links between brain chemistry, social theory, and even economics, which together give new insight into why some people come out on top again and again. One area being disrupted relates to dominance, a decent laboratory stand-in for winning. Scientists have long thought that dominance is largely determined by testosterone: the more you have, the more likely you are to prevail, and not just on the playing field. Testosterone is desirable in the boardroom, in the courthouse, and in other scenarios that reward risk and bold action. Twenty-five years ago, scientists proved the hormone’s role in winning streaks: a win gives you a jolt of T, which gives you an edge in your next competition, which gives you more T, and so on, in a virtuous sex-hormone feedback loop. Last August, though, researchers at the University of Texas and Columbia found that testosterone is helpful only when regulated by small amounts of another hormone called cortisol. What’s more, for those with a lot of cortisol in their blood, high levels of testosterone may actually impede winning. Across Columbia’s campus, professors at the business school are putting this dominance science into practice, swabbing saliva samples from M.B.A. students to measure both hormones. Each subject is then given a prescription to get the two steroids into ideal balance: eat whole grains and cut out coffee to lower the cortisol; hit the weight room and take vitamin B to raise testosterone. Just before a crucial confrontation, standing in a certain “power pose†can calibrate the hormones temporarily. The ideal leader, says Prof. Paul Ingram, is “calm, but with an urge towards dominance.†(Picture Apple CEO Steve Jobs onstage, unveiling a blockbuster product.) It’s true for both men and women, and in theory it all adds up to winning a contract, winning a promotion, winning the quarter. New science like this illuminates winners of the past. It’s a peek inside the bloodstream of perhaps the most thrilling competitor to ever eviscerate his opponents at a pensive task: Bobby Fischer, the chess champion. “For Fischer, there was a relentless desire to decimate his opponent,†says Liz Garbus, the director of the new documentary Bobby Fischer Against the World. “Bobby took delight in how he made his opponent ill. There was something of a sadism to the way he approached it.†Before his legendary showdown with Russian archnemesis Boris Spassky in Iceland in 1972, which would determine the world’s No. 1 player, Fischer underwent extensive weight and endurance training; he told a strength coach that he wanted to physically break Spassky’s hand the first time they shook. As the match approached, Fischer hemmed and hawed and would not show up, issuing increasingly bizarre demands and exasperating his foe before play had even begun. “I don’t believe in psychology,†Fischer said of the mind games. “I believe in good moves.†With the world watching, he did eventually arrive in Reykjavik, and with the match tied 2½ to 2½, Fischer coolly uncorked a move that caught Spassky with his pants down: pawn to c4. Fischer always, always opened with his king’s pawn; it was the only configuration Spassky had prepared for, and in this uncharted territory the Russian was helpless. Fischer’s relentless belligerence had crescendoed to a sublime and understated play, which he followed with further aggression. Spassky never recovered. He managed just one win in the next 15 games, and Fischer and his mind and the testosterone-cortisol cocktail within were No. 1 in the world. What's better than winning? Doing it while someone else loses. An economist at the University of Bonn has shown that test subjects who receive a given reward for a task enjoy it significantly more if other subjects fail or do worse—a finding that upends traditional economic theories that absolute reward is a person’s central motivation. It’s one of several new inroads into the social dynamics of winning yielded by neuroeconomics, a trendy new field that mixes elements of neuroscience, economics, and cognitive psychology to determine why people make the choices they do—even, or especially, the irrational ones. Neuroeconomic studies often involve the dopamine system, a part of the brain that is highly involved with rewards and reward anticipation. Dopamine receptors seem to track possibilities—an arcing tennis ball that may land in or out—and how expected or unexpected they are. For fans, it helps to explain why a win by a No. 1 seed over an unranked challenger is no big deal, while underdog victors like the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team are so electrifying. A similar kind of expectation management occurs in the minds of athletes themselves, says Scott Huettel, the director of Duke University’s Center for Neuroeconomic Studies. If you ranked an Olympic event’s three medalists by happiness, the athlete winning gold obviously comes first. What’s fascinating, Huettel says, is that the bronze medalist is second-most delighted, and the silver finisher is most distraught. “People’s brains are constantly comparing what happened with what could have happened,†he says. “A bronze medalist might say, ‘Wow, I almost didn’t get a medal. It’s great to be on the stand!’ And the silver medalist is just thinking about all the mistakes he made that prevented him from winning gold.†All countries love winning, of course. But America, a nation born through victory on the battlefield, has a special relationship with the practice. “When you here, every one of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big-league ballplayers, and the All-American football players,†Gen. George S. Patton once told a gathering of U.S. Army troops in England. “Americans love a winner,†Patton thundered. “Americans will not tolerate a loser.†The next day was June 6, 1944, D-Day, and these were the men who would invade Normandy. We know where that one goes in the win-loss column. But why do we admire winners—and put so much of our own happiness at stake when watching them compete? At some level of the brain, we think we are the guys in the fray. On Nov. 4, 2008, the night of the most recent presidential election, neuroscientists at Duke and the University of Michigan gave a group of voters some chewing gum. They collected samples at 8 p.m., as the polls closed, and again at 11:30, as Barack Obama was announced the winner. Testosterone levels normally drop around that time of night, but not among Obama supporters—while testosterone plummeted in gum taken from the men who had voted for John McCain. Vicarious participation, the scientists concluded, mirrors what happens to the principal competitors themselves; the same thing happens in men who watch football and basketball—and, it follows, any other fiercely fought contest, from Andre Agassi’s greatest matches to Bobby Fischer’s run at the Russians. Why do Americans love a winner? Because it lets us love ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That card specifically isn't really very good. The first part says that it will give Obama a confidence boost and more testosterone. That doesn't mean he'd be more successful in pushing legislation, just that he'd be more likely to try. The second part seems to say that people love to win. But if you read closely, the actual science suggests that we only love it when our team wins. He'd rally the base, but nothing more. The Democrats are never the problem in these politics DAs, the Republicans are the ones he'd need to win over. And we generally hate it when our team loses.

