Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Ken B]

(This post is misleading insofar as you, in creating the Plautus adaptation, are presumably a private individual, and not a corporation, and your free speech right was therefore not at issue in CU.)

Just imagine I work for a company, or start one with my backers. It takes money to make a movie after all. Most movies are made by corporations. Frequently a corp is formed  specifically for the purpose. Or I am the ACLU making a movie critical of Trump's policies.

Added.
Snark or not I think it relevant that the doomsday predictions about CU never seem to happen. And, no the court has not decided corporations are people. http://www.economist.com/node/18437755

[Ken B]

It's been several years since I read the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, but I remember having the impression that their logic was correct - and that the problem lies in our constitution, which (contrary to some conservatives' propagandizing) is a creaky old thing that badly needs a half-dozen critical revisions.

There's a neat little book on this theme by John Paul Stevens.

[asin]0316373729[/asin]

In general I'm worried about open season on amendments. I'm rather fond of a bunch of them that might get messed with.

The anti-commandeering thing seems odd and unhelpful. Breaking the gerrymander would be a great boon, and maybe something as drastic as an amendment is needed -- I have given it no thought. I don't like abridging speech rights, but can see the sense of trimming the 2nd amendment a bit (not that it will make much difference in fact). The death penalty should go, but I doubt an amendment is a practical way to achieve it.

[Madiel]

It's been several years since I read the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, but I remember having the impression that their logic was correct - and that the problem lies in our constitution, which (contrary to some conservatives' propagandizing) is a creaky old thing that badly needs a half-dozen critical revisions.

I think their logic was awful.

The Australian High Court went out of its way somewhat to explicitly say it wouldn't be following Citizens United. And from what I can remember, their reasoning wasn't based on differences in the respective Constitutions so much as it was based on the startling proposition that corporations aren't entitled to vote in elections. And that, however much the law treats them as persons, it's simply not true that the law treats them as persons in that context.

The other problem they had with Citizens United is that equality of opportunity to participate in the electoral process does not exist if you say that everyone has an equal opportunity to throw money at the electoral process, for the simple reason that not everyone has the same amount of money to throw. As they put it, "The risk to equal participation posed by the uncontrolled use of wealth may warrant legislative action to ensure, or even enhance, the practical enjoyment of popular sovereignty". Because at the end of the day "the people" exercising their right to vote does not include companies, it's each individual.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think their logic was awful.

The Australian High Court went out of its way somewhat to explicitly say it wouldn't be following Citizens United. And from what I can remember, their reasoning wasn't based on differences in the respective Constitutions so much as it was based on the startling proposition that corporations aren't entitled to vote in elections. And that, however much the law treats them as persons, it's simply not true that the law treats them as persons in that context.

The other problem they had with Citizens United is that equality of opportunity to participate in the electoral process does not exist if you say that everyone has an equal opportunity to throw money at the electoral process, for the simple reason that not everyone has the same amount of money to throw. As they put it, "The risk to equal participation posed by the uncontrolled use of wealth may warrant legislative action to ensure, or even enhance, the practical enjoyment of popular sovereignty". Because at the end of the day "the people" exercising their right to vote does not include companies, it's each individual.

Well argued.

But back to the irrepressible Donald Trump - no, Donald J. Trump, who some apparently believe is simply putting on an act. We have the following in today's Washington Post from Michael Gerson:

"If the next few weeks are anything like the last two," a senior GOP official told me, "anything could happen at the convention." Donald Trump's response to the Orlando attack — encouraging religious bigotry and implying that President Obama might be a secret jihadist — confirmed the worst Republican fear: that Trump will remain Trump.

With this recognition has come the realization that Trump has wasted the seven weeks since becoming the presumptive nominee — a period in which Democrats were divided and vulnerable. How did he fill the vacant air? He raised the possibility that Ted Cruz's father might be implicated in the assassination of JFK; that Hillary Clinton might have been involved in the death of Vince Foster; that a federal judge, presiding over a case against Trump University, should be disqualified by his ethnicity; and that American soldiers in Iraq were living large off larceny. By the end of this string of statements, one of Trump's strongest congressional proxies, Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), was reduced to arguing: "I think what he says and what he'll do are two different things." Republicans, in essence, should be reassured by their nominee's duplicity.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) have been willing to criticize Trump but not to un-endorse him. Practically, this means that nothing — nothing — Trump says could forfeit their support. The presumptive nominee has already raised the prospect that his opponent is a murderer and that the president is a traitor. Not, evidently, sufficient provocations. Ryan and McConnell have decided that in order to remain leaders they must avoid providing leadership.

But what might change things in the GOP is the political disaster that now appears in the offing. Beneath Trump's historically low approval ratings — 29 percent in a recent Post/ABC News survey — is an even more disturbing development. After securing the nomination, Trump's support among Republicans rose, in many polls, to the mid-80s — not spectacularly good but an indication that the GOP was rallying. In recent polls, Trump's Republican support has dropped to between 70 and 80 percent. Along this trend, a decisive Democratic victory might sweep away the House and Senate. If Republican politicians begin to see this dynamic in their own polling, many will suddenly rediscover their consciences and abandon Trump.

