BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-October-12, 15:55, said:

This is just a rallying cry, not a serious claim that either is a criminal. The only people who took it seriously were probably also "birthers" during the Obama administration.

And it's not surprising that Trump instigated both. He may not know much about politics, international relations, or any of the other things that qualify one for the Presidency, but he knows how to play on the emotions of rubes, like carnival barkers and snake oil salesmen of old.

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-13, 09:14, said:

Of course idiot cult followers eat stuff up. At the risk of over-over-repetition, those are not the voters I am thinking of. When polls are taken a month apart, they typically produce different numbers. From this I conclude that during that interval some people make-up their minds and some people change their minds. These are not cult followers, and very possibly they are busy people who have limited time for political engagement. I think of myself at 21 as an example. It's 1960. Newly married in June, working full time with a good deal of overtime in the summer, I started grad school in the fall and, since I was a somewhat eccentric undergrad, I had various gaps that had to be filled. And I was teaching two courses. I took my responsibility to vote seriously. I wasn't a cult follower. I was very busy. I did the best I could with the time that I had. There are many many such voters. They have to choose and they will. It's this general sort of voter, they come in various forms, not a cult follower, busy, wanting to do right, this is the sort of person that I hope that the candidates would court. There are cult followers out there. There are also busy honest people wanting to do their best. It's at least possible that they would pay attention to what a candidates says. Or doesn't say.
At any rate, that's the sort of thing I had in mind. We can focus too much on cult followers.

 kenberg, on 2018-October-13, 15:00, said:

Sounds to me like you're describing the poll's margin of error.

 barmar, on 2018-October-13, 14:24, said:

So, should Trump's stumping for Republicans help result in continued control of congress, does that mean that ever more voters are being taken in? Should not the dems be able to expose such chicanery and if not, why not? Where exactly should the blame be lain?

 Winstonm, on 2018-October-13, 15:41, said:

I have been truly surprised by the numerous ways that my simple suggestion has been dismissed. So just to be certain that I have this straight, after whiich I wil leave the topic, my suggestion was that middle-of-the-road voters would have looked favorably on a Democratic announcement that they regard Kavanaugh's place on the Supreme Court as a settled matter. I do not claim this would, by itself, swing an election but I do believe that for the undecided voter it would be seen as a positive step, part of how they would make their choice. Based on the responses to my post, I gather that many, including you, regard this as not the way things work.

Possibly you are right, that has to be acknowledged, but I have not yet changed my mind. I doubt that either of us will be changing our minds on this any time soon.

 kenberg, on 2018-October-14, 08:21, said:

Finally, I see. Have you considered how much air you would take out of the progressive balloon, though, with such an announcement? The one thing the Democrats have going for them is energy to vote, especially, it seems, women voters. The issue it seems to me is to propel more young and minorities to get in line and vote, not to appease some unknown middle. The time to appeal to the neutrals will be 2020, not 2018 IMHO.

Again, I think the best policy is not to attack Kavanaugh's confirmation yet acknowledge that it needs to be reviewed. This is a tricky middle ground, I know, but it gives a nod to both sides and seems a reasoned approach rather than using a sledge hammer to hang a picture.

 Winstonm, on 2018-October-14, 08:35, said:

Adam made a similar, not exactly the same but similar, point earlier. Basically, announcing the position is not cost free. I will suggest two things.
1. The middle voters: There are many factors in any election, some can be addressed, others can't. One factor in Trump's victory surely was that some middle voters, people who often would vote D, concluded that the D leadership dismisses them as unworthy of consideration. This can cost.
2. Silence: Silence really is not a realistic option. Many Ds are opposed to moving on from Kavanaugh. Trump and other Rs are portraying the Ds as unwilling to move on. Silence by the leadership, when many Ds are advocating eventual removal, will lead the voters to conclude the R's are accurate in their claims. If in fact the Rs are accurate in their claims then it would be better for the D leadership to acknowledge this and make their case for it. Silence allows the Rs to phrase it in their terms.