 

Something about how humans are hardwired to back down before displays of aggression would be much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the winner-win debates....

1. The only thing people care about is the economy. (this probably doesn't help the aff per se--in fact it might be a new level of link--because 95% will claim to increase the economy).

2. Put that might also be an issue of perception--for instance the GOP/Tea Party may win in the press that the plan hurts the deficit.

3. Obama wastes his political capital empirically or did you forget about health care.

4. Plus his overall political mismanagement of trusting Pelosi too much the first time around--proves his management skills could do with some adjustments.

 

Unless you have a scenario of the weekend type story, I think elections may be your best bet until thats over--depending on the uniqueness story there (it looks like Obama will win now.....and my guess is most of the links suggest plan would be a win, because it would be perceived as pro-economy).

 

In terms of the specifics of the Olympics/Winners-Win evidence:

1. decent piece of evidence

2. So is the argument that Obama doesn't have enough courage with Congress now? In terms of GOP or democrats or both?

 

Do you have evidence that Obama perceives passage of the plan as a win....or specifically a big win? I think the argument is certainly spinnable, given the upcoming election being critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That card specifically isn't really very good. The first part says that it will give Obama a confidence boost and more testosterone. That doesn't mean he'd be more successful in pushing legislation, just that he'd be more likely to try. The second part seems to say that people love to win. But if you read closely, the actual science suggests that we only love it when our team wins. He'd rally the base, but nothing more. The Democrats are never the problem in these politics DAs, the Republicans are the ones he'd need to win over. And we generally hate it when our team loses.

 

Something about how humans are hardwired to back down before displays of aggression would be much better.

 

Well the argument goes that winning a major legislative achievement would increase Obamas testosterone to get the ball rolling on the next piece of legislation.

 

But yeah, im using it primarily for elections turns. The card also says that winning kills testosterone in your competitors; so I use it to get "dem base key" "GOP base key" internals on elections. Plus ive got some "winning key to independents" evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That neuroscience card is only talking about how voters get high testosterone when they find out who won the elections. At least that's how I interpreted it. There are better Winners win cards in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That neuroscience card is only talking about how voters get high testosterone when they find out who won the elections. At least that's how I interpreted it. There are better Winners win cards in my opinion.

 

Interesting distinction. I hadn't thought of that......BUT....

 

Are Congress people human? Presumably yes.

Are Congress people Americans? Presumably yes.

 

I would assume you would answer yes to one or more of the above. In fact, Constitutionally both of those are requirements to hold the office. Ergo the argument works per the original spin--at least with respect to your criticism.

 

I think the card as is give you room for making claims about amplification--because the one of the key reasons Congress pays attention to political capital and wins--is due to the effect that it has on the public.

 

The best way to answer this evidence is to IMPACT TURN the scenario--at least in terms of being a 2AC or 1AR:

1. Obama Win = Good

2. Obama Election Win = Good (this requires more card reading to make it work)--but you might get away with it.

 

Plus, winning the election is 10x to 20x more important (perhaps 100x) than winning a vote count on the next bill on the floor. That can't be overemphasized. The ability to effect policy over 4 years (presumably wins on 40 to 50 BIG pieces of legislation) and a bully pulpit versus a win on a single piece of legislation--not to mention the effect on the Supreme Court--and that lasting legacy of our constitutional interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting distinction. I hadn't thought of that......BUT....

 

Are Congress people human? Presumably yes.

Are Congress people Americans? Presumably yes.

 

I would assume you would answer yes to one or more of the above. In fact, Constitutionally both of those are requirements to hold the office. Ergo the argument works per the original spin--at least with respect to your criticism.

 

I think the card as is give you room for making claims about amplification--because the one of the key reasons Congress pays attention to political capital and wins--is due to the effect that it has on the public.

 

But there's a big difference between a win on a piece of legislation that winners win is based on and a win as in winning the election. The card talks about the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's a big difference between a win on a piece of legislation that winners win is based on and a win as in winning the election. The card talks about the second.

 

It cites the second as an example to support the broader statement that winning a competition leads to additional victories in future competitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But there's a big difference between a win on a piece of legislation that winners win is based on and a win as in winning the election. The card talks about the second.

