Is this the end of the Reagan/Rove right?

[vimothy]

Not normally on its opinion page.

Anyway, awesome statistical romp -- Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do, by Andrew Gelman

Website [+]
Blog [+]
Talk at Cato [+]​

Commentators on both the left (Thomas Frank) and the right (David Brooks) have theorized about why working-class Kansas farmers and latte-sipping Maryland suburbanites vote against their economic interests. Gelman says, 'Both sides on this argument are trying too hard to explain something that's simply not true.' The real paradox, he says, is that while rich states lean Democratic, rich people generally vote Republican; while poor states lean Republican, poor people generally vote Democratic.
(Alan Cooperman Washington Post Book World )​

 

[crackerjack]

Not normally on its opinion page.

Must be Rupe's new liberalism.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/09/wolff200709

 

[droid]

I realise this isn't really as important as the character quirks of the candidates or minor differences in policy, but...

Greg Palast on Newsnight on Tuesday discussing the upcoming election fraud. The latest alleged Republican tactic? Prevent those whose homes have been foreclosed from voting when they come to polling stations.

Watch the vid:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

Also - details of fraud in previous elections in an easily digestible form here:

http://www.gregpalast.com/sbyv/

 

[IdleRich]

"Greg Palast on Newsnight on Tuesday discussing the upcoming election fraud. The latest alleged Republican tactic? Prevent those whose homes have been foreclosed from voting when they come to polling stations."

I read about this a couple of weeks ago. The gist of the plan seemed to be to make sure that the pollsters insisted on getting and checking the address of everyone voting - on the pretext of preventing electoral fraud due to people voting from several addresses (occurence of which is apparently minimal) - and then banning those who had no address. How is this legal though? Sorry if it's explained in the video but I can't watch at work. Anyway, it works quite neatly for the republicans because a large number of people who have lost their houses are of course going to want to vote out the government.

 

[droid]

its not legal. And its only one of several well established measures used to disenfranchise (mostly) working class voters. They keep on getting away with it simply because there is no political will to stop it from happening.

Why isn't this front page news in the US? Why is Palast only on British TV talking about it? Why is the focus on the farce of the campaign instead of the fact that democracy in the US is essentially a sham?

Maybe if the Americans allowed some Zimbabwean and Cuban officials in to monitor the elections things would improve...

 

[vimothy]

Did anyone actually watch the debate? Too much all at once: I can hardly cope at the moment...

 

[crackerjack]

Why isn't this front page news in the US? Why is Palast only on British TV talking about it? Why is the focus on the farce of the campaign instead of the fact that democracy in the US is essentially a sham?

Maybe if the Americans allowed some Zimbabwean and Cuban officials in to monitor the elections things would improve...

It has been reported on in the US. Here, frinstance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/us/politics/25voting.html?ref=politics

As for Palast, he's a bit Pilgerish and should be treated with kid gloves, however much truth there is in some of the reporting.

 

[droid]

It has been reported on in the US. Here, frinstance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/us/politics/25voting.html?ref=politics

As for Palast, he's a bit Pilgerish and should be treated with kid gloves, however much truth there is in some of the reporting.

Thats a fairly lazy and throwaway judgment. Have you read any of his books? His work on election fraud is meticulously documented and has never been seriously contradicted - simply ignored.

I also did not claim it had not been reported, there is some exposure on the margins - but the odd article over 8 years after the fact is pretty minor considering the massive scale of the fraud.

 

[IdleRich]

"His work on election fraud is meticulously documented and has never been seriously contradicted - simply ignored."

I think that's often a more effective way to prevent something being considered of importance than attempting to refute it. Especially if it can't be refuted.

 

[crackerjack]

Thats a fairly lazy and throwaway judgment. Have you read any of his books? His work on election fraud is meticulously documented and has never been seriously contradicted - simply ignored.

Yeah, it is a bit. It's based on the little I see of him, generally on Newsnight. He did one piece on Chavez a couple of years back which all but crowned him the new Messias and was just embarrassing. I haven't been able to take him seriously since.
I'm not dismissing the possibility of fraud at all - I just think (hope) the dems are savvier about prevention than they have been in the past. I also think (hope) that, barring a serious turn aroound, Obama is gonna be too far ahead for it to have an impact.


Speaking of which, can someone explain this to me:

The Republicans' hopes now rest on holding on to the 252 electoral votes that President George Bush won in 2004 and on taking Pennsylvania from the Democrats. The state, with its 21 electoral votes, would push him over the 270 college votes needed to win.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/09/uselections2008.johnmccain

Since Bush won in 2004, I assumed it would be enough for McC to hold the same states. Has there been a redrawing of the electoral college since then, in the Dem's favour? McCain's chances of taking PA are almost zero - it doesn't even appear in RCP's top 10 battleground list any more.

