US Politics Episode 6 - Return of the Prez

[Ormond]

I've been watching some post-election commentaries on CSPAN this morning.

One of the interesting things is how some commentators on the Republican/conservative side are still defending their over-optimism about Romney's win by saying the polls disagreed, with none even mentioning that Nate Silver, the Princeton consortium and the other aggregators all were right. They just don't get the difference between individual polls and meta-analysis of multiple polls yet.

More interesting was the commentary by a fairly young guy from Cook Political Report (I think his last name was Wasserman) about the continuing geographic split in life style in the US which helps to predict the changes in our elections. Democratic voters are continuing to become concentrated in large urban areas and "college towns". If you look at all the counties in the USA, in 2008 Obama won with the fewest total number of counties of any Presidential winner, and he won even fewer counties in 2012.

This guy has a very interesting way to look at "life style" issues. He looks at all counties in the USA that have a Cracker Barrel restaurant and all those that have a Whole Foods supermarket. Cracker Barrel counties tend to vote for Republican Presidential candidates and Whole Foods counties tend to vote for Democratic Presidential candidates, and over the last four or five contests the gap between them just keeps getting wider, with 2012 looking like there's the biggest difference ever.

Someone way earlier in this thread mentioned that for Democrats to win a majority of seats in the US House now they have to be up four to five percent in the overall vote compared to the Republicans. I thought that was too high because Wang at the Princeton election consortium figured out that gerrymandering gives Republicans only about a 2.5% advantage. But it seems that even without gerrymandering Republicans have an advantage because voters have basically already gerrymandered themselves. The Democratic coaltion basically consists of ethnic minorites and college-educated Whites, and they are really heavily concentrated in the big urban areas and college towns. Republican voters are simply naturally "spread out" better geographically than Democrats are. Because we have now turned the corner, so to speak, on the big "liberal" urban areas dominating enough states, the Electoral College gives a natural edge to the Democrats, but the House has a natural edge for the Republicans even without deliberate gerrymandering.

Part of the polarization of American politics is that the geographic divide between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans has gotten so strong that most people live in areas where almost everyone they know seems to agree with them politically. Part of the surprise of Republicans on Obama winning is not only that people isolate themselves now informationally by only viewing TV networks and Internet sites that agree with them, but also because they aren't even likely to run into many people in their daily lives who disagree with them because of the increasing geographic split. Polarization of our politics is perhaps just reflecting polarization of our Cracker Barrel vs. Whole Foods lifestyles.

[SeanF]

Ormond, that's very interesting, thanks. Overall, it looks as though Democrats finished about 0.5% ahead in the House elections, which is about 2% worse than in the Presidential elections. However, what matters in any first past the post election is where you win your votes, rather than how many votes you win.

So far as I can tell, more Democratic Representatives win very big majorities than do Republican Representatives. That's nice for them, but means votes are effectively wasted. Partisan gerrymandering is part of that (although both parties do it) but, as you say, the other reason is the tendency for like-minded Democrats to cluster together. Another problem must be that there's a deliberate attempt to create majority-minority Congressional Districts, which effectively means that too many Democratic voters get bunched together in safe seats.

It looks to me, too, as though Republicans also did rather better in State legislative elections than they did at Presidential level.

[Winter's Knight]

Classy.

From the moment Mitt Romney stepped off stage Tuesday night, having just delivered a brief concession speech he wrote only that evening, the massive infrastructure surrounding his campaign quickly began to disassemble itself.

Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.

[Maithanet]

Ormond, that's very interesting, thanks. Overall, it looks as though Democrats finished about 0.5% ahead in the House elections, which is about 2% worse than in the Presidential elections. However, what matters in any first past the post election is where you win your votes, rather than how many votes you win.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Gerrymandering is at its strongest in the 2012 election. By 2018 and 2020, the population will have grown and shifted in ways that can be predicted with only middling accuracy. Thus districts that are carved out to be "safe" for one party are very likely to be safe in 2012, but less so in 2020.

