Fair enough Marley. It just irritated me. I find it bizarre that an account of overhearing a political conversation on a train gets treated with skeptcism normally Reeves for UFO reports. But I’ll let it drop.
How old are you? Are you old enough to have voted in the 2000 election? Florida came down to 537 votes. Ralph Nader got 100,000 votes in Florida. Florida was the state that put George W. Bush (the guy that started the wars) in the white house. Unless you live in a solid red of blue state, your vote counts.
Nader’s name has been Mudd since. He intentionally campaigned in sing states in order to make a difference, he succeeded and we ended up invading Iraq.
Politics is for adults, thats why there is an age requirement. What you are proposing sounds like petulance.
Any vote for a third party candidate is just a wasted vote. It might send a message if a Tea Party Republican in Massachussetts comes in second to the green party candidate but trying that in a place like Virginia is basically like throwing away your vote.
The following is a nitpick, Damuri Ajashi, but you appear to have fallen for an urban legend. You write “Nader’s name has been Mudd since.” Given that you capitalize Mudd and spell it with two d’s, I suspect that you believe the story that the phrase is derived from the Dr. Mudd who is (or maybe isn’t) connected with Lincoln’s assassination. It’s not the case:
I, for one, plan to vote for our new incest overlords.
I am seriously considering writing myself or someone I know in. I am so disheartened by the choices this year.
My Friend M. Mudd is related to Dr. Mudd. We tease him about it all the time. Maybe I’ll write his name in for President.
During the first 2 years of Obama’s Presidency, Congress was the most productive since WWII. Examples include the Lilly Ledbetter Act, securing equal pay for equal work among women, financial and credit card reform, reform of student loans (saving the government money) and of course the Affordable Care Act which cuts the deficit, helps bring long run health care costs under control and insures millions, including those under 26. All of this done in the face of unprecedented and wholly partisan obstructionism.
He also killed Bin Laden, someone who GWBush declared was unimportant to him prior to the invasion of Iraq. Romney has reached for a far-right collection of Iraqi dead-enders to help him with foreign policy: the Scowcrofts of the world are nowhere to be seen.
On the one hand we have a serious candidate and the other a dangerous clown whose congressional constituency consists of Tea Party crazies and those who fear being primaried by them. One side embraces science, the other crackpottery. Pretty clear choice in my view.
newcomer, you asked me for a citation showing that Obama and Romney’s positions are close to those of average Americans. I could reply by asking you for a citation showing that they aren’t close to those of average Americans. That wouldn’t get us anywhere. Tell you what, you give me a list of all the ways that you think that Obama and Romney’s positions differ significantly in the same direction from the views of average Americans. Then we both can look for citations showing that their views are or aren’t close to those of average Americans.
Well, here’s one way from the top of my head. Neither candidate has come out in favour of the decriminalisation of marijuana.
The tax and medicare plans of Romney, Ryan and the House Republicans differ from the views of typical Americans and quite a few Republicans. We know this from focus groups. When researchers share the plans with these citizens, they flat out don’t believe that the Republican plans are being expressed accurately. It just doesn’t seem possible. As Jon Chait put it, focus group participants were hearing accurate descriptions, but the truth “struck those voters as so cartoonishly evil that they found the charge implausible.”
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/09/12641260-why-focus-groups-incredulity-matters?lite
From, say, 1900-1999 we had normal politics. After that, things trended towards the tribal and the crazy. I would argue that the seeds of the nuttiness were planted in the 1970s, but didn’t really bloom until the last decade.
Steve Benen: But these assumptions are wrong. In the case of Romney, the Republican really does support a budget plan that would scrap Medicare and give tax breaks to millionaires. He really is planning to eliminate Wall Street safeguards and take away health care benefits from millions. He* really believes* the country will be better off if more teachers and police officers are laid off, and foreclosures continue unabated.
This isn’t a liberal caricature based on election-year demagoguery; this is Mitt Romney’s policy agenda.
If the American mainstream assumes accurate descriptions of Romney’s plans are literally unbelievable, voters may be in for a shock early next year.
I’ve been hearing about that happening since at least as far back as the Newt Gingrich era.
O.K., over 26 hours ago I asked for a list of political positions in which the average American view wasn’t somewhere between Obama and Romney. I’ve gotten two answers to this. One was the post by gamerunknown. He links to a website with a chart about the polls on the legalization of marijuana. Look carefully at what the chart says. The chart goes back to 1970. To summarize it, there has been a slow change since 1970 from an overwhelming belief that it should not be legalized to a bare majority believing that it should be legalized. Note that this change from the majority believing that it shouldn’t be legalized to the majority believing that it should be legalized has happened in the past two years.
Obama’s position on this has basically been to leave it up to the states. If there is truly a slow, consistent change in the views of average Americans towards legalizing marijuana, there will also be a slow, consistent tendency for the individual states to legalize it. Only after there have been such legalizations on the state level and a clear majority in opinion polls will there be any chance for legalization on a national level.
