

Peter Norvig: Lieberman, Egg, Sausage and Lieberman - rayvega
http://norvig.com/chart538.html

======
jibiki
The assumption that people's political views are distributed bimodally (which
is what he's really saying with his "two superimposed normal distributions")
strikes me as being a little bit arbitrary. Is this based on some sort of
evidence?

(Of course, the original study makes an equally arbitrary assumption that
political affiliation is distributed uniformly...)

~~~
Tangurena
I'd say it is an accurate observation of contemporary US politics.

Groups describe themselves with "who we are" just as much as "who we are NOT."
Lately the "who we are NOT" has been drowning out "who we are" to the point
where the process inside political parties has been to reject potential
candidates that are "too close to the enemy." That's why terms like RINO or
DINO ($PARTY In Name Only) as epithets/attacks to denounce candidates (and
elected officials) as too similar to the $ENEMY.

To give one example, many Republicans (at the party level) would rather lose
an election than "dilute their brand" by aiming for bipartisanship.

disclaimer/weasel words: I ran for election last November. It was for a "non
partisan" office, so I was able to dodge the political catfighting and
backstabbery.

