The thread that Apo linkedin 1 must have been closed to new comments just before DWVFB had a chance to respond.
Billmon: "this election has already illuminated one critical truth: The modern GOP -- or, more specifically, the Axis of '70s Campus Republicans running it -- really is just a criminal enterprise disguised as a political party."
They'll steal it, and we're all fucked. Democracy lost the war, whoever ends up winning it.
But there's always this to cheeer you up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/methandmanass.mp3
yup--prepositioning for theft.
So who's up for a little public demonstration in Millenium Park, if the theft is sufficiently wide-spread?
Guys, I'll be surprised if we win the House at this point.
I was wondering today whether there are any special reasons why American conservatives would be prone to the kind of thuggishness we're seeing today (and have seen in each of the last 4 elections).
I can think of three possibilities.
1) Structurally, the GOP benefits when turnout is low, while the Dems benefit when it is high. Thus, GOP funny business is going to focus on voter suppression, while Dem funny business is going to focus on getting people to vote "early and often."
2) Because conservatism emerged out of opposition to the extension of the franchise, GOPers are much more comfortable with the idea that certain members of the electorate really are not entitled to vote. During the Florida fiasco in 2000, how many conservatives argued that anyone who can't figure out a confusing ballot doesn't deserve to vote anyway?
3) American conservatives have a specifically populist conception of democratic legitimacy, one that, with its emphasis on "enthusiasm," tends to be very comfortable with mob rule tactics. Hence, thuggery is okay because it is authentic in a way that orderly voting is not. This was also on dispay in Florida.
Of course, the other possibility is just that Rove et al are very bad people and that there is nothing systematic going on at all.
Jesus, should I bring a fifth to the meetup instead of cake?
If we lose, we lose. We'll take it in '08. But let's see what the results are, and not get suicidal just yet.
If we lose, we lose. We'll take it in '08.
How, exactly? By force?
10: Jack, don't lose your head. We'll be in a bar.
If we need to get stinking drunk, the bar is equipped.
Actually, I'm, guardedly, feeling better. It's late afternoon, and while I've seen a lot of stories about shenanigans, what I'm not seeing stuff that looks as if it was written by people who know that things are going badly for the Dems. At this point, insiders know what's happening, and I think it'd start leaking if it were remarkably bad.
Believe in the power of hate, Joe D. They aren't smarter than us, and they don't have more people, or even more access to money. Over the long term, we are in a better structural position. Worst case scenario, we learn a little bit more about what we need to do next time. One of the historians can correct me as necessary, but I think there was a good clear thirty year period of lead-up to the Civil War.
n.b., LB, that insiders won't know what's going on until 5pm.
Great. There go my fingernails again.
Insiders have ways to get information other than exit polling. Campaigns are paying close attention to their target voters and leaking information sometimes.
What's great is, there are no pesky exit polls for House races this year.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
THE SUSPENSE! IT'S KILLING ME!!
Just had to get that of my chest. Carry on.
Me too, Becks.
Keeping my head. Keeping my head. Keeping my head. Keeping my head. Keeping my head. Keeping my head.
While I don't like all the stories going around today either, I think there's a bit of danger in overreacting to whatever one hears or (especially) reads on political blogs right now. Wait until the polls start to close. When they do, I expect we'll actually know very quickly what the overall situation will look like in a broad sense, though individual races will drag on for god knows how long. Dirty tricks are a part of every election cycle--they may have pulled out the stops this time, but I'm feeling like high turnout might swamp any efforts to turn things back, though they may have some impact.
The past few days have had that sort of air of unreality that the final push of an election often does. This time, however, it's been the GOP that's been grasping at isolated poll results to reassure themselves, or making fingers-crossed happy talk about how all politics is local and that they'll pull it out despite all circumstances. And maybe they will. But I still like Democratic chances. I think that happy talk will be gone this evening. Which isn't to say I accept the most optimistic predictions (like many, I'm sceptical of the Senate changing hands.) But I'm betting that things will look better tomorrow.