 

[droid]

So providing evidence and documentation to backup your claims is simply a tactic to prevent those claims being refuted? (And of course, not providing said evidence or documentation would allow critics to claim the argument is not backed up by facts).

Have you read his work Rich? Providing scans of primary documentation such as rigged voter rolls, memos etc.. and interviewing voters and poll station official's aren't attempts to obfuscate an argument - it's simply good investigative journalism.

 

[swears]

I can't quite believe that Obama will win. I think there'll be some sort of October surprise, Bradley effect or electoral fraud that'll keep him out. He's too good to be true. I can just see McCain's smug git face now, winning after a few thousand ballots have been "lost" in a furnace or something.

 

[droid]

Yeah, it is a bit. It's based on the little I see of him, generally on Newsnight. He did one piece on Chavez a couple of years back which all but crowned him the new Messias and was just embarrassing. I haven't been able to take him seriously since.
I'm not dismissing the possibility of fraud at all - I just think (hope) the dems are savvier about prevention than they have been in the past. I also think (hope) that, barring a serious turn aroound, Obama is gonna be too far ahead for it to have an impact.

I would agree that his trenchcoat and hat shtick is a bit twee - but you have to dumb down a bit for TV. His work in print is far more serious - especially on the electoral fraud issues.

 

[IdleRich]

"So providing evidence and documentation to backup your claims is simply a tactic to prevent those claims being refuted? (And of course, not providing said evidence or documentation would allow critics to claim the argument is not backed up by facts)."

Nah, what I'm saying is the Republicans can't refute it so they ignore it and hope it doesn't become a big issue that people pay any attention to. A cunning and underhand tactic that seems to be working.

"Have you read his work Rich? Providing scans of primary documentation such as rigged voter rolls, memos etc.. and interviewing voters and poll station official's aren't attempts to obfuscate an argument - it's simply good investigative journalism."

Never read him but I'm not disagreeing with you here.

 

[crackerjack]

I can't quite believe that Obama will win. I think there'll be some sort of October surprise, Bradley effect or electoral fraud that'll keep him out. He's too good to be true.

Jeremiah, you can back this up with a flutter. Paddy Power are your boys.

Bookmaker Betting Exchange
Obama, Barack 2/9


McCain, John 4

http://www.oddscomparisons.com/specials/politics/usa/presidential-elections-2008/president

 

[droid]

Sorry Rich. Wrong end of the stick.

I think the pertinent issue (that goes back to Gores acceptance of the 200 result) is: why aren't the democrats going mental over it?

Its almost like there's a gentleman's agreement to fight the election by fair or foul means and not kick up a fuss when the results come in regardless of any fraud that occurred.

Maybe both side are worried that calling the fundamentals of the democratic process into question would lead to a wider questioning of the validity of the electoral college and two party systems...

 

[IdleRich]

"Sorry Rich. Wrong end of the stick."

No worries.

"I think the pertinent issue (that goes back to Gores acceptance of the 200 result) is: why aren't the democrats going mental over it?"

Yeah, good question.

"Its almost like there's a gentleman's agreement to fight the election by fair or foul means and not kick up a fuss when the results come in regardless of any fraud that occurred."

But are the democrats doing anything similarly sneaky?

"Maybe both side are worried that calling the fundamentals of the democratic process into question would lead to a wider questioning of the validity of the electoral college and two party systems... "

I dunno, I think that that's so far away from being challenged and the two sides are so desperate to win at any cost that I can't believe that that's the answer.

 

[vimothy]

Me neither.

 

[crackerjack]

Maybe both side are worried that calling the fundamentals of the democratic process into question would lead to a wider questioning of the validity of the electoral college and two party systems...

Nah, the corruption of the two-party system is most evident in the way they're funded. And they're more than happy to go after each other there.

 

[droid]

No worries.
But are the democrats doing anything similarly sneaky?

In the last election they sent 'teams of lawyers' to polling stations to challenge the challengers, which could be seen as interference - as you can see from the newsnight report, republicans have alleged that they committing small scale fraud by boosting the voter rolls with 'fake' voters. There doesn't seem to be significant evidence (or even claims) of large scale fraud, though thats not to say it isn't happening.

I dunno, I think that that's so far away from being challenged and the two sides are so desperate to win at any cost that I can't believe that that's the answer.

Well whats the explanation then?

What would the impact have been if the entire democratic party had refused to accept the result of the last 2 elections and boycotted the process to protest? Wouldn't this have led to a massive and unprecedented shakeup of US democracy? Who knows what would've happened as a result (and therein lies the problem)?