[danm_999]

Hannity is going the opposite clip, saying his view on immigration has "evolved"

Huh, good timing huh? Hannity's views on immigration evolve the second the GOP gets a clear and decisive electoral message that shitting on the Latino vote is a recipe for loss.

[Sci-2]

Ohio’s GOP Secretary of State Already Has A Plan To Rig The 2016 Election For Republicans

...Corbett’s election-rigging plan died, largely because Republican members of Congress in Pennsylvania feared that it would cause the Obama campaign to shift resources into their districts and endanger their own chances of being reelected. Now, however, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted ®– who spent much of 2012 inventing ways to prevent pro-Obama votes from being cast or counted — wants to revive this election rigging scheme. According to the Ohio political blog Plunderbund,

Husted’s solution to this perceived problem of Democrats and the national media picking on him? He says we should make Ohio less important in the election by dividing up our electoral votes by Congressional district.

This is huge and should raise giant red flags.

Under the current winner-take-all system, Obama won all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes. Under Husted’s plan, 12 of those 18 electoral votes would be handed to Mitt Romney, the popular vote loser

.

As in Pennsylvania, Republicans gerrymandered Ohio within an inch of its life....

[TrackerNeil]

Hannity is going the opposite clip, saying his view on immigration has "evolved"

I'm surprised he acknowledges a change in this regard; in my experience, conservatives who shift their position rarely admit they ever believed anything else. In 2008 they were claiming they'd vote for Hillary Clinton before they'd deign support John McCain, and within 48 hours of him winning the nomination they were all gushing about his war record and statesmanship. By 2020 I imagine you'll hear right-wingers insisting that the conservative movement was never about anti-gay bigotry.

[SeanF]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Gerrymandering is at its strongest in the 2012 election. By 2018 and 2020, the population will have grown and shifted in ways that can be predicted with only middling accuracy. Thus districts that are carved out to be "safe" for one party are very likely to be safe in 2012, but less so in 2020.

So, a good deal will depend on who controls State legislatures in battleground States in 2020.

[Ser Greguh]

Seriously, you just can't make this stuff up.

Two Republicans, one in New Mexico, one in Nevada, test the system to see how easy it is to commit voter fraud and get busted and charged with voter fraud.

Odds on this proving to the Republican world at large that in-person voting fraud is not only not widespread, but nonexistant?

Wow. This is straight up awesome. There needs to be a category for actions like this, along the lines of a Darwin award.

[Inigima]

This is neat: OWS buying, forgiving debt http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/35309150177/the-peoples-bailout

It's pretty common for debt to be sold for pennies on the dollar, once the original creditor has given up on collecting the debt. Generally this is done by bottom-feeding collections companies who then attempt to harass people into paying. This time, Occupy Wall Street is the buyer. And they're just forgiving the debt.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

This is neat: OWS buying, forgiving debt http://wilwheaton.tu...peoples-bailout

It's pretty common for debt to be sold for pennies on the dollar, once the original creditor has given up on collecting the debt. Generally this is done by bottom-feeding collections companies who then attempt to harass people into paying. This time, Occupy Wall Street is the buyer. And they're just forgiving the debt.

I actually do think that's kind of neat, although I don't necessarily agree that all distressed debt deserves to be forgiven. I have no love for debt collection companies (I've had professional dealings with a couple at the beginning of my legal career) which are mostly quite terrible, but on the other hand, I've also dealt with a significant number of litigants who irresponsibly bought TVs, cars, appliances, etc. on their cards and then realized how easy it was not to pay back what they borrowed.

If they really want to make an impact with this, they should try to target some of the beneficiaries of their debt forgiveness and get them to participate as human interest stories. If people can see they're making an actual, beneficial impact on real people, it would probably do wonders for their cause.

