What Your Vote Says About You

In this person's case, it mostly says they are A Idiot.

I'll admit I'm somewhat sympathetic to 3rd party candidates and voters.  The problem is most of them are represented by this person whose decision is just stupid.  On a related note I also found John Oliver's bit on 3rd party candidates to be off the mark (quite unusual) while Samantha Bee has been spot on (not unusual).

The problem with 3rd party candidates is our elections.  We don't have a parlimentary system where 15% of the population voting for Green party would translate to 15% Green party in Congress.  It translates to zero.  More because most districts don't require a majority to win (i.e. you can win with a plurality...which could technically be as low as 34% but more likely in the mid 40's) the only function a 3rd party candidate really performs is to siphon votes away from the major party candidate that is closest to them in terms of policy.

If all states/districts did run off elections whenever a leading candidate got less than 50% then there would be a stronger argument to vote for 3rd parties.  It would help give a more complete picture of what the electorate really wanted.

Almost by definition in a 2 party system, neither party is going to represent you as well as some (real or fanciful) potential 3rd party could.  That's just going to happen when the two major parties are trying to figure out how to get 50% of the vote.  It's hard to get 50% of people in this country to agree on any single issue much less a whole slate of them.  Unfortunately, in our electoral system where we vote for individuals for all offices in winner take all type elections, a 2 party system is the only one that makes sense.  There are a very small number of reasons to vote 3rd party:

1. Both politicians really are the same (think Simpsons episode where aliens replace the 2 party candidates) and it doesn't matter so much who wins.  Note: this was Nader's argument in 2000 which I thought was crap at the time.  This is a pretty hard argument to make today, if only for procedural reasons (whether government will function).
2. One party has put forth a particularly horrid candidate and that party's members can't vote for their candidate.
3. Non-voters only: people who don't vote but get inspired by some particular candidate.  This can happen for main party candidates too (see: Obama) and yes, everyone should vote, but some people just don't.  Ever.  Showing up to vote for a 3rd party is better than not voting at all.  If you have ever voted D or R this category does not apply to you.

In fairness to the A Idiot there is also a piece by a Gary Johnson supporter.  I disagree with that person on the main issues brought up but that person is not A Idiot.  This is a weird election and this falls firmly into the point 2 above.  If it were a standard Republican on the ballot instead of the Lilliputian fingered, Brobdingnagian-egoed orange one then that person would be A Idiot too, but it isn't.  In this election Republicans and conservatives voting Gary Johnson make sense, Democrats and liberals voting Jill Stein (or Johnson) are A Idiots.

Debate Ratings

I didn't really watch, though it was on and I heard a fair amount.  The thing is, not watching doesn't make me an uninformed or uninterested voter, which is what this article about the ratings (high but not as % of voters) is implying.  In 1980 there were newspapers and local rallies, but for most casual voters the debate (only 1 in 1980) really was the only way to get to understand who the candidates were with respect to each other.  That's not really true today.  Between cable news, and the internet there is far more exposure for the candidates than there was then, and people who want to know about them already do.

Further, this election paints such a stark contrast that it's actually really hard to not know who you will vote for at this point.  I suspect that many to most "undecided" voters are really just in the process of acceptance.  They will end up voting for Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson (or staying home) but aren't happy about either choice.

Not Really All that Different

I think the line of argument Atrios is complaining about here is a natural response to differentiating between two people who really aren't that much different.  Yes, there are real (and I think significant) differences between Hillary and Bernie, but they are really quite insignificant compared with the differences between them and any Republican or them and Trump.

I think Hillary would be better at the logistics of the presidency and Bernie would be better at mobilizing [Democratic] base voters, which could move the legislative window of the possible a bit more liberal.  Obviously I am more aligned with Bernie in terms of policy, particularly foreign, but I don't feel strongly enough to try too hard to persuade others...and I have strong opinions.  I think the people trying to persuade are picking nits and most people don't care, so it becomes frustrating and then they lash out.

There is a caveat to not caring and it is the general election.  I think lots of Democrats view a Trump nomination as gifting Dems the White House, and my concern is that Dem and Dem sympathizing voters will become too complacent.  In a Trump vs. Clinton matchup, between the (irrational but widespread) loathing of all things Clinton (and, yes, Hillary in particular, and in part because she's a woman) and lots of complacency because "Oh, Trump can't possibly win" mentality I can see him winning that election.

The presidency of the United States should not be a joke.

Tribalism

I'm not terribly sure that it isn't as prevalent on the left, just different associations.  I am quite sure that most of the GOP base doesn't actually care about (or even like) most of the actual GOP platform. I thought that GOP party officials actually understood that but I guess not.