Note that neither of the candidates and neither of the party platforms says much about marijuana. The views of the candidates, the parties, and the American public is that there are more important things to discuss. To ask Obama to declare that he believes marijuana should be legalized is to tell him, “As it stands, you’re just a little ahead in the polls. If you come out in favor in legalizing marijuana, it could cause you to lose a little bit of support and lose the election. But so what? You would prove your moral purity. Proving your moral purity is more important that actually winning elections.”
I’m not sure what point the section of The Maddow Blog that Measure for Measure links to is making with respect to my question. What it says is that even when voters are shown that Romney’s proposed budget makes no sense, some voters will say, “I don’t care. I’m going to vote for him anyway. I’m going to wipe your explanation of what Romney says and the impossibility of his numbers from my mind. I’m going to create my own reality in my mind. In that reality Romney will have said something entirely different and his numbers will add up.” At the moment, such voters aren’t the majority of the voting public, which is why Obama is ahead in the polls. The majority of American voters believes that Obama’s budget numbers are closer to being correct, which may be why he’s currently ahead.
My head just exploded.
Yeh, but, I mean c’mon! Drones are just fun and cool!
Especially if operated by clones.
I think ATMB has a first aid kit with band-aids.
What are the chances, you think, of those pressures maybe, just maaaaaaybe being that we’re blowing up Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists and not innocent Pakistanis?
Yeah, either that or it’s been authorized since the 2001 Authorized Use of Military Force was passed. Y’know, depending on which reality you live in.
Voters support immediate withdrawal from Afganistan. Neither party takes this position.
It hasn’t even been a month since the indefinite detention of US citizens was ruled unconstitutional, and Obama immediately challenged the injunction.
This is getting a little granular Wendell, but I think the conversation is worth having.
I’m saying that the views of the House Republicans and the “views” of Romney are far from the US average and far from the views of the typical Republican.
Emphasis added. I messed up here: I missed the part in emphasis. :smack: But I did address the top quote.
I maintain the Republican Party has embraced tribalism and post-rationality. Focus groups showed that Republicans didn’t want a tax cut program as tilted to the rich as GW Bush delivered. People simply didn’t believe the numbers when they were presented. I would argue the same for social security and medicare phase out plans. What might be happening is that Republican leaders have become attached to the tax cut issue and have allowed their policy making apparatus to decay. In doing so they’ve drifted away from the policy preferences of their base, though not necessarily the tribal preferences of their base.
It’s a puzzle that Democrats have grappled with in different forms for many years. See eg the 2004 book What’s the Matter With Kansas? which I have not read.
The real head scratcher though came with last year’s Republican debt ceiling debacle. That provided fresh meat for the rabble, but did little to help the Republican donor class. The professional class is trending Democratic: I wonder whether there’s a point at which the Republican’s $100,000+ donors demand some rationality or threaten to crack heads.
Most (and perhaps nearly all) of the Republican Party has embraced tribalism and post-rationality because a significant proportion (but not a majority) of the American public has embraced tribalism and post-rationality. To explain why they’re doing this, I’m going to repeat (with some changes) something from a post I made a month ago.
What you need to do is understand the mindset of the leaders of the Republican party. At some point during the Reagan administration, these leaders decided that it was obvious that henceforth they would control American national politics. There would always be a significant amount of Democrats elected, but Democrats would never henceforth be able to get a President elected and would always be in the minority in the House and Senate.
Now this view was insane. They surely knew that in some ways that the demographics were against them. They could only believe this by pretending that the 1960’s and 1970’s were a blip and they were still in the 1950’s. In fact, the proportion of blacks in the U.S. was up somewhat, the proportion of them that voted was up greatly, and the proportion that voted Democratic was up even more. The proportion of Hispanics was up also, the proportion who voted was up greatly, and the proportion who voted Democratic was up too. The proportion of women who voted was up, and the proportion who voted Democratic was up too. They were losing on many cultural issues too. The proportion of the American public that believed that homosexuality shouldn’t be a crime, that homosexuals shouldn’t be barred from many jobs, and that same-sex marriage should be legal had been growing and continues to grow. The proportion who use birth control had been growing and continues to grow. The proportion who believe abortion should be legal isn’t decreasing. The proportion that believes that some sort of Protestant fundamentalist church should be considered the “real” American religion (in some odd fashion) isn’t increasing. The acceptance of racially mixed marriage is increasing, and the proportion of whites willing to vote for a black is increasing. And as I pointed out in my previous post, a bare majority of Americans now believes in the legalization of marijuana.
The leaders of the Republican Party have hypnotized a significant proportion of the American public into ignoring the changes in the U.S. since the 1950’s. They can do this because a significant proportion of the American public wants it to be true. There is another significant proportion of the American public that knows perfectly well that it isn’t true, but they are also scared of what the U.S. is now like. Both groups are thus willing to believe in the nonsensical Republican budget because it makes them feel good. The Republicans believe that they can get enough of these two groups to vote for them to win the Presidential election.