Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[cherdano]

You genuinely believe there is a 2.7% chance (about 1 time in 37) that Wisconsin will be decided by a single vote at this point? Or Michigan 2.3% (1 in 43). Or Virginia 1.4% (1 time in 71)? If you believe internet statistics like that, I have a lovely bridge for you, going super-cheap!

By "relative likelihood" I meant what Helene describes, not likelihood. (Nate Silver's reputation as a stats guru may be overhyped, but I can promise you he is smart enough to know that switching a single vote in Wisconsin doesn't have a 2.7% chance of flipping the election.)

[onoway]

Yesterday had a long sort of discussion with a woman who was hysterically making all sorts of accusations against HC beginning with a somewhat startling claim she was somehow to blame for Watergate. What it all came down to in the end was that she hadn't booted Bill out after Monica. There was a whole lot of that hostility towards her showing up at the time for that. I think there are still quite a few women, probably with cheating exes, who wanted her to validate their own conviction that a cheater ought always to be punished severely and won't forgive her for not doing so. It's a peculiar thing that most of them would probably call themselves feminists, but all they are really doing is exchanging the tyranny of male opinion for the tyranny of female opinion. Letting down the side..I.e. not to be seen to be punishing the guy, overrides any other information, it simply becomes irrelevant. It was an illuminating conversation for a little while but eventually was like trying to talk to a 2 year old having a tantrum.

[y66]

The white flight of Derek Black Wow!

[Zelandakh]

Yesterday had a long sort of discussion with a woman

This story is a good example of why DT missed a chance by not highlighting her "stand be your man" stance when asked for a positive trait in the second debate. Appealing to the 1950s ideals of your base combined with making your opponent seem impotent, ineffective and non-feminist to your opponent's base is an opportunity that does not come along so often.

[billw55]

Yesterday had a long sort of discussion with a woman who was hysterically making all sorts of accusations against HC beginning with a somewhat startling claim she was somehow to blame for Watergate. What it all came down to in the end was that she hadn't booted Bill out after Monica. There was a whole lot of that hostility towards her showing up at the time for that. I think there are still quite a few women, probably with cheating exes, who wanted her to validate their own conviction that a cheater ought always to be punished severely and won't forgive her for not doing so. It's a peculiar thing that most of them would probably call themselves feminists, but all they are really doing is exchanging the tyranny of male opinion for the tyranny of female opinion. Letting down the side..I.e. not to be seen to be punishing the guy, overrides any other information, it simply becomes irrelevant. It was an illuminating conversation for a little while but eventually was like trying to talk to a 2 year old having a tantrum.

So if HC had left Bill, then this woman would like her just fine. Right? Sure.

[kenberg]

Yesterday had a long sort of discussion with a woman who was hysterically making all sorts of accusations against HC beginning with a somewhat startling claim she was somehow to blame for Watergate. What it all came down to in the end was that she hadn't booted Bill out after Monica. There was a whole lot of that hostility towards her showing up at the time for that. I think there are still quite a few women, probably with cheating exes, who wanted her to validate their own conviction that a cheater ought always to be punished severely and won't forgive her for not doing so. It's a peculiar thing that most of them would probably call themselves feminists, but all they are really doing is exchanging the tyranny of male opinion for the tyranny of female opinion. Letting down the side..I.e. not to be seen to be punishing the guy, overrides any other information, it simply becomes irrelevant. It was an illuminating conversation for a little while but eventually was like trying to talk to a 2 year old having a tantrum.

 

It has often been noted that Trump has brought in a lot of people who have not been much involved before Just guessing, but she sounds like one of them. It is true that I am more upset by this election campaign than by others, but from what I have seen it is the forty or fifty year olds who have just discovered politics that are the most detached from reality. Of course I might have her wrong.

 

I wonder of anyone has done a poll: Trump support among those who did not vote in 2012 and Trump support among those who did.

[kenberg]

Time for the Craziest Guess show. What will happen in the debates tonight?

 

I think that we will hear more about the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton has already said that she has "a bunch of litmus tests". Presumably having to pass a bunch of litmus tests would discourage any self-respecting potential candidate from applying, but no matter. John McCain says none of them will be considered anyway. Eight Is Enough? Didn't I hear that somewhere? And then 7? 6? .... And Then There Were None? I heard that somewhere too, I think.

[Al_U_Card]

Likely just another round of name-calling and mud-slinging if they both hold true to form. The latest DNC revelations may come into play, certainly as damning as any chauvinist machinations of La Donald.

 

It rarely gets better because the slippery slope pretty much guarantees a LCD type of approach. And that denominator is so low as to beggar belief. If Anderson Cooper is a mod, perhaps he will bring up the DNC stuff, as he already reported it on CNN.

 

We live in hellaciously interesting times, don't we?

