Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Brian]

Refused to milk it the way some others might?

I like laugh lines, but they have to be, you know, funny, instead of being awkward and confusing.

[Daverz]

In the short term (next few cycles), nativism will continue play a big role nationally, and for a longer period in certain areas, but Republican organizational leadership knows the reality on the ground.  Reince Priebus - like him, hate him, don't care about him - recently gave a speech to local Republicans, and one of the big foci of the RNC is winning Hispanic votes.  There's sometimes a disparity between what's on TV and what's being done away from the cameras.  It will take time, money, and effort, but it will happen, if gradually, and incompletely.  The goal will probably never be to win a majority of <insert minority voting block here>, but rather to target subsets sufficient to combine with the existing base to win elections.  That's fine.

I don't think that will be possible in a world with Facebook and Fox News.  There are probably more voter suppression angles to work, though.

[Todd]

I don't think that will be possible in a world with Facebook and Fox News.

Both major parties engage in targeted campaigns right now, and Facebook is one tool they use.  If anything, specific targeting will probably become more effective. 

So-called voter suppression, by which I suppose you mean things like requiring people to show ID when voting and the like, will be off-set by the trend to tie voter registration to obtaining and renewing drivers licenses.  So-called voter suppression tools are probably not as effective at limiting voter turnout as creating a nasty political environment that leads to apathy. 

[Ken B]

"Voter suppression" is mostly a bogus claim. The only active attempt at voter suppression I know of was the Gore-Lieberman campaign's attempt to get military votes in Florida tossed. Showing ID is not "suppression". It's SOP in places with cleaner elections than some in the USA.

[Daverz]

"Voter suppression" is mostly a bogus claim.

It's not only voter ID laws, but: eliminating or greatly reducing early voting hours, reducing voting locations, elimination of same day registration, suppressing usually routine registration altogether (e.g. Florida's ridiculously draconian registration rules that forced even the League of Women Voters to stop registering people), purging voter rolls, voter caging, discarding registrations, and a host of election day dirty tricks.

The idea that someone somewhere waved a magic wand (maybe right after MLK's I Have a Dream Speech) and voter suppression magically went away for ever, never to return, even though our voting system is still under the control of the individual state legislatures, and often under the control of partisan election officials at that...  I thought that was only something Justice Roberts believed.

Voter ID is sold as a way to prevent in-person voter fraud.  But in-person voter fraud is a practical non-issue.  I don't see anyone going after absentee voting, and voter fraud is much more of an issue there.   And voter ID laws don't do anything to prevent election fraud.  They are simply a cover for voter suppression.  Voter ID laws are easy for politicans and partisan election officials to game by making it harder for certain classes of voters to get IDs: just shut down or reduce hours at DMVs in Democratic leaning areas.  Or make it possible to use your concealed carry permit, but not your student ID.

I think laws requiring voter IDs could be made fair as part of a modernization of voting and voter registration.

[Gurn Blanston]

It pretty much is.  You've mentioned Representative Gohmert twice now, indicating a notable level if interest in him.  He won't be around forever, and in the interim he and others like him can prove useful.

Actually, since he is my congressman, I can tell you that he will likely be around until he dies. The moron vote, which has strong support here in East Texas, absolutely thinks his shit don't stink. This is the Bible Thumper district, and Gohmert is whispering in God's Ear, as far as they are concerned.

At the last primary, I decided to vote Republican just so I could vote against him and Cruz. Me and the 3 or 4 blacks who live in my small town were bulldozed into the mud...

[Brian]

Election Day should be a national holiday. Presidential and mid-terms.

[Ken B]

Election Day should be a national holiday. Presidential and mid-terms.

Amusing. Burn complains about ignorant voters; Brian wants to make it easier for them to vote.

Votes are opinions. Most people's opinions aren't well thought out. Not a problem most of the time, but it' stilly to make a fetish of getting more of these ill-considered opinions expressed at the ballot box.

Brian, you asked if none of the candidates listened to economists. Good question.  I think the answer has implications.

[Brian]

Amusing. Burn complains about ignorant voters; Brian wants to make it easier for them to vote.

