"Hey" -- Barack Obama. Hello, it is almost time for your live-bloog of the tellyvision to begin, where we will sit and watch it for the next three hours or so and all tear our hair at the same time shrieking WHERE IS WAUKESHA? (It is in Wisconsin, idiot. Everybody knows that.) No no no, WHERE ARE THE WAUKESHA VOTES? Oh right, they are in Kathy Nickolaus's toolshed, behind the Miracle-Gro. FOR SAFETY you guys, leave Kathy Nickolaus alone!
Can't wait for the Dumbya-style claims of a "mandate", based on only 46% of voters wanthing the fucker thrown out of office.
So, with 98% in, we see that the turnout was about 112% of 2010, both statewide and in Milwaukee. That's actually pretty impressive for an out-of-season election.
Unfortunately, Barrett's chances relied on an exceptionally large turnout in Milwaukee (and Dane County), and a 2010-like turnout elsewhere. Neither of these things happened. Apparently the vast amount of out-of-state GOP money was able to jack up the pro-Walker turnout. While I still believe that a more vigorous involvement by the President would have increased the turnout in Milwaukee, I have to say that it doesn't look like it could have been enough to change the result. Even with 2008-level results in Milwaukee, Barrett would still be 80 or 90K short statewide.
So, score one for 11-dimensional chess. It would not have been worth the money and effort and commitment to lose 52-48 instead of 54-46.
Well, being one of those morons, I'd like to respond.
First, let me agree with you that Gore ran a terrible campaign, and made a really bad decision with his VP pick. One mistake you didn't mention was his refusal to make use of Clinton for what were apparently moral reasons (while Bill still had something like 63% overall popularity). If Gore had been a better, or even more pragmatic, campaigner, the election wouldn't have been close.
Nevertheless, Gore was who he was, the election <i>was</i> close, and was known to be close, and it was even known in which states it was particularly close. And this is where my irritation with Mr. Nader arises.
I&#039;ve always admired Ralph, and so I believe he is serious when he says things like &quot;there is no difference between the D&#039;s and the R&#039;s&quot;. But I think he is wrong about that, particularly with respect to Presidents, and I think a quick examination of SCOTUS and Circuit nominations over the last sixty years will give one example why I think that.
I also know Nader is smart, so I&#039;m sure he is aware of that example of difference. He chooses to ignore it for rhetorical purposes, which is usually fine with me. His point about the parties&#039; similarity is kind of an argument on average.
But, in the very specific, non-average, 2000 election, the identity of the next President was at issue, and very closely contested in several states. In none of those states was Ralph Nader going to be the victor. In a few of them, the probable Nader voters represented a significant fraction of the estimated difference between the major party candidates. In those particular cases, Mr. Nader had the opportunity to tell his partisans in those states &quot;You know, in this special case, the lesser of the two evils is Al&quot;, but instead he chose to continue to tell them &quot;They&#039;re both the same, vote for me&quot;.
I want to be clear that my irritation is not with those who voted for Mr. Nader, it is with Mr. Nader himself. I think he, like Al Gore, made a big mistake.
I don&#039;t think Gore is a martyr; I think he ran a shitty campaign. But it is possible to think that and simultaneously to think that he could still have won the election if Nader hadn&#039;t been such a tight-ass.
I&#039;m not DBB. For one thing, I&#039;m halfway into a bottle of aglianico. But I have a response to you, which is:
1. You absolutely (at least for now) have the right to vote for whomever you choose. You should also expect to receive both praise and criticism for your choices, even as I do.
2. I&#039;d like to point out, however, that in the upper comment DBB did not criticize people who voted for Mr. Nader, but Mr. Nader himself. For my own reasoning on this matter, please see my reply to Wile E. above.
3. Whether you like it or not, the electoral system bequeathed to us by the Constitution, and formalized over the last two centuries, has a strong tendency towards a two-party system at the national level. I am not arguing that this is a good thing, just that it is a thing.
4. With respect to item 3, when you vote for a third-party candidate for a national office (Pres/VP, Senator, MC) you are effectively casting one vote for whichever major party candidate you like <i>least</i>. The same thing is true if you don&#039;t vote at all. Failing to vote, or voting for a non-viable candidate, is always equivalent to voting for the candidate you hate the most. I also don&#039;t claim this is good, just that it&#039;s true.
5. Personally, I think the point of voting is to try to elect somebody (or, since I live in California, to legislate by referendum [I don&#039;t like this much]). But, voting can also be about expressing opinion, and that has certainly been important at various times.
6. Would you mind briefly describing &quot;Wilsonian foreign policy&quot;?
There will not be a new Constitution (read the rules) without a violent collapse of the existing structure.
A violent revolution, even if successful, will lead to an oppressive government (cf., every revolution since the American one, which had non-replicable circumstances).
The two-party system sucks. Do you see a lot of examples of multi-party systems that don&#039;t suck? Also, the existence of the Presidency pretty much forces the two-party system nationally (I guess the Framers had something against the parliamentary system).
The country got much bigger (and in some areas more sparsely populated) than the Framers could have imagined. It&#039;s a problem, but for now it&#039;s a problem we have to deal with.
Are you seriously admiring the ability of the Republicans to obstruct?
Completely OT: when the comment timestamps come up as date and time, rather than &quot;x hours ago&quot;, what the hell time zone is Intense Debate in? GMT? Geneva?
If I&#039;m calculating correctly, this is above the 0.5% free recount level. Of course, I don&#039;t suppose the Repo will have any trouble coming up with the fee for a recount.
Per the NYT, &quot;Almost a fifth of the electorate was 65 or older, with <u>only about one in 10 voters of college age</u>.&quot;
WTF??? Watch these ignorant/apathetic whiners complain, when they graduate to no jobs.
