The policies of both candidates are predicated on numerous assumptions. These policies seem completed logical and necessary if you agree with all of the assumptions upon which the argument is predicated, if not then the argument seems nonsensical and does not resonate well with you. To demonstrate this predication of argument on assumed truth lets take a look at the debate on alternative energy policy.

Here we see Obama talking about his ideas for a carbon cap and trade policy. These ideas for a carbon cap and trade policy are only relevant under two assumptions, first that global warming is a problem that needs to and or can be fixed, along with the assumption that carbon cap and trade is effective. Although the first assumption is rather universal, there is much more controversy surrounding the effectiveness of carbon credits in capping emissions.



Here we see John McCain talking about nuclear power. Nuclear power does have some advantages such as it is cheap, extremely efficient and less harmful to the environment in terms of emissions. But a lot of McCain's beliefs in terms of revising our energy policy are predicated on national security and self-sufficiency, especially from countries such as Iran, Venezuela and Iraq.



Now for the tricky part. Under these circumstances, to predicate one's beliefs, one must have established opinions as to what direction the world is moving in (in this case the US and our global counterparts). However, as is the case most of the time, it's difficult to correctly foresee every event in the somewhat immediate future. Take for example the tragic events of 9/11 and Bush's pre-election proposals. With that tragic event, the whole course of Bush's intentions changed dramatically. From that we can posit that spontaneous, and sometimes devastating events can change planned events, which leads us to the question: What, if any, is the causal relationship between choosing a candidate based on their proposals and the possibility of those choices actually mattering?