People who vote for Democrats want democratic policies enacted: tax the rich, improve social security, get everyone helth care, curb pollution...  People who vote for Republicans mostly just don't like people who vote for Democrats.  Oddly, though, they do like a lot of Democratic positions: they like social security and medicare, they have no problem with taxing the hell out of rich people, most of them don't really even care about stopping the gays from marrying or women from having control of their bodies beyond the fact that gays and womenfolk are more liberal and "fuck the librulz."

I've wondered in the past whether the continued rightward movement of "centrist" Democrats like Clinton would eventually lead to some Republicans taking over the liberal positions left behind (confiscatory taxing of the rich, and more generous social security/medicare, jailing the heads of corporations who destroy communities/environments).  Trump actually kind of does this.  To be fair his positions on the issues aren't exactly clear, but it doesn't matter because he hates on the libturdz and the corporate GOP both and his supporters love him for it.

Bad Websites

Most political sites are based on the same general template, but I almost didn't vote for Daylin Leach in the primary because of a pet peeve of mine regarding websites: not enough text.  When you go to the various issues links at Leach's website you are treated to a video, and oftentimes nothing else.  No text, no way for me to read up on his positions.

I don't watch video's online other than for entertainment.  If the only way you are presenting your positions on various issues is through a video, I'm not going to know what your position is, because I'm not going to watch it.  If I can't find your position on an issue easily I'm going to assume you don't want me to know it and so I'm not likely to vote for you.

It's a question of time: video's are time and attention consuming.  Reading text is fast, and is easy to go back and forth on.  I care about politics but learning about a candidate should occupy as little of my time and attention as possible.  I'm not saying don't post videos: just write down whatever is in there beneath them so I can know what you want me to.

Voting in PA

So primaries yesterday.  Dem PA guv was kind of a wash.  I wasn't particularly fond of any of the candidates and I agree with Atrios that Allyson Schwartz's campaign of inevitability was odd.  I am in her district and she's been kind of a meh rep.  PA's 13th is very blue and there isn't really a good excuse for a mushy Dem but she played that part well...likely in part because of aspirations to statewide office.  Still, I did vote for her, if only because in a field of meh, I'll take the meh I know--and that she is based close to home helped my decision a bit.

More interestingly, because Allyson was running for governor, there was a rather interesting race in my congressional district.  Unfortunately we seem to have selected yet another too-conservative-for-the-district Democrat.  He may work out fine, but he was 3rd on my preference list.  Also my very corrupt state Senator lost her reelection bid, which was a bit of a worry since 2 people were taking her on.  There was some concern that they would split the rather large anti- vote and she would manage to get through.  Glad she didn't, though, in that race too my preferred candidate lost.

So a fair amount to vote on but not a whole lot of excitement for me.  On the other hand, our current polling location is ~1.6 mi from home, so the round-trip run comes in just over 5k.

Liberals Get Less From Politics

I'm sure it mostly amounts to naval gazing, but it makes lots of sense that liberals would be tuning out of politics.  2012 brought major victory at the polls, but gerrymandering kept the US House in control of Republicans despite a couple million more votes for Democrats, the filibuster prevents the US Senate from functioning properly, and our most liberal prezidnt evah spends more effort on going after whistle blowers, drone bombing social outing in Afghanistan, and trying to destroy the welfare of future elderly by cutting the safety net in the name of deficit reduction brought about by wars and tax cuts for the rich than he does on issues and efforts that would actually improve the lives of Americans.

So, yea, from a liberal perspective it's pretty fucking obvious that politics aren't worth the effort.  The US population overwhelmingly prefers liberal policies, and sizable majorities are at least sensible enough to recognize that popular policies are less likely with Republicans in charge, but the engaged liberal is starting to recognize, that conservative policy is what we get no matter who is in charge.  That is disheartening, depressing, and distressing.

In the wake of a sizable electoral victory we have seen liberal policies lose out repeatedly: the tax cuts were all going to expire, and instead we got most of them continued, other than the top tier only...oh, and the payroll tax cut that was a much bigger increase for most people; the sequester kicked in, and as it gets worse and effects more people we hear less about it; the gun control legislation that everyone was so sure was going to pass this time...didn't pass; the president's very disturbing war on whistle blowers has been ratcheted up, as has the horribly immoral drone bombing of any male of at least 16 years over there.

People want medicare for all, and more generous social security, and less remote controlled murder and punishment for crooked banks and banksters, and help with student loans and home debt, and for the love of god, sensible energy policy.  We get none of that.  Ever.  Rich people still pay next to nothing in taxes, and the gap widens and families go hungry.  So, yea, for a liberal, tuning out politics is a healthier alternative.

Really?!?

