It is said that Republicans, esp. conservatives, are born that way. Their brains are such that emotions (fear, hatred, etc) and simple solutions appeal to them.
Dems, exposed to the same problems and the same social interactions as Reps, are the way they are because they have brains with more capacity to handle complexities.
Republicans can be, and make themselves appear to be, much brighter, more in control of their lives, if they simply vote Democrat this fall. There seem to be many leading Republicants who are leaning that way, not supporting the Davy Crockett candidate (Crockett’s campaign consisted of telling the largest lies he could conceive about his very qualified opponent. He won the first time he tried it).
If enough Republicants go that way, there is still hope their party can be salvaged. A small hope, perhaps, but some hope, nonetheless.
I don’t agree. If he keeps ratcheting up the rhetoric, and there’s no reason to believe he won’t, and the polls keep getting worse, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t, people aren’t going to be going to his rallies for entertainment anymore, it’s gonna get down to the hardest of the hardcore, the driest of dry tinder. I’ll be surprised if one of his rallies doesn’t erupt and get out of control, either from something he says, or some provocation.
For those of you who hand-wave away the possibility of Trump-inspired violence at polling stations, just last night the following went up on his website:
Republican brains are wired no differently than Democrat brains. They just have different life experiences, and different social influences. Over time, yes, their thought patterns become fossilized. It becomes extremely difficult to change your attitudes once you reach adulthood, and it becomes extraordinarily difficult once you reach your 40s. You’ve seen enough of life to suffer from the illusion that you ‘know what you know’ – even liberals can fall prey to this. It takes something extraordinary (a major life event or experience) to make you change your attitudes once you get to this point, and for most people, we use our experiences to confirm what we already suspect to be true through a process of either conscious or subconscious selection of data.
That’s one reason why as much as I have a distaste for the republican party and its flawed ideology (actually, I’m not even sure what it’s ideology is anymore), I think progressives need to check their smugness and elitist impulses. And I’m talking about myself as much as anyone. One of things I have appreciated about Barack Obama is his cool demeanor and moderate tone, which is probably one reason why his approval ratings are as high as they’ve been in years. At a time when people are convinced that those with diametrically opposing viewpoints are a scourge to the country, he has been a voice of reason and he exudes cautious optimism that he might be able to work past our differences at some point for the good of the country.
Ultimately, the way to beat back the rising tides of nationalism is to speak to these people in ways that demonstrates understanding, but with a message that provides an alternative to the ‘solutions’ that are offered by the likes of Trump and the Tea Party. On one hand, a white middle class and lower class feels that the opportunities that their parents had aren’t there for them and their children. And surprisingly, it’s not only poor and uneducated whites who feel this way – the fear is palpable among those who have more wealth. For these people, immigration is bad, and it represents a threat to their future. They feel that Christianity is under attack. They don’t trust progressives to respect their rights to live an outdoor lifestyle that includes recreational use of firearms. Rather than calling them crazy, we need to speak to these people. We might even need to speak to people we don’t want to at times. But dismissing them is a mistake, and it only arouses further suspicion.
Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog notes that this effort may be violating a court decree that the RNC (or its agents) conduct any poll watching that could be interpreted as voter suppression.
Trump’s remark that they need to watch “certain areas” likely wouldn’t help. Adding to the RNC’s headaches, the decree was set to be lifted on Dec 1, 2017 but a violation could cause another eight years to be added.
Our poll watchers are party volunteers, not paid by the states. The party chair submits a list to the clerk, and the clerk credentials them. I’ve never seen poll watchers not attached to a party that I know of.
I was a party chair for several years, and this was the process.
Underlining mine, I believe that part is illegal, you can’t have a candidate sign within a certain distance of a polling place. Not sure what the distance is, it may just be on the property.
Too late to edit, but my reading of the decree is that state Republican parties can credential and deploy poll watchers, however the RNC (the national party) is barred from any “ballot security” activities. The argument would be that Trump is an agent of the RNC and this activity would violate the decree.
At the very least, it’s another risk and headache the RNC definitely does not want.
By Trumps own logic, he should be arrested as a terrorist supporter. He often talks about ridiculous schemes to stop alleged Islamic terrorism. Mr. Trump acts like, and openly supports, white supremacists. White supremacists have probably committed more terrorist attacks here than every other group combined. If what he says in his own speeches is applied to all terrorism, not just Jihad, then he needs to go.
Ok sure, so they don’t have Trump signs, but they can just stand in groups with long guns on their backs. Sends the same message and would be just as intimidating for minority voters. Trump knows he can’t win on the numbers, so thuggish intimidation tactics like this are the only thing he has left now.
In my state, NY, election inspectors work for the board of elections at the polls. Poll watchers, who must have a certificate from a county party chairperson, may review the participant list to see who has voted. The purpose of that is to call friendlies who have not yet voted and try to get them to the polls.
I’ve done both jobs.
No one with a gun, except a police officer, would be welcome at the polling place.
Yes but whats the boundary of the polling place? how many feet or meters does it extend? Intimidation tactics can still be useful near polling places but outside the legal definition.
But the last time a Presidential campaign openly called the election rigged and openly recruited, 3 months prior to polling, people to intimidate the other party was… when?
It varies from state to state. In Ohio, it is 100 feet from the polling place. If the line extends past 100 feet, there is a ten feet bubble around the line.
