Campaign Thoughts (pt 1)

    I got to thinking about Republicans being "strict constructionists" when it comes to the Supreme Court, and it seems true - by the time they finish obstructing Hillary's choices, the court'll be back down to its original 6 members.

    Much as I love Michelle's speeches and support and her example as a fun and instructive First Lady, she helps draw attention to one key problem we have with politics, where people confuse giving a great speech with being a great representative.or lawmaker or administrator. Our contests are largely about speechifying, about exciting the masses - while governing is largely a closed-off office matter. The only exceptions are that occasionally some actual policies slip through in the campaign speeches so the public can vet these (if the candidates aren't lying or hedging their bets, the usual assumption), as well as some of the clever positioning between candidates gives an idea how they might deal with world leaders in office. Despite Michelle's successful singing, dancing and health programs, these aren't success factors for President quite yet.

    The American public seems to go from 17 years old to 65 or 80 over the course of the election. During the early pre-voting phase, you can catch glimpses of V.I. Lenin, Robespierre, and . During the primaries it shifts to Bismarck and Ho Chi Minh. And as November pulls closer, it starts feeling like B.F. Skinner, Dr. Spock, and the guy who advertises Depends. Mostly the latter - it's like we're all ready to shit ourselves at any moment.

    We finally got the public debate on sexism I'd been wanting and hoping to appear, but not necessarily for the best reasons, and oddly late and strangely in denial of the previous 14 months as well as previous elections. Still, it does my heart good to see ads focused on "softer" "femaley" issues like disabilities and health care, or children's education, rather than the more standard exploitive fare showing a child plucking petals off daisies as a nuclear bomb goes off. Yeah, we get it, we need military and cool heads. But we also need those schools, roads, hospitals and other accessories & accoutrements even as we're waxing big time about jobs and wars somewhere or slashing government and tightening our belts. I get it - my wife buys rice and pasta and vegetables at the store; I buy beer, nachos, and coffee. She's into sustainability, I'm into the big picture/home run items. But maybe after 240 years, it's time to have a President that sweats the little stuff.

    In the end it's all about voter turnout. As the Arizona Republican noted, "Hispanics don't vote." Hopefully they will this time. Polls are all predicated on a certain voter mix. If more women, blacks, Hispanics, millenials, etc. show up, it knocks a hole in the predictions. 

    I voted this morning on the internet. Kind of like the caucuses vs primaries thing, it's a bit less cool & fun than showing up at a voting station and working the ballot box, but it's much more likely to raise numbers of voters - early voting by mail, in-person and internet seems to be markedly increased this year - prediction of more than 40% early voting this year. And while convenient, there does need to be concern about potential fraud - hacking increases the chance of changing the electronic polling, Hopefully just excessive worry speaking, but... the variety of emails hacked, IoT boxes & home gateways hacked (by Russians et al) make it impossible to ignore. (Since Donald often engages in transferance, maybe when he says "it's all rigged" he means he's actively rigging it. Worth considering.) 

     

    Comments

    Well, you bring up a number of issues here that my brain cannot possibly address all at the same time. That is not to say they are not connected.

    I cannot measure how hackable an election may be because it uses early voting practices but as a working person who fills up many a given Tuesday with a lot of work, I see it as an advance to having to choose between work and voting. I hope my view doesn't turn out to be incorrect. Voter suppression is mostly about making it difficult to do.

    I personally know a lot of Hispanics and Muslims who are going to vote this year when they otherwise would not have bothered but I live in Brooklyn, an island adjacent to the United States. Your results may vary.

    I like your image of the American public that becomes different ages (as phases of development) in a spasmodic fashion as the Election proceeds. I think that the Public (as an average) is around 25 years old. It has enough self awareness to know that its future is connected to all these people they will never meet but still insists that there is nothing more to learn to assure success in their dealings with them.


    Updated to reflect a bit more on this. Early voting isn't hackable per se - on-line voting may be more hackable, though electronic voting booths may be vulnerable by themselves.  (There was certainly concern about this back in 2004, and I don't know if paper trails and protections have improved much - a rather political game...)


    I like the finger in the ink method. Simple. Honest..  easy


    If we stick with Sharia Law, there's a lot more we can do.


    They're strict obstructionists.


    Nate Silver's been reading my column, updates on voter turnout - Clinton leading by 20 points in Clarke County/Vegas, 10 points around Reno in early voting, far ahead of her polling numbers.


    We are as tired of the Republicans as the Trump supporters are tired of us. There are more of us then there are of them.

     


    Well, Hillary never quite found the right "moderate jihadists" to carry our water in the Mideast, but she seems to be attracting some moderate Republicans.


    Looks like Hillary's quite the swinger - who knew?


    You may be on to something.  LOL...  I actually think it is just wishful thinking that Texas swings. 


    I was viewing Elizabeth Warren today, the only link I could find was an older one:

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=elizabeth+Warren+attacks+trump&view=detail&mid=311FC1209F6F76A40CE6311FC1209F6F76A40CE6&FORM=VIRE

     

    LET US PUT ELIZABETH WARREN ON THE SUPREME COURT!


    There're dozens of judges that are just as left as Warren that could be nominated to the Supreme Court. There's only one Elizabeth Warren who can be a political leader of the left in the senate. Supreme Court justices can't lead politically. Not even Sanders can fill that role though he can play a good second fiddle with her if he can put his ego aside.

    Obama would be good on the court if he wanted it. His political career is done. One doesn't go from being the President of the US and leader of the free world to being the junior senator from Illinois.


    Even for Obama I imagine him much more a people person talking to millions than stuck in chambers with 8 grouchy seniors discussing jurisprudence. Maybe he could head the Clinton Foundation, as I hear there's an opening...


    I agree with both points. Frankly, I think Biden would be a great Supreme. Too many Catholics already, though. What's with that anyway?


    I love Biden Cville.

    But damn, we need a guy or gal about 45 who will stay on that court for 50 years.

    hahhahahaha


    Let's face it, we're probably going to get Merrick Garland. That was the problem with Obama playing a political game. He thought to gain political capital by nominating a older moderate and forcing the republicans to refuse to vote on him. I thought it would fail as a strategy and not really hurt the republicans at all. If Hillary wins I doubt that Obama will withdraw Garland as his nominee. The republicans will pass him in the lame duck rather than wait for Hillary to appoint a younger slightly more left nominee. We'll see. The only thing I'm not 99% sure of is whether Obama will withdraw Garland. I'm only about 90% sure he won't


    I'm pretty sure Obama's in a punishing mood at this point, and will likely defer to what Hillary wants, the way they've been getting along of late. More importantly, stoic as he's been, I think he's finally starting to take this birther stuff quite personally, something he didn't have time or political capital to do earlier.

    So as not to reward intransigence yet to stress urgency, look for a new joint nomination in late November.


    That would be delicious. I hope you're right. And I hope the joint nominee is 45 years old and not religious at all.


    That leaves out Pope Francis.


    Another CATHOLIC?  No thanks!  Some of my best friends are Catholic; I just think they are over-represented on this court.


    I'll assume then that Alan Grayson and Debbie Wasserman-Schmidt are out too ;-)


    What happens to Garland's nomination of course depends on who will control the Senate in the next Congress.  If the GOP clings to a majority, however slim, look for no vacancies to be filled, no matter how much outrage rages about them.


    I'm not sure what would absolutely call them off, but I think after this election it's not quite as given what the Republicans will do to obstruct future nominees.


    Looks like Wingnut Boy has taken shrinking the Court as his new mission. The "crash us into a brick wall" party is lining up to follow. God help us.


    Latest Comments