I'm not sure I can stress how terrifying this piece is:

But it wasn't until the polls closed that concern turned into alarm. They expected North Carolina to be called early. It wasn't. They expected Pennsylvania to be up in the air all night; it went early for the President.

After Ohio went for Mr. Obama, it was over, but senior advisers say no one could process it.

"We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory," said one senior adviser. "I don't think there was one person who saw this coming."

They just couldn't believe they had been so wrong...

...But then came Colorado for the president and Florida also was looking tougher than anyone had imagined...

...Romney was stoic as he talked to the president, an aide said, but his wife Ann cried. Running mate Paul Ryan seemed genuinely shocked, the adviser said. Ryan's wife Janna also was shaken and cried softly.

"There's nothing worse than when you think you're going to win, and you don't," said another adviser. "It was like a sucker punch."

Their emotion was visible on their faces when they walked on stage after Romney finished his remarks, which Romney had hastily composed, knowing he had to say something.

Both wives looked stricken, and Ryan himself seemed grim. They all were thrust on that stage without understanding what had just happened.

"He was shellshocked," one adviser said of Romney.

They had no reason whatsoever to be surprised by this, even if they were confident in victory.  To be shocked by the defeat they must have been living in the reality impaired world of Fox News.  While I expect that of a sizable fraction of those who vote for Republicans, I had always just assumed that the party higher-ups were aware that that was a warped, fact deprived world.  That Romney and numbers man Ryan would be so sure of victory that this left them shell shocked indicates a frightening separation from reality for those at the top of the GOP.

Yep

Reading this Post article is more catharsis than anything.  I pretty much agree with Westen on all points, particularly:

Obama’s first mistake was inviting the Republicans to the table. The GOP had just decimated the economy and had been repudiated by voters to such an extent that few Americans wanted to admit that they were registered Republicans. Yet Obama, with his penchant for unilateral bipartisanship, refused to speak ill of what they had done. The American people wanted the perpetrators of the Great Recession held accountable, and they wanted the president and Congress to enact legislation to prevent Wall Street bankers from ever destroying the lives of so many again. Instead they saw renewed bonuses — and then they saw red. Republicans learned very quickly that they could attack Obama and his agenda with impunity. Only at election time, or when he’s up against the ropes, does this president ever tell a story with a villain.

That isn't to say that I disagree with Kevin Drum here.  My biggest frustration is to try and reconcile the above statement with Drum's semi-rebuttal:

First: Obama had to invite Republicans to the table. When he took office Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority...Still, life in the White House is pretty difficult when you have to constantly concern yourself with getting a couple of Republican votes, or, at best, the 60th most liberal Democrat — especially when the 60th most liberal Democrat is a self-righteous showboat like Joe Lieberman or a Nebraska pol like Ben Nelson.

The answer in a rational world should have been simple:  Any GOP senator from any state in the northeast that ever wanted to be reelected should go along with whatever Obama had put on the table those first months.  I think both the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leadership (Harry Reed) were horrid failures when it came to recognizing that they had the upper hand and could have used it.  Maybe they didn't want to but then that is their failure. 

The reality is certainly more complicated, but lots of people were pretty open to trying anything then, and what ended up being tried was just not enough.  I would add that the stimulus was sold as a major victory that would right the economy which really made the first failure even worse. 

Meh...

Can't...get...outraged...by this crap.

Kos seems to have pissed off a lot of people by suggesting something that seems very sensible from an individual position. Maybe it's the "organization" part of it, or the "Rush did it too" thang that's got 'em going.

If I still lived (as I have before) in a state with an open primary, then I would vote in the primary that was the most relevant. This year, it would probably be the Republican one because there is nothing really going on on the Democratic side (no Dems running against Obama, or Casey and I think not my US Rep either, though that may not be straightened out yet).

I was in Illinois in 2006 when lots of Dems voted on the GOP ticket because they were so pissed at Blago...though as things turned out many would have been better off voting Rod off in the Dem primary, but that didn't seem a viable option to many. They weren't doing it to screw over Republicans, they were doing it because there was a strong suspicion that the GOP would win back the governor's mansion and Dems wanted the least offensive GOPer on the ticket.

States that have open primaries have open primaries. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, et cetera should vote on the primary ballot that suits them best, even if it isn't their party.

Maybe it's the idea of doing this to screw with the opposition is the objection, but that's part of best interests. If the Democrats have an important primary, vote on that one, if not vote on another. Going to the polls is part of democracy, and everyone should vote based on how they see the best outcome: whether voting for someone you want to win in the fall or voting for someone you think can't win so that the person you want to win has a better shot.

Oh, and the references to Hitler...seriously? What the fuck is wrong with people?!?