 

Did you miss the part about brain science again? It says as Americans & humans we are in the tank for winners. Period. It does discuss the election. Its part of a broader movement. And my earlier post highlights that & what you are missing or papering over hear.

 

Its like a card that talks about our hege overall for 3 paragraphs and then gets specific. Its still talking about hegemony more generically.

 

In fact, an article for the Washington post that talks about the state of the US economy and then mentions that in relation to Ohio. Its not talking just about Ohio--its talking about the whole economy.

 

Even then, you could argue the elections stand in as an empirical example--that in political issues--winners win.

 

*** BTW: I think my case would be made even better if this had paragraphs as it appeared either online or in Newsweek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Klain 1/11

“A productive election year?†By Ron Klain Posted: Wed, Jan. 11, 2012, 3:01 AM Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Vice President Biden and senior adviser to President Obama, is a Bloomberg View columnist.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20120111_A_productive_election_year_.html

 

Newt Gingrich's return to prominence may not last, but it should stir memories of the last time he was a major national figure. Revisiting the events of 1996 allows us to imagine a different scenario than most expect this election year. Back in 1995, as in 2011, powerful Republican leaders (including Gingrich) faced a Democratic president who had been weakened by a stinging midterm defeat. They blocked his initiatives and tried to use their power in Congress to bring him down. By the end of 1995, gridlock had reached a new high with the government shutdown and the failure of budget talks. Sound familiar? Most experts expected things to get even worse in 1996. Then a few things happened to change that. Bill Clinton regained his footing, sharpened his reelection message, and was buoyed by better economic news. Congress grew less popular as voters became dissatisfied with its obstructionism. There were mounting signs of another tidal-wave election, this one in Democrats' favor. And the party lost enthusiasm for its lackluster nominee, Bob Dole. The result: Gingrich and fellow Republican leaders in Congress decided to work with Clinton to pass a raft of important legislation. These included a balanced-budget deal, an extension of health-care coverage, and sweeping welfare reform. Republicans decided that working with the White House to improve Congress' standing was more important than continuing to obstruct the president's agenda and limiting him to one term. Mirror images Could the 2012 election year shape up the same way? Could the most do-nothing, gridlocked Congress in memory change direction and decide to save its own political hide? Might it choose to produce results by cooperating with President Obama, even if it undercuts the GOP front-runner for the presidential nomination, Mitt Romney? The odds are long. Yet in recent weeks, signs of a reversal have emerged. The payroll-tax standoff that the president won before Christmas was the first evidence that the laws of political gravity are finally taking hold: Congressional Republicans cannot defy public demands for action on the economy indefinitely without political cost. The Republicans who were blocking the extension of the tax cut in an attempt to weaken Obama couldn't withstand the damage to their own prospects. In the end, they decided to do what was in their political interests - and Obama's - rather than Romney's. There have been further developments that could result in a turnaround in congressional attitudes. Obama's approval rating has risen, while public perception of Congress remains at an all-time low. Better economic news - such as the recent report of a reduction in unemployment - reinforces this dynamic. Finally, the growing sense that Romney will be the tepidly accepted nominee by default - much as Dole was in 1996 - is forcing Republicans to reconsider what price they are prepared to pay for him. Different times True, the partnership of Clinton, Gingrich, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had some features that are absent now, including a top presidential adviser who provided counsel to both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue (Dick Morris, who served as an important go-between for Clinton and Lott); Gingrich's ability to make his rank-and-file accept bipartisan bargains, which John Boehner lacks; and the absence of an aggressive, far-right, grassroots movement like today's tea party. In addition, reapportionment and redistricting (and the Senate seats that happen to be up for election) mean there are fewer Republicans at risk this year than in 1996. That may allow the party's lawmakers to withstand more heat from the public as they keep their nominee afloat. Even so, Obama has some assets that Clinton lacked. First, the White House's "We Can't Wait" campaign has more effectively made congressional obstruction a central election issue. Second, Democrats have the majority in one of the two legislative chambers. As a result, they don't need Senate Republican leaders to make progress; they just need seven nervous Republican senators. Third, congressional Republicans have far less personally invested in Romney's candidacy than they did in that of their old friend and colleague Dole, a longtime Senate leader. The president's recent rhetoric and actions - the crisper stump speech, the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - don't endanger bipartisan cooperation. In fact, they make progress more likely because they show Republicans that the president can score points without them if need be. The Republicans' political dilemma grows more acute each time Obama wins a confrontation. Certainly, hard-core Republicans in the House and those with safe seats in the Senate are likely to block progress in 2012 and spend political capital to advance the Romney cause. But the president's higher standing, his sharper election-year instincts, his communications strategy, and signs of an improving economy will give his congressional opponents second thoughts about the slash-and-burn strategy they have followed for the past three years. Just as they caved to Obama on the payroll-tax extension to save their own skins, they could find it useful to hand him wins this year on energy policy, fiscal policy, and job creation as a way of enhancing their own standing with angry voters. Think it can't happen? Ask Gingrich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...