[kenberg]

Likely just another round of name-calling and mud-slinging if they both hold true to form. The latest DNC revelations may come into play, certainly as damning as any chauvinist machinations of La Donald.

 

It rarely gets better because the slippery slope pretty much guarantees a LCD type of approach. And that denominator is so low as to beggar belief. If Anderson Cooper is a mod, perhaps he will bring up the DNC stuff, as he already reported it on CNN.

 

We live in hellaciously interesting times, don't we?

 

Is that LCD or LSD? I am desperately trying to think of some reason why I can't make time to watch this. I am usually very pleased to have been born in this country. I think of it as a lucky gift. Right now, I am embarrassed. I don't like that.

[hrothgar]

Is that LCD or LSD? I am desperately trying to think of some reason why I can't make time to watch this. I am usually very pleased to have been born in this country. I think of it as a lucky gift. Right now, I am embarrassed. I don't like that.

 

I am sitting in my hotel room in Osaka. Going to watch the first 60 minutes of the debate, then hop the bullet train to Narita for the start of the long trip back to Boston...

[kenberg]

I am sitting in my hotel room in Osaka. Going to watch the first 60 minutes of the debate, then hop the bullet train to Narita for the start of the long trip back to Boston...

 

Sounds good. Bullet train. Osaka. Narika. Got it. "I would love to hear more of the debate, but the train is waiting." Yep, should work.

[hrothgar]

Chris Wallace did a good job tonight

 

Election pretty much looks over and done.

Wednesday the 9th could be interesting however...

[Zelandakh]

Chris Wallace did a good job tonight

Before you praise him too much, might be an idea to look up partial-birth abortion. Putting myths into the questions hardly seems like good practice to me.

 

As for the election, I think it has been over for some time and this debate will not change anything in that regard. For Fox, this was more about securing a place at the table so they can have the right influence in a contest where it really matters.

[cherdano]

Before you praise him too much, might be an idea to look up partial-birth abortion. Putting myths into the questions hardly seems like good practice to me.

 

I should say I didn't watch, I only read the transcript.

I thought Wallace was good - he got the candidates to answer questions they should answer, or to justify policy positions they should justify.

 

I also genuinely believe he tried to be fair. That makes it the more interesting where he slipped and editorialised, presumably without being aware. The debt is a big issue right now. "Partial-birth" abortions. The stimulus "led to" slow growth. "And since this is a question for both of you, secretary Clinton", what about your husband. "Clinton, in your plan, [more government...], more penalties".

 

It's not easy to climb out of the Fox universe for one night.

[kenberg]

Candidates, all candidates, can be slippery. I thought the moderstor made a decent and somewhat successful effort ot get them to say something.

 

As to their economic policies and the debt, as I understand it Clinton's "not adding a penny to the debt" refers to not adding a penny to the projected debt as things are headed now. It's not the same thing. But at least it was a coherent statement. Trump's was, basically, "Everything will be great". No, not his exact words there, but nothing specific at all.

 

On accepting the results of the election, Trump's response was something about corrupt newspapers, the New York Times wrote an article about it, and they don't even care. Incoherent is too mild a characterization. I guess "I'll keep you in suspense" could be called coherent. But put them together and it becomes "I'll not accept the results because the NYT wrote an article and they don't even care".

 

And so on.

 

We don't expect much from debates and we don't get much. After some wine, I could watch it without throwing up. I guess that's something. I do think Wallace did a good, not great, job.

[kenberg]

At the risk of being tiresome, I want to say a bit more about "rigged elections". I believe this is far and away the worst thing that Trump has done, I think that it is the part that will have the most long lasting damage.

 

I take it as obvious to everyone that the fact many in the media are against him is not adequate reason to declare the election rigged. He then went on to talk about millions of registered voters who should not be registered. But wait.

 

When I move from Minnesota to Maryland in 1967 I did not inform the voter registration people. Quite possibly I was still on the rolls in Minneapolis in 1968. But I did not first vote for HHH in Maryland and then fly back to Minneapolis to vote again. Similarly, my mother died in 1963. I did not inform the voter registration people, and I doubt my father did either. We did not get someone to vote in her place in 1964.

 

But I think there is an even more basic aspect.

 

Suppose you have a lot of money and suppose you want to use it to further the chances of a candidate. And suppose, instead of simply contributing to the campaign, you want to do some direct action to increase the number of votes s/he gets. There are a lot of people out there who are fully entitled to vote but who don't do it. I would use the money to try to get out the vote of legal voters in the districts where I thought my candidate had the most support. Why on earth would I risk fines and jail to get unqualified people to vote when I have a perfectly legal and more effective way of increasing my candidate's chances? And if, for whatever reason, I wanted to commit this fraud, how could I go about it on any substantial scale? Put an ad in the paper, "Fraudulent voters needed, no experience required, good pay"?