The D leadership consists of professionals, I have no training in political campaigning, but there are times I think that they have some severe blind spots. Usually such things come from spending too much time talking to each other.

 kenberg, on 2018-October-14, 10:07, said:

I'm not so certain there is such a thing as a middle voter in the age of Dennison. Here in Oklahoma the governor's race on the Republican side is an appeal to Dennison support/Hillary hate. I doubt any middle voters can be swayed by that message.

From what I see nationally, there is little doubt the Senate will remain solidly Republican because the nature of the voting base gives rural areas more sway and the election cycle this time favors Republicans in Senate races anyway. In reality, all we are discussing is the House, and in the House it is more district-centric, meaning that there isn't nor should there be a single national message about Kavanaugh, IMHO.

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-October-13, 20:40, said:

1. A electoral model in which the Republicans are able to control 52% of the Senate seats with 46% of the popular vote.
2. Sufficient Gerrymandering such that the Democrats need to capture 57+ percent of the popular vote to win 50% of the seats
3. Lead poisoning

 Winstonm, on 2018-October-14, 10:21, said:

In mathematics we sometimes have theoretical proofs of existence, for example every polynomial of any degree has a root even if it has not been found. These are contrasted with explicit proofs of existence, for example the quadratic formula for polynomials of degree two. I offer myself as an explicit proof of the existence of a middle voter.

Of course it can be a matter of definition, so: In Maryland the ratio of registered Ds to registered Rs is something like 2 to 1. We have a Republican governor, Larry Hogan. I voted for him four years ago. It went like this: The D candidate was the Lt. Gov and like most Lt Govs in most places he did not have many responsibilities. So, as the ACA was coming into being, he was assigned the job of doing what had to be done to get us in on it. He made a hash of it and we imported the solution from Rhode Island or somewhere. Of course the D leadership then explained that he really had very little responsibility for the mess, really it was all someone else's fault, but there was quite a bit of fanfare when he was put in charge of it and had it gone well he surely would have boasted of this success. I figured that the one thing he had been given to do, surely to give him something he could boast of, he screwed up. So I voted for Hogan. He is running for re-election and the last I heard he has a 20 point lead.

At the other end of my life, I was a 13 year old supporter of Adlai Stevenson in 1952 but four years later I thought Ike had done a pretty good job and, had I been a voter, I might well have voted for him. Maybe yes, maybe no, but again I was in the center.

So we exist. The D leadership seems to have trouble noting our existence. A pity.

Added: Of course I am not claiming that I am a down-the-line centrist, far from it. I am a registered D, I mostly vote D, I agree with a large part of D positions. I am only saying that I, and many others whether registered D or R, will vote as we think best in any given election, and that the leadership might want to consider that fact as important. We really do exist.

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-14, 10:29, said:

The US is a republic, not a democracy. It is a confederation of states, all of whom agreed to join based on the republic form of government being offered.

Gerrymandering does not just happen in a vacuum. The Republicans won control of the state legislatures and redistrictijg by offering voters more of what they wanted.

It would be interesting to watch what happens if the Democrats resort to violence. The Republicans own a disproportionate share of guns and ammunition.

 ldrews, on 2018-October-14, 11:32, said:

As I recall, the rallying cry when the North American colonies rebelled from England was no taxation without representation.
As the Republicans consistently work marginalize Democratic voters, they risk delegitimizing our entire system of government.

I don't know what the results will be, but I can't imagine that they will be good.

And, while Drews and the like may revel in things today, they aren't going to be happy when the worm turns...

 ldrews, on 2018-October-14, 11:32, said:

"Enemy of the people" (journalists and their murder worldwide is up sharply this year) "lock her up" (to a few Dems) "good people on both sides" (including the Tiki Torch mob) and Trump likes the murderous despots in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the Phillipines and of course Russia who infiltrated the NRA and committed murder on British soil.


"if the Democrats resort to violence" WTF are you talking about and on what basis?

 ldrews, on 2018-October-14, 11:32, said:

You completely mis-interpret my use to the word lead poisoning.
I was being quite literal.