Votes are opinions. Most people's opinions aren't well thought out. Not a problem most of the time, but it' stilly to make a fetish of getting more of these ill-considered opinions expressed at the ballot box.

Brian, you asked if none of the candidates listened to economists. Good question.  I think the answer has implications.

It might be silly to try and get ill-considered opinions expressed, but it's even sillier to impose tests or limitations on the quality of opinions. Sure, I might have criteria in mind (i.e., anybody whose favorite movie stars Adam Sandler can't vote), but such tests are necessarily unfair and useless.

Voting should be as easy and painless as possible. I did not say voting should be compulsory - as it is in some fully-functioning countries! I only argue that, for those who want to vote, voting should be as easy as it can, tearing down as many barriers as we can possibly tear down.

P.S. I don't suppose you'd like to argue that the idiot voters in your argument are partisan?

[Ken B]

P.S. I don't suppose you'd like to argue that the idiot voters in your argument are partisan?

Yes I would like to argue precisely that, most of them. Politics is mostly a matter of signaling membership in one group or another. That is practically the definition of partisan, and it is idiotic.

Your proposal would give even more power to party machines and professionals, who could more easily corral the requisite herds. I think we want thoughtful serious voters. We don't need literacy tests but we don't need an app for it either. Be careful what you wish for.

[Todd]

It's not only voter ID laws, but: eliminating or greatly reducing early voting hours, reducing voting locations, elimination of same day registration, suppressing usually routine registration altogether (e.g. Florida's ridiculously draconian registration rules that forced even the League of Women Voters to stop registering people), purging voter rolls, voter caging, discarding registrations, and a host of election day dirty tricks.

How many people have been deprived of the right to vote, and how many elections have had outcomes altered as a result of these practices?

Election Day should be a national holiday. Presidential and mid-terms.

That's a great idea.  Oregon has mail in ballots, so it would be a free day off.  How to make this happen?

Votes are opinions. Most people's opinions aren't well thought out. Not a problem most of the time, but it' stilly to make a fetish of getting more of these ill-considered opinions expressed at the ballot box.

Purest rubbish.  Voting is a constitutionally protected right.  There's no fetishism involved.

[Brian]

Yes I would like to argue precisely that, most of them. Politics is mostly a matter of signaling membership in one group or another. That is practically the definition of partisan, and it is idiotic.

Your proposal would give even more power to party machines and professionals, who could more easily corral the requisite herds. I think we want thoughtful serious voters. We don't need literacy tests but we don't need an app for it either. Be careful what you wish for.

Wow am I opposed to this. It's like Todd says. And I don't believe party machines corraling unwilling voters and telling them what to do is a real issue in this age. You can't just assume somebody doesn't have an opinion based on their class, race, or your stereotypes.

I think possibly your argument is the way it is because the uninformed idiots who don't vote lean Democratic, and the uninformed idiots who DO vote lean Republican.

[drogulus]

     

     

     No, it's not Gohmert, who will disappear some day so doesn't count now (as if...). What about Carson?

     

[Karl Henning]

Is Krauthammer yielding to Trump the Inevitable?...

[drogulus]

   

Is Krauthammer yielding to Trump the Inevitable?...

     A party led by the worst will be followed by the worst, and the excuse makers will excuse the worst. All of them together know to expect from each other exactly what they dish out. All of Podunk Hell belong to them. That's something, right?

[Ken B]

Wow am I opposed to this. It's like Todd says. And I don't believe party machines corraling unwilling voters and telling them what to do is a real issue in this age. You can't just assume somebody doesn't have an opinion based on their class, race, or your stereotypes.

I think possibly your argument is the way it is because the uninformed idiots who don't vote lean Democratic, and the uninformed idiots who DO vote lean Republican.

You and Todd seem to be reading impaired today. That usually happens on discussions of totems, shibboleths, and fetishes. You are
"opposed" to *what* exactly for instance? Is there a policy I outlined? No.  What you are opposed to is the observation that most people do not hold political opinions for cogent reasons but as part of their social signalling.