Is the higher level of reported problems in part due to better communication? As there are more blogs and blog readers, we hear about the wife who had her vote for McCaskill registered for Talent when we'd never know in the past. There's some observation bias going on, but no way to know how much.
Shoots of hope peak out:
November 07, 2006 Rich Lowry's Inside Numbers National Review editor Rich Lowry shares a "cheat sheet" from GOP insiders: Eight in the most likely gone category: PA-7, Weldon, OH-18, Ney open, IN-8, Hostettler, CO-7 Beauprez open, AZ-8, Kolbe open, NY-24, Boehlert open, PA-10, Sherwood, CT-4, Shays. Eight in the expect to lose most of these unless something changes: TX-22, DeLay open, NC-11, Taylor (chart notes unfavorable trend in this race), IN-9, Sodrel, IN-2, Chocola (chart notes a favorable trend), FL-16, Foley open, OH-15, Pryce, PA-6, Gerlach, NH-2, Bass (unfavorable trend). Twenty in the true toss-up category (I'm just citing districts because I'm tired of typing): IA-1, NY-20, WY, WI-8 (favorable trend), WA-8, VA-2, PA-8, NY-26 (favorable trend), NM-1, IL-6, FL-13, CA-50, CA-11, OH-1, ID-1, NY-25, MN-1, CO-5, OH-2, CA-4. That's 36 seats total. In the first category, unfavorable trends are noted in 7 of the 8 races (AZ-8 is the only exception). In the third category, 13 out of the 30 races have unfavorable trends. Thanks Rich. His readers must feel rotten
JL, how'd you like that 6-page ballot this year?
26: So they are leaking Democratic-favoring exit polls to races they intend to fix, thus following up the earlier warnings to the media about inaccurate exit polls? This can't be good news, can it? It's more bar-lowing and goalposts-moving and
AAAHHHH I JUST WANT ONE GOOD THING TO HAPPEN TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN AMERICA ONE TIME IN MY LIFE TO STOP MYSELF FROM GOING DOWN THIS CYNICAL CYCLE OF PARANOIA THAT SO FAR HAS PROVEN 100% ACCURATE!!!!
"BAR-LOWING" S/B "BAR-LOWERING"!!!!!!
CA-11
Man oh man, do I hope Pombo goes down.
JL, how'd you like that 6-page ballot this year?
Well, the first couple of pages weren't a big deal, as I dispensed with them by voting the straight Democratic ticket, as always. I was ready for the state ballot issues, but had no idea about all the city stuff. I tried to brazen it out, but by the end I had to admit defeat. It wasn't just the two separate questions on what to do with the sewer dept. (damned if I know), but then the final one that went something like "Amend section 2207 to reflect changes to section 2205" with no explanation--I just couldn't pretend to be an informed voter any more.
What to do with the sewers? Seriously?
BAR-LOWING
I'm pretty sure that when the cattle start lowing it means they need to be milked.
Maybe when the bar starts lowing you're supposed to milk your drink?
34: yeah, two questions in a row. The first one was something like, "Should the Sewer Dept. become part of the Dept. of Public Works?" I thought that sounded sensible, and so happily voted yes. Next question: "Should the Sewer Dept. be abolished?" I felt distinctly less sure of myself at that point.
I obviously don't know about your specific case JL, but my understanding is that it's a not-infrequent practice for some interest group which opposes a proposition but expects it to pass to try to get another proposition on the same ballot, which if the second were defeated, would create a claim for litigation against the first. That is, if you vote Q1) Yes and Q2) No, they'll go to court and argue that incorporating the Sewer Dept. in the DPW does abolish it, that the voters intentions are therefore in conflict, and... I'm not sure what the remedy is supposed to be, maintain the status quo? I think I must be confused.
Man. I'd be worrying about that latter one. You innocently vote for it, and then go home and the toilet doesn't flush anymore.
Maybe when the bar starts lowing you're supposed to milk your drink?
Milk a lawyer.
You have to be very gentle and somewhat persistent, but my udder will eventually generate a milk-like substance.