[Maithanet]

You're not kidding. Honestly, how stupid/arrogant/entitled/whatever do you have to be to think that it's okay for you to break the law so you can see how easy for others to break the law?

Somehow, nobody thought to try and smuggle a gun onto a plane after 9/11 just to see if security really works. But voter fraud is seen as ok to test the waters.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Inigima,

I like it but they may get in trouble with the IRS if they don't issue 1099's to the debtors who's debt they have forgiven.

[Winter's Knight]

I have a question please: if the GOP does decide to abandon the Tea Party, where will they go? Can they form a separate political party?

[lokisnow]

Fellow election junkies, polling for the 2016 race has started! :eek:

http://www.politico....ppp-149064.html

He's not yet included in the polls, but I bet $20 right now that Nixon wins the democrat iowa caucus in Jan 2016. He's going to run, and he'll probably be Clinton/Biden's biggest foe in Iowa; and he'll be an extremely likely VP pick for either Clinton, Biden, or Cuomo should they win the nomination.

[Fez]

He's not yet included in the polls, but I bet $20 right now that Nixon wins the democrat iowa caucus in Jan 2016. He's going to run, and he'll probably be Clinton/Biden's biggest foe in Iowa; and he'll be an extremely likely VP pick for either Clinton, Biden, or Cuomo should they win the nomination.

Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri? The man who (understandably, given the state) has done nothing to implement the biggest Democratic legislative achievement since the '60s? I doubt it.

[Jaxom 1974]

Off heard remark, I think on O'Donnell yesterday or the day before: Since 1952 some names keep repeating on the GOP Presidential ticket in one position or the other. Sometimes winning. Sometimes not.

Nixon: 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972

Reagan: 1980, 1984 (also noting that he nearly took the nomination in 1976)

Bush: 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004

Dole: 1976, 1996

Now I'm trying to remember the whole point from memory, but it boiled down to the idea that a large issue with the GOP could be it's reliance on specific names. That they're incapable of thinking outside of the box, or when they do go outside of the box, they're so outside of it they get someone like Palin...

It's a lot of nothing, but kinda fascinating none the less...

[Fez]

Off heard remark, I think on O'Donnell yesterday or the day before: Since 1952 some names keep repeating on the GOP Presidential ticket in one position or the other. Sometimes winning. Sometimes not.

Nixon: 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972

Reagan: 1980, 1984 (also noting that he nearly took the nomination in 1976)

Bush: 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004

Dole: 1976, 1996

Now I'm trying to remember the whole point from memory, but it boiled down to the idea that a large issue with the GOP could be it's reliance on specific names. That they're incapable of thinking outside of the box, or when they do go outside of the box, they're so outside of it they get someone like Palin...

It's a lot of nothing, but kinda fascinating none the less...

2012 was the first election since 1976 that didn't have a Bush or Clinton on a ballot (2008 was the first if we don't count primaries) and Bill Clinton was still heavily involved in the campaign. And right now the presumed favorites for the 2016 nominations are a Bush and a Clinton.

And speaking of political dynasties, on Tuesday Joseph P. Kennedy III (grandson of Bobby Kennedy) was elected to replace the retiring Rep. Barney Frank. Word already is that if Kerry is tapped to become Secretary of State, he'll be the Democratic nominee in the special election (and yes, Scott Brown will run for it as well, but good luck beating a Kennedy in Massachusetts).

[The Iceman of the North]

Somehow, nobody thought to try and smuggle a gun onto a plane after 9/11 just to see if security really works.

Where were you a decade ago? This was tried on numerous occasions, both legally by law enforcement/security experts, and illegally by random journalists and others.

[AverageGuy]

Somehow, nobody thought to try and smuggle a gun onto a plane after 9/11 just to see if security really works. But voter fraud is seen as ok to test the waters.

Yes they did. Two stories I recall - one man who went through security with a gun three time to prove to his wife flying still wasn't safe, another guy who tried to pass something that looked like a bomb through the x-ray machine.