Can&#039;t wait for the Dumbya-style claims of a &quot;mandate&quot;, based on only 46% of voters wanthing the fucker thrown out of office.
Warrants for his arrest might have helped.
That still suggests a horrifying number of mental defectives casting ballots for her.
oh my thank you.
it was the rex goliath speaking really.
<i>I&#039;ve never been to Wisconsin</i>
you have missed cheese.
So, with 98% in, we see that the turnout was about 112% of 2010, both statewide and in Milwaukee. That&#039;s actually pretty impressive for an out-of-season election.
Unfortunately, Barrett&#039;s chances relied on an exceptionally large turnout in Milwaukee (and Dane County), and a 2010-like turnout elsewhere. Neither of these things happened. Apparently the vast amount of out-of-state GOP money was able to jack up the pro-Walker turnout. While I still believe that a more vigorous involvement by the President would have increased the turnout in Milwaukee, I have to say that it doesn&#039;t look like it could have been enough to change the result. Even with 2008-level results in Milwaukee, Barrett would still be 80 or 90K short statewide.
So, score one for 11-dimensional chess. It would not have been worth the money and effort and commitment to lose 52-48 instead of 54-46.
Still makes me sick, though.
Well, being one of those morons, I&#039;d like to respond.
First, let me agree with you that Gore ran a terrible campaign, and made a really bad decision with his VP pick. One mistake you didn&#039;t mention was his refusal to make use of Clinton for what were apparently moral reasons (while Bill still had something like 63% overall popularity). If Gore had been a better, or even more pragmatic, campaigner, the election wouldn&#039;t have been close.
Nevertheless, Gore was who he was, the election <i>was</i> close, and was known to be close, and it was even known in which states it was particularly close. And this is where my irritation with Mr. Nader arises.
I&#039;ve always admired Ralph, and so I believe he is serious when he says things like &quot;there is no difference between the D&#039;s and the R&#039;s&quot;. But I think he is wrong about that, particularly with respect to Presidents, and I think a quick examination of SCOTUS and Circuit nominations over the last sixty years will give one example why I think that.
I also know Nader is smart, so I&#039;m sure he is aware of that example of difference. He chooses to ignore it for rhetorical purposes, which is usually fine with me. His point about the parties&#039; similarity is kind of an argument on average.
But, in the very specific, non-average, 2000 election, the identity of the next President was at issue, and very closely contested in several states. In none of those states was Ralph Nader going to be the victor. In a few of them, the probable Nader voters represented a significant fraction of the estimated difference between the major party candidates. In those particular cases, Mr. Nader had the opportunity to tell his partisans in those states &quot;You know, in this special case, the lesser of the two evils is Al&quot;, but instead he chose to continue to tell them &quot;They&#039;re both the same, vote for me&quot;.
I want to be clear that my irritation is not with those who voted for Mr. Nader, it is with Mr. Nader himself. I think he, like Al Gore, made a big mistake.
I don&#039;t think Gore is a martyr; I think he ran a shitty campaign. But it is possible to think that and simultaneously to think that he could still have won the election if Nader hadn&#039;t been such a tight-ass.
As they say, YMMV.
Cheers.
Oh, come on. I wanted her to go against DiFi. I was waiting for the &quot;hotter, wetter, tighter&quot; ads. And Orly&#039;s response.
I&#039;m not DBB. For one thing, I&#039;m halfway into a bottle of aglianico. But I have a response to you, which is:
1. You absolutely (at least for now) have the right to vote for whomever you choose. You should also expect to receive both praise and criticism for your choices, even as I do.
2. I&#039;d like to point out, however, that in the upper comment DBB did not criticize people who voted for Mr. Nader, but Mr. Nader himself. For my own reasoning on this matter, please see my reply to Wile E. above.
3. Whether you like it or not, the electoral system bequeathed to us by the Constitution, and formalized over the last two centuries, has a strong tendency towards a two-party system at the national level. I am not arguing that this is a good thing, just that it is a thing.
4. With respect to item 3, when you vote for a third-party candidate for a national office (Pres/VP, Senator, MC) you are effectively casting one vote for whichever major party candidate you like <i>least</i>. The same thing is true if you don&#039;t vote at all. Failing to vote, or voting for a non-viable candidate, is always equivalent to voting for the candidate you hate the most. I also don&#039;t claim this is good, just that it&#039;s true.
5. Personally, I think the point of voting is to try to elect somebody (or, since I live in California, to legislate by referendum [I don&#039;t like this much]). But, voting can also be about expressing opinion, and that has certainly been important at various times.
6. Would you mind briefly describing &quot;Wilsonian foreign policy&quot;?
There will not be a new Constitution (read the rules) without a violent collapse of the existing structure.
A violent revolution, even if successful, will lead to an oppressive government (cf., every revolution since the American one, which had non-replicable circumstances).
The two-party system sucks. Do you see a lot of examples of multi-party systems that don&#039;t suck? Also, the existence of the Presidency pretty much forces the two-party system nationally (I guess the Framers had something against the parliamentary system).
The country got much bigger (and in some areas more sparsely populated) than the Framers could have imagined. It&#039;s a problem, but for now it&#039;s a problem we have to deal with.
Are you seriously admiring the ability of the Republicans to obstruct?
Completely OT: when the comment timestamps come up as date and time, rather than &quot;x hours ago&quot;, what the hell time zone is Intense Debate in? GMT? Geneva?
If I&#039;m calculating correctly, this is above the 0.5% free recount level. Of course, I don&#039;t suppose the Repo will have any trouble coming up with the fee for a recount.
Used to be. Kinda.
Hellz yeah.
They&#039;re in the last place you look.