I would rather pound my nuts flat with a wooden hammer than have Trump in the White House. I would rather drive cross-country with Dane Cook, and the only thing I can say is “tell me a joke.” I would rather watch golf on tv. I would rather go to Bill Cosby’s house for drinks than have Trump in the White House.
A former Trump campaign field organizer in Iowa has sued Trump for sex discrimination. She alleges she was paid less than men doing the same work.
This is surely the development that will finally sink Trump. His supporters will never stand for this kind of thing.
I’m curious – are Executive Branch position salaries set by law? Or could President Trump, say, pay Secretary of Defense Meat Loaf more than Secretary of State Snooki just because he is a smart businessman who knows what people are worth?
And to add to the confusion is that Bloomberg notes that in 2012 the last poll predicted 27% would be first-timers (much less than this poll did) but the article I linked to notes that actually 38% were. So let’s start off with the recognition that the number who say they will participate for the first time and the number who actually do can be way off in either direction.
This article gives some of what we might need to try to parse it out.
-
In general only 20% of those eligible to caucus do so. And those eligible is a fluid fraction.
-
The caucus is “closed” meaning that you need to be registered in the party to participate but you can register or re-register (switching party) at the precinct that night apparently. Hence in 2012 a bunch of previously “Independents” and even a few Democrats, (one in four of those participating) registered as Republican and nearly half voted for Ron Paul. One suspects that some fraction of them had never before participated in a GOP caucus, yes? Hence more participated in the GOP caucus than in past years. That 38% was a high number based on Paul pulling independents in. Independents are the plurality in Iowa (“In January 2012, independents were 36.3% of all active Iowa registered voters, a plurality. At the same time, Republicans were 31.0% of Iowa voters, and Democrats were 32.5%”)
-
But those Paul voters and others who were independent last time and voted otherwise would not be new GOP caucus goers this time … Still, a fraction of the 36% who previously identified as independents deciding to caucus GOP for their first time ever is a big fraction of the 20% of the 31% previously registered Republican who bother to participate at all.
-
Which still begs the question if those who the poll are picking up now are the other non-Paul independents, or the bulk of already eligible GOP voters who have never shown before motivated to vote a now for something completely different candidate? And will they actually show tomorrow?
Superdude and Elendil’s Heir … all well and good and mildly humorous, but you, I suspect are not as likely those who the GOP is relying on to come out and vote in November. The nature of the split field is that Trump could very well win Iowa with more GOP caucus goers willing to say that they would not vote for him no matter what than those who do vote for him.
I don’t think that follows. It’s very possible that almost none of the 38% first-timers in 2012 will show up in 2016. Or, put another way, you could (and likely do) have something like 60+% that show up every time and the other 40% are folks that bounce in and out depending on how locked into politics they are at the time and if they have a candidate they feel strongly enough to show up for.
Yeah, I think that’s it. Particularly coupled with DSeid’s number just above that only 20% of eligible voters actually caucus.
I suspect the process is so user-unfriendly that a lot of people try it once and never go back. Only the hardcore dedicated political junkies go every 4 years. So each year consists of a small hard core of veterans and a crop of newbie one-timers.
All of which makes me think the process is even less meaningful and representative and democratic than I had realized. And I already knew it was a sham.
You know, even in a Presidential general election, fewer than 60% of eligible voters actually vote. The entire process, from Iowa through November, is taken part in by people who care enough to do so. That’s meaningful and representative and democratic enough for me.
Other than by driving the disinterested to the polls with whips, what would you suggest to increase turnout?
Well, we could fine citizens who fail to participate. Perhaps by means of a penalty to every tax return in the following year not accompanied by a voting receipt of some kind. Several countries currently require voting participation, including Australia.
I’m not actually interested in adopting such a system. That said:
Are people in those countries fined for every election that comes along? In the U.S., we’ve got general elections for President every four years, for 1/3 of the Senate seats and the entire House of Representatives every two years. In addition to the biennial national election, some states hold general elections for state-level offices (governor, etc.) in odd-numbered years. In addition to that, many localities hold elections in the spring in any year, or in every year, for such as mayor, city council, etc. In addition to that, there are special elections to replace an office holder who has left the term of office empty. In addition to that, there are primary elections to decide the party candidate for almost every election that involves an actual person. In addition to that, there are sometimes elections that do not involve any person, but are for tax levies and the like. Should someone be fined for not voting in every one of those?
Once again, the process is taken part in by those who are interested. What does democracy gain by driving those who are not interested to the polls?