I'll believe that when I see it.

[Ken B]

I'll believe that when I see it.

I expect a lot of Republicans to defect. One friend of mine already has, backing Hillary. I am currently leaning Johnson, but may end up backing Hillary. I think Trump's best hope is continued or escalated street violence from the left, such as we have seen a few times. If the election becomes about mob rule ...
I am no Garry Trudeau fan but this perfectly captures what I find most unappealing about Trump:

[Karl Henning]

I am no Garry Trudeau fan but this perfectly captures what I find most unappealing about Trump:

No one likes that better than me.

[Brian]

Apparently Trump told an evangelical crowd yesterday that if he is elected, all store officials will be saying "Merry Christmas". He did not specify if that would be a free choice or a requirement.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I expect a lot of Republicans to defect. One friend of mine already has, backing Hillary. I am currently leaning Johnson, but may end up backing Hillary.

Define "a lot." Isolated examples here and there mean nothing when the party's leadership is showing such courage. They had 17 candidates to choose from, including a few with some credibility like Rubio and Kasich, and now they're stuck with the clown.

[Karl Henning]

They'll all wear the fright wig, red nose and big shoes, soon.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Apparently Trump told an evangelical crowd yesterday that if he is elected, all store officials will be saying "Merry Christmas". He did not specify if that would be a free choice or a requirement.

"NO ONE is stronger on the First Amendment than me!!!"

[Florestan]

So, bottom line:

If the majority of the turnout votes for Trump, is it safe to say that democracy won? And is it safe to say that democracy is always a good thing, no matter who wins?

I want and expect honest answers.

[(poco) Sforzando]

So, bottom line:

If the majority of the turnout votes for Trump, is it safe to say that democracy won? And is it safe to say that democracy is always a good thing, no matter who wins?

I want and expect honest answers.

Remember that the popular vote doesn't carry the election; otherwise Al Gore would have been president. The candidate has to win a majority of the designated electors, in this case 270. So it's not a pure democracy at least in terms of the presidential election. (It is in all other races, but popular vote for the senate did not exist until the 17th amendment). When you enter the voting booth for president, the ballot reads, "Vote for electors for Hillary Clinton," or whomever.

[Florestan]

the popular vote doesn't carry the election

Then it´s all about screw the popular vote --- IOW, screw democracy!!!

[Madiel]

Then it´s all about screw the popular vote --- IOW, screw democracy!!!

In that case it's "screw democracy" in most of the world's democracies. You're not dimwitted enough to believe that a straight nationwide popular vote is the way all other elections are conducted, so why would you believe it's the way the election for the American Presidency is conducted?

[Brian]

Define "a lot." Isolated examples here and there mean nothing when the party's leadership is showing such courage. They had 17 candidates to choose from, including a few with some credibility like Rubio and Kasich, and now they're stuck with the clown.

Maybe he meant rank-and-file. My closest Republican friends in real life have all decided to vote for Hillary, though I haven't asked them about Gary Johnson specifically.

Then it´s all about screw the popular vote --- IOW, screw democracy!!!

Having a bit of wine tonight? 

The USA is not a "democracy" - it is a representative republic - and although the Electoral College is a creaky, bizarre old institution, it has only gone against the popular vote once in the last 120 years.

[kishnevi]

Then it´s all about screw the popular vote --- IOW, screw democracy!!!

Only if democracy is limited to numerical vote counting.

[Ken B]

Define "a lot." Isolated examples here and there mean nothing when the party's leadership is showing such courage. They had 17 candidates to choose from, including a few with some credibility like Rubio and Kasich, and now they're stuck with the clown.

The nice thing about phrases like "a lot" is they defy precise definition. Enough to cost him the election. Gary Johnson is over 10% in some states right now. Are those all new voters, or are a lot (sic) of them former gop voters? Trump is almost tied with Hillary in Utah, which is usually solid for the GOP. Is that a lot?

[Ken B]

Maybe he meant rank-and-file.

Since I mentioned my friend and myself that seems a reasonable inference. Does poco really deny that Trump will lose "a lot" of voters who vote gop most of the time?

[Ken B]

So, bottom line:

If the majority of the turnout votes for Trump, is it safe to say that democracy won?

No. It might not even mean he wins the election.

And is it safe to say that democracy is always a good thing, no matter who wins?

No. One of the reasons the founders established a republic not a pure democracy.

I ... expect honest answers.

Life is full of disappointments.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Since I mentioned my friend and myself that seems a reasonable inference. Does poco really deny that Trump will lose "a lot" of voters who vote gop most of the time?

Even if I were molto rather than poco, I would not deny such a thing. I have no idea how many voters will be lost. The main point I made was that the GOP is stuck with a monster of its own making.

As for "a lot," Beecham once stated that Beethoven's 7th is like "a lot of yaks jumping about." I have no idea whether that means 20 yaks, 100, 1278 (i.e., one for each GOP delegate), 1% of the entire yak population, or the entire living species. The nice thing about a "lot" is that it is an indefinite number, but still means, well, a lot.