Todd's point is obtuse. My contention is that people are making a fetish about *getting more people to vote*. The constitution is irrelevant to discussing whether that's a useful or useless goal, and whether people defend it (ahem) reflexively.

You don't get the corralling bit either. "Turn out" machines that offer rides, babysitting, lunches -- anything up to the line of bribery -- were common in some places in the past. It's largely how Tammany Hall operated. Your proposal would increase the influence of such programs, right? Using big data to identify likely supporters and seek them out. You really believe that would make politics better?

[Ken B]

Speaking of ...
Y'all realize there is no constitution right to vote for president? Not even to vote for the electors from your state?

[Brian]

You and Todd seem to be reading impaired today. That usually happens on discussions of totems, shibboleths, and fetishes. You are
"opposed" to *what* exactly for instance? Is there a policy I outlined? No.  What you are opposed to is the observation that most people do not hold political opinions for cogent reasons but as part of their social signalling.

What I am opposed to is any barrier, hurdle, or bureaucratic irritant which makes it harder for people who have the right to vote, to vote.

You don't get the corralling bit either. "Turn out" machines that offer rides, babysitting, lunches -- anything up to the line of bribery -- were common in some places in the past. It's largely how Tammany Hall operated. Your proposal would increase the influence of such programs, right? Using big data to identify likely supporters and seek them out. You really believe that would make politics better?

First you mention whether the Constitution has a say on the issue of more people voting being a good thing - well, of course, the people of that time thought that only wealthy, well-educated, land-owning white males should vote. We don't believe that anymore. So, yes, you're right, of course the Constitution is irrelevant.

But this Tammany Hall argument is far-fetched. 2015 is not the same as 1885. Yeah, we may still have the occasional (or frequent!) crook, and we may have a rigged system of gerrymandered districts where no incumbent is unsafe, but innumerable things are different about the political atmosphere, the nature of the voting public, and the culture as a whole.

I think the philosophical difference at the core is, I think a "turn out machine" that offers a bus ride and a free lunch is good if it helps people to vote when they otherwise would be prevented from doing so only by inconveniences/impracticalities, whereas you assume that these people are political ignorami who are being exploited and who do not, in fact, deserve the right to vote.

[drogulus]

You don't get the corralling bit either. "Turn out" machines that offer rides, babysitting, lunches -- anything up to the line of bribery -- were common in some places in the past. It's largely how Tammany Hall operated. Your proposal would increase the influence of such programs, right? Using big data to identify likely supporters and seek them out. You really believe that would make politics better?

     I do. I want it to be a big party with free beer. It should be communal and fun with speeches and placards, pickpockets with cops chasing them and the unruly children. How does this help democracy be better? Any decent politics has an element of community spirit building and a criminal enterprise, like the ancient Roman precincts and Tammany ones. I want politicians to eat hot dogs and kiss babies, promise to help a loafer get a disability check, and other useful things that come from a closer relation to people. People need to be included and politics needs to include them for that to happen or it's an abstract exercise. Just as in economics so in politics, there's no group of people we don't need. Gohmert can mow my lawn.

[Todd]

Is there a policy I outlined?

More rubbish.  The implication of what you wrote is absolutely clear: you fear people you deem to have "ill-considered" opinions voting.  You clearly think you are in a position to know just how many people have such opinions, just how gullible most people other than yourself are, why people hold their opinions (as if this even matters), and that you are capable of making such a judgment.

Your use of language (eg, "fetish"), your purposely misleading partial reference to the Constitution (four amendments do include voting specifically, and were expressly designed to expand the franchise, for instance), and your irrelevant mention of Tammany Hall (a classic red herring) are really quite feeble and don't mask the truth.  They do not persuade.

Voter ID laws may improve the legitimacy of the voting process.  Hand-wringing about "ill-considered" opinions of the unwashed masses and unfounded fears of get out the vote drives and other such activities, by way of contrast, are intrinsically anti-democratic.

In a democracy, people get to fight for their ideas.  Conservatives or libertarians or whatever you fancy yourself to be need to get in the mix and sell your ideas and persuade.  If modern conservative/libertarian/whatever views don't win, so be it.