I believe in Australia the law applies to federal and state elections.
As for what is gained–broader consent of the governed? A stronger mandate for the elected candidates? A message on the importance of civic involvement by all citizens?
All your ideas end in question marks, as they should.
Grafting such laws onto the current US polity would be, as you suggest, an invitiation to have the know-nothings really influence things in dumb ways. As well as near universal non-compliance followed by noisy repeal.
But I suspect a person raised in a place like Australia, knowing from a tender age that voting, like tax-paying, is mandatory would approach the whole thing from a rather different mindset that our non-voters do.
Both countries have their underclass of asocial marginally criminal losers. Plus the actual crims. And a contingent of the mentally unstable or simply mentally feeble.
But beyond that there are plenty of Americans who *could *care if they tried. They’re just not motivated to try. Had they been nudged from a young age by a society that expects voting as part of normal grown-up life, more of them might well play.
I’d like to hear from any Aussies how this requirement is viewed by them. Is it the equivalent of the hated, derided, and universally ignored 55 mph speed limit, or is it something they look on with pride as part of making their nation and democracy better?
Doubling back to the odd divergence between Bloomberg News’ and the Des Moines Register’s portrayal of the same “40 percent of those in the survey say they’ll be attending for the first time” as
“Trump is inspiring new interest in the Republican caucuses”
vs.
“Nothing in this poll forecasts a groundswell of new people.”
Any sense of what motivates each outfit’s spin of the exact same data point?
All I can think is the *Register *author was a total buffoon. Or his/her decent article was edited into nonsense by a buffoonish editor.
I’m strongly against this. I think it would be the surest ticket to getting a bunch of Jesse Ventura type candidates elected, or worse.
I tended to feel that way myself (although I have been planning on voting for him in the Missouri primary if Hillary did not need my help by then, as a way to help set her up with an easy opponent). But hearing him talk on ABC This Week about universal health care, as cited upthread by Qin Shi, it was hard for me not to start feeling like it would actually be a lot better to have him in there than Cruz or Rubio. (I know this isn’t a new position–he said years ago “we’ve got to get everyone covered” or something along those lines–but it surprised me that he is still so strong for this position, even saying “I don’t care if it makes me lose the election”.)
BTW, I know it’s cool and hip to bash Dane Cook, but I thought his HBO special Vicious Circle was really funny. As in, the rare experience of tears rolling down my face and getting a sideache from laughing so hard. (I have however never seen anything else from him.) And I say this as someone who is also a fan of other comedians that are embraced by the hip crowd, like Louis CK and David Cross.
Why that author the buffoon and not the Bloomberg one or both?
All we know is that last time the poll, which otherwise is highly respected and does well, completely missed the relatively huge number of independents that registered as Republicans and voted mostly for Ron Paul and that this year the poll reports a similar number to last time’s actual turnout of first timers as intending to caucus. If they all actually do it will be similar to last time’s first timer numbers; nothing historic. If they do not it will be less than 2012’s first timer turnout. And of course it could be another atypical underestimate as well. Is there any particular reason to accept one as more probable than another? Is predicting the same first timer turnout as 2012’s most reasonably described as “inspiring new interest”?
Maybe some people are excited about Trump because they hate politics and don’t understand it, so they naturally like someone who reflects their ignorant contempt? So. they’ve never caucused, maybe never even voted, but you ask them, they’ll tell you they will because they just told you they love Trump.
Wait, no, that kinda makes sense. In this batshit situation, it would be wise to be suspicious of things that make any kind of sense at all.
I think many new voters are for Trump because:
- they are struggling and don’t believe the established politicians can help them
- they see politicians bankrolled by wealthy people + companies and assume that sets the policies in favour of the rich
- they’re fed up with the stalemate between the President and Congress
- they’ve heard of him
From the article:
(my bold)
I’m not sure how to reconcile the bolded parts. Maybe he means the government will provide some supplemental funding with the rest coming from individuals? Maybe the government will fund multiple payers (although if the government is providing all the funding, having multiple “payers” is kind of a strange thing to do).
And his whole “plan” is “we’ll work with the hospitals and doctors and figure something out”. There is no idea here. No proposal. Just, we’ll figure something out because I’m smart and I’ll work with smart people. Those smart people, strangely, don’t seem to include insurance companies and drug companies. He has no clue how to deal with health care. None. He’s just spouting off about how we need something great. I agree, we need something great! Let’s do it!
It’s not going to be “single-payer.” That’s communism. It’s going to be via a “unification payment plan.” The country is coming together to make America great again 2016.