 

 

Lacking strong supporting evidence, and it has not been even remotely produced, the claims are ridiculous. Much of what Trump says is ridiculous, but this is the one that I think is most in need of strong rejection. I will be voting once, for Clinton. I am sure, there are lawn signs, that some of my neighbors will be voting for Trump. They also will each be voting once. That's it. We count the votes, we see who wins. This fraud stuff is totally bogus.

[Phil]

Wallace stayed on point the best and even though it's Fox I thought the moderating was the most balanced. It's also clear that Trump liked Wallace the best and was more respectful, so the mods job was easier as a result.

 

Cooper loathes Donald Trump, and it came out during the debate and during the Melania interview. There was no way he was going to be able to control or steer the conversation. Given how few questions in the town hall format generated was a testament. Raddatz was a non entity.

 

The first interview was also poorly run - Holt was simply too passive.

[Zelandakh]

At the risk of being tiresome, I want to say a bit more about "rigged elections". I believe this is far and away the worst thing that Trump has done,

You really think this is worse than sexually assaulting multiple women Ken? Not to mention inciting racial and religious hatred. I don't think you can place any of the election-rigging stuff in the same ballpark as these.

[Phil]

You really think this is worse than sexually assaulting multiple women Ken? Not to mention inciting racial and religious hatred. I don't think you can place any of the election-rigging stuff in the same ballpark as these.

 

I can. He's denigrating the entire system he wants to lead instead of a few individuals.

[helene_t]

Italy has a similar experience. Berlusconi, a crooked TV billionaire-turned-billionaire who constantly bragged about his sexual achievements, and who attracted lots of former left-wing voters by his racist and homophobic rants, came to dominate Italian politics for two decades: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/20/donald-trump-silvio-berlusconi-italy-prime-minister

[kenberg]

You really think this is worse than sexually assaulting multiple women Ken? Not to mention inciting racial and religious hatred. I don't think you can place any of the election-rigging stuff in the same ballpark as these.

 

Trump is a total whatever. I was not trying to rank his failings. Rather my point was that long after he is gone, this stuff about rigged elections will hang on. In January, say, nobody will say "Hey, Trump lost but I favor groping women". They might very well say "Trump lost, but he lost because the election was stolen from him". That's what I was getting at.

 

Similarly for the racial aspects. Again he is awful. But suggesting that his white supporters go into the "You know where I mean" neighborhoods to "monitor" the elections is more than just another racist comment. It brings to mind Alabama of, I hope and believe, another era.

 

 

Both of these (related) features are such that it should be an absolute necessity for everyone, most especially the R leadership, to condemn in the strongest possible terms.

 

Saying the above does not mean that I am cavalier about the groping of women. There is an awesome array of stuff to condemn. But my view matches Phil's on this. Or I think it does. Attacking the fundamental political norms of the country goes beyond being an indefensible crud.

[Winstonm]

As to Wallace as moderator, I think his bias showed in the way he framed questions. Here is a summary of the loaded questions.

Abortion

Wallace frames his question using the term “partial-birth.”

“I’m going to give you a chance respond but I want to ask you Secretary Clinton I want to explore how far you believe the right to abortion goes. You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term partial-birth abortions. Why?”

 

I think Hillary was expecting this tactic and did a remarkable job of answering the questions without taking the poisoned bait offered by Wallace.

[andrei]

At the risk of being tiresome, I want to say a bit more about "rigged elections".

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-idUSKCN12L011

 

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are warning that hackers with ties to Russia's intelligence services could try to undermine the credibility of the presidential election by posting documents online purporting to show evidence of voter fraud.

 

.....

 

They said that they did not have specific evidence of such a plan, but state and local election authorities had been warned to be vigilant for hacking attempts.

 

On Oct. 7, the U.S. government formally accused Russia for the first time of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations to interfere with the election process.

 

I think they should be on high alert for the actions of Romanian government also (since Guccifer 1.0, the guy who firstly exposed Clinton's private email server, was Romanian), they might want to interfere also, they are well known for doing that.

[Al_U_Card]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-idUSKCN12L011

 

 

 

I think they should be on high alert for the actions of Romanian government also (since Guccifer 1.0, the guy who firstly exposed Clinton's private email server, was Romanian), they might want to interfere also, they are well known for doing that.

Boots on the ground or drone interference? No matter, we are mostly just cogs in the corporate machine and nothing short of a total reboot could change anything significantly. Progressive dreams of utopia are just that since totalitarian oligarchies are rarely good for the general populace.

[barmar]

Trump is a total whatever. I was not trying to rank his failings.

It's hard enough just keeping track of them. I'm sure I've already forgotten some of the stupid things he said during the primary (although the media won't let us forget about "I'm going to build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it").