There are a lot of good studies showing a lagged relationship between environment lead and crime rates. (Lead does really nasty things to developing brains, especially wrt impulse control. So you see all sorts of studies showing that crime rates start spiking roughly 18 years after the introduction of leaded gasoline in a given area and declining again after leaded gas gets phased out)

If you look at support for the modern republican party, you can see very similar patterns. I don't deny that there is probably some relationship between increases in crime rates and support for law and order conservatives. Me, and I am deadly serious here, I think that a more moderate form of brain damage is also to blame.

Which is OK. Drews and the like will be dead soon enough.

We just need to make sure that his generation isn't able to do too much more damage before they circle down the drain.

 kenberg, on 2018-October-14, 11:25, said:

Perhaps semantics is involved. My understanding of your middle-ground voter is the one who is registered as independent. I doubt the crossover vote will again be as large as it was in 2016, and that I attribute more to Hillary hate the Dennison fandom.

The person you describe I simply call reasonable - with much in common with me. In the bible belt, we don't get too many viable Rebuplican alternatives, and, until the balance of power and sanity is resotored to politics nationally, I can't imagine giving a vote that would encourage this group of Republicans to keep power.

Perhaps I simply have a more dire outlook than you about the present situation. Normals are gone, and The Times They Are A Changin'.

Quote

There can be zero middle ground when it comes to those politicians who protect this family from investigation and responsiblity for their decisions.

 kenberg, on 2018-October-14, 08:21, said:

I just don't understand how your supposed announcement is supposed to work. There is no Democratic Headquarters that can make such a decision. Whatever announcement they would make wouldn't be binding. I mean, if McConnell announced tomorrow that Republicans wouldn't consider approving a Supreme court nominee in the last 9 months before the 2020 election if they still hold the Senate we'd all have the same reaction - "Yeah, right." It'd be like saying "If you call, I won't raise on the river, promise!"

I also think such an announcement would be wrong. What if someone found an email tomorrow from Bart O'Kavanaugh to Mark Judge that said "Hold strong my boy - remember you don't have to lie, nobody can bring a perjury claim for `I don't recall'. Also, there are a lot of people who could help you out with your current financial difficulties - talk to Ed Wheelan and his friend"? Would that still be no grounds for impeachment?

P.S.: If I were running for Congress, my message would be yes, I consider Kavanaugh a settled matter unless new facts come up- we've got to beat them in elections, not in the courts. But also, I do want to know how much Saudi-Arabia is funneling into Crown Prince Jared and the President's pockets, and if we get a majority we will hold hearings and subpoena documents to find out. We've got a corrupt president, and the public deserves to know.
(Yeah, I guess I'd need to work on my stump speech, also.)

 cherdano, on 2018-October-14, 15:03, said:

Nancy Pelosi said some thing like "We are not about impeachment". A start, but weak. I like your "we've got to beat them in elections, not in the courts". Maybe something like "The Senate saw what we all saw and they voted to confirm. As much as we disagree with that conclusion, I strongly believe that once a justice is confirmed that should end the matter. I strongly urge me fellow Democrats to accept this".
Or something like that. I am not her speech writer. I really believe it is now too late, anything said would be seen as simply political. If said early on, it could be an important statement of principle, one that could later be elaborated on. The general idea would be that when a new party takes control, they will not be impeaching the Supreme Court justices that the other party put in place. Any principle has exceptions, that's true, but they need to be very extreme a la the "Free speech does not allow you to shout fire in a crowded theater" type.
At any rate, if Ds had wanted to make it clear that any impeachment of any justice, including Kavanaugh, would be a most serious step that would not be undertaken without substantial new reasons, they could have done so. The past tense is intentional.

And yes I agree that we have a corrupt and generally just plain awful president.

 kenberg, on 2018-October-14, 17:31, said:

Ken, does it register at all with you that the Democrats are not talking about impeaching Supreme Court justices appointed by the Republicans, but rather

1. Investigating Kavanaugh
2. Impeaching if appropriate

Kavanaugh is sui generis

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-14, 17:42, said:

It registers.
I am opposed.
I think he lied. I find it hard to believe that there are people who don't see that. The Senate saw what I saw, they confirmed him. I think the separation of powers now applies. They confirmed him knowing what he is, he is now there. As bad as I think this is, I oppose what I see as crossing an important line for the separation of powers.