That joke was funnier when Laura Bush told it.
"That's not a cow, and that's not milk."
JL, I know it's not nice, but I guffawed long and loud at 36. The historical record for private ownership of sewers is not good, but who the fuck knows what that choice had you voting for.
JL: Wow. At that point I'd be bubbling (C) all the way down.
Seriously, I'm thinking of moving to a unilateral policy of voting no on all ballot initiatives.
"Dirty tricks are a part of every election cycle--they may have pulled out the stops this time, but I'm feeling like high turnout might swamp any efforts to turn things back, though they may have some impact."
This was said so many times in 2004. If things turn out poorly again, i hope Mcmanus is lighting up the torches for the mob.
I saw the same ballot crap here in ohio. One issue was about workers comp. I hadn't seen it either on the democratic sample ballot or the league of women voters guide thing. And there was a whole page, and every graf seemed to alternate between vaguely liberal and vaguely conservative measures. i voted against that, out of conservatism burke-style. THere were also conflicting smoking "bans."
The mayor's office helpfully sent out a pamphlet with "explanations," but it didn't really help me with the sewer ones. I voted yes on both of them, but this confused me:
Amendment 20: Shall the functions of the department of sewer management be transferred to the department of public works?
Explanation: See explanation for question number 12.
Amendment 21: Shall the department of sewer management be abolished?
Explanation: The department of public works has already assumed responsibility for this function, therefore eliminating the need for the department of sewer management.
Guh? Naturally, there is no question number 12.
I almost voted no on this one out of spite:
Amendment 24: Shall the reference to section 1205 be corrected to make reference to section 1207?
Explanation: Currently, section 1208 states that all officers of the city as defined in section 1205 shall take a particular oath. The section should actually reference 1207 instead of 1205.
Yeah, that worker's comp initiative just smelled like badness to me.
The real trouble with these referendum scams will come when they devise ones where you can't figure out whether "Yes" or "No" will preserve the status quo.
I really dislike on principle, more than out of any pragmatic reason, ballot initiatives that don't display the actual amendment text. its like making you vote for candidates based on side of the face mug shots.
47 - The competing smoking bans were a farce. #5 was the we-hate-smokers sponsored one forbidding smoking in workplaces. #4 was the cigarette-company sponsored one which amends the state constitution to forbid local laws from banning smoking indoors. #4, as a constitutional amendment, would have trumped #5. I voted against them both, on both referenda-hating and vaguely libertarian grounds.
Well i voted against the actual ban because it appeared it woudl shut down the hookah bar, which i really like. I wish i could vote for cleanair regulation type laws that just require good ventilation systems but are otehrwise libertarianish.
Yeah, the idea of potentially stopping smoking in tobacconist shops kind of pushed it into the laughable category for me.
I will not buy this tobacconist, it is scratched.
46: I'm almost there -- I voted no on all but one, because I likes me some otters.
44: Laugh away, I was. I'm still amused. I was never worried it was any kind of trick or special interest manuever, though--just the usual confusion. Besides, ever since Cicilline took over from Cianci, we've had good government. They pave the roads and everything--I'm sure they won't take away the toilets.
This was said so many times in 2004.
Well, yeah, I can see how you might feel that way. But I remember watching the returns that night, all excited that Kerry was going to pull out a narrow win--and then they started showing early returns from Florida, the central and eastern coastal areas, comparing them to how Gore did in the same counties, and it was clear he wasn't getting the same level of support. So I pretty quickly stopped thinking he was going to win, and have not taken the idea that it was stolen in any real sense seriously. I also think the hurdles to at least winning the House are a lot lower than it was to win the Presidency.
MSNBC is calling the Ohio gubernatorial race for the Dem, not Blackwell. If an obviously crooked Secretary of State can't manage to steal his own election, I think we might just be OK.
I'm not holding my breath, though. I'm still going to be pleasantly shocked if we get anything out of tonight.
That was me, by the way. And no, I have not yet started drinking.