Friday, April 21, 2017

The Democrats Should Go Further Left

This opinion piece reminds me of Paul, far Left commenter at MinnPost.  If you are interested in his views, see them at the bottom of this MinnPost piece.  Here is some of the discussion we had.

"My thing is that for decades someone says: "Let's do something liberal" and Democrats reply: "No, if we do that we'll lose elections". I mean at some point you just have to admit your're not dealing with liberals. Maybe in theory they could be liberals, but we don't need theoretical liberalism. 
Meanwhile Republicans aren't defeating liberals at the ballot box, they're defeating Democrats. Democrats always try to blame their losses on excessive liberalism but THAT'S a conservative mentality in-and-of itself, so we're back to an absence of liberalism. The more they move the the "middle" i.e. moderate republicanism, the more Democrats lose, yet they keep blaming liberals. Who does that? Conservatives do that, that;s who does that. 
The problem is we desperately need a liberal political Party in the United States because liberal initiatives are the only workable solutions to our most serious issues ranging from energy to education. Since we're stuck with a two party system that means we need the Democrats to a liberal party. THAT'S not going to happen until Democrats who think they're already liberal realize they're not, decide if they want to be, and act accordingly one way or the other." Paul 
"Seems to me that your Progressive / True Liberal is what many call a Democratic Socialist. I mean that is what Bernie calls himself. Is this correct? http://www.dsausa.org/" G2A 
"Yes and No. Sanders's calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but really he's just a "New Deal" Democrat. The distinction isn't really relevant, a liberal, simply put, is someone who supports liberal agendas and initiatives. Liberals can disagree regarding those initiatives but anyone who simply rejects them out of hand because they're liberal initiatives, isn't a liberal. So in theory liberals could disagree whether or not Obamacare or Medicare for All is the best health care system from a technical perspective, but anyone who rejects either proposal on the grounds that it's "too" liberal simply isn't a liberal. 
For decades whenever we say: "Let's do something liberal" Democrats respond:"No, that will cost us the election". And then they go out and lose elections trying to be something other than liberal. I'm not saying that no Democrats anywhere are liberal, but clearly the Party elite and too many primary voters are something other than liberal... I'd say they look like moderate conservatives who can be socially liberal, but politically and economically conservative. Whatever, I'm not actually interested in classifying them, people can be whatever they are, I don't care. I just want people to know what they are and act accordingly. Don't tell me you're a liberal but you don't believe liberals can win elections in a liberal democracy. Ether sign on to some other perspective or get liberal but don't act and vote like a moderate Republican and tell us you're a liberal Democrat." Paul 
"However the reality is that Bernie is the Far Left and Hillary is the Middle Left. Look at the graphs in these govtrack links for their scores.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357
As I often say, I hope you do succeed in convincing the Democratic party to go even further Left." G2A
 And though not directly related, I feel for Hiram's comment left at the end of that old piece...  Kind of like a tree falling in the woods.

"Democrats HAD a candidate that knew how to connect to rural voters and address the economic concerns that Mr. Foster claims to be so difficult.  
"Who was that? There is a lot of finger pointing going around. A recent book places just about all of the blame on Hillary. No doubt a lot of mistakes were made by a lot of people, but the real problem is that we didn't have the choice of candidates we needed, Hillary, with all her faults and with all her many virtues, was our party's version of Jeb Bush, a dynastic candidate, running when the era of dynasties is long past. Had Hillary been running in a more filled out field for the nomination, I doubt if she would have made it to the first primary. But the fact was, because of our failures in local election after local election, we simply did not have a viable alternative to Hillary in 2016, and that's why Trump's re-election, despite his extraordinary level of incompetence, is as much of a sure thing there can be in American politics." Hiram

71 comments:

Anonymous said...

Many Democrats do have a sense that our fundamental mistake in 2016 was that we were too negative and hardly positive at all. Republicans can win that way but Democrats. The challenge issued on this board, "what are you for?" is much more an issue for us than Republicans.

That said, it wasn't easy. We simply didn't respect Trump or take him seriously. Still don't, actually. That's not a mistake, exactly, you can't really choose what you believe, but we did a lousy job in not showing it.

--Hiram

John said...

I thought the Dems made it pretty clear as summarized on my list. I copied it here not to continue that argument but just so I have easy access to it. And number 8. seems a strong common them. (ie healthcare, Higher Education, etc)

1. Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
2. Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
3. Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures
4. Strongly against deporting Illegal Workers
5. Strongly support granting border jumpers and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship
6. Strongly support giving illegal residents government benefits, sanctuary, drivers licenses, etc
7. Strongly support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate...
8. Strongly support more tax payer funded programs and higher minimum wages. Both of which cost American citizens more money. (ie higher taxes, higher prices and/or both)
9. Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures that would reduce drug smuggling from Central America even further. (ie pays for Cartels, gangs, etc)
10. Strongly against US military and State Department efforts to remove violent dictators / criminals, stabilize countries and help those people develop a more peaceful self governing society. (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc) And no we can not save everyone, but if we are in there for multiple reasons...
11. Now I do understand that Liberals do support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate...

John said...

Or as Jerry responded:

""The Democratic Partys Platform has a lot of statements of what they are for."G2A

"Yes, and just like Republicans, the Platform means nearly nothing to actual governance. The statement I quoted was actually from the DFL platform, and like most platform statements (again from either party) they are consensus statements of desiderata. One might also say that these platform statements reflect similar "ends" for each party, and that they all want everybody healthy, happy, prosperous, well-educated, etc. When we get beyond the wishful thinking is when everything goes awry. Republican policies tend to want to deal with realities like human nature and the laws of economics, recognizing that free markets and free peoples tend to maximize messy but efficient results, while Democrats believe that humanity can be perfected-- utopia-- can be delivered by government fiat (or at least one piece at a time).

Said another way, Republicans think Democrats are wrong; Democrats think Republicans are stupid and evil." Jerry

"And I can understand why the Liberals love these policies. They can feel good by providing sanctuary to the unfortunate of the world while not having to pay the bill." G2A

No, G2A, you're wrong. Liberals want to feel good and believe that there is no bill to be paid. To quote Capt. Jean Luc Picard, "Make it so." Jerry

jerrye92002 said...

Fascinating. For years I have been telling Republican primary candidates not to tell me how "conservative" they are, just tell me what you intend to do-- your solutions-- and I will put my own label on them. I don't care if you're the most conservative guy on the planet. If you can't convince me you've got a solution to the problem I'll find somebody that does. How you "self-identify" tells me who you think you are; it doesn't tell me who /I/ think you are.


As for liberals, I hear a lot of high-sounding intentions, but then reality intrudes. Be a frickin' communist, for all I care, so long as you offer up a realistic solution (which of course you cannot possibly).

Anonymous said...

I think it's pretty clear what we are for. We did have a president for 8 years.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

One of the more valid criticisms conservatives make of liberals is that we are hypocrites. I have always felt this was true myself. We are always falling short of our ideals. Way too often we lack the courage of our convictions. I am a huge fan of "The West Wing" (all episodes stream on Netflix) and an episode I often think of is the one where President Bartlet is reamed out by retiring Supreme Court justice, Mason Adams. "Americans like guts," the justice says, "And Republicans have got 'em." While the truth is a little more complicated than that, among other things, Republican guts involve sending people they don't know into wars they can't win, but the political perception is still a reality we must deal with.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
However I think that a large number of Liberals think that he was too Conservative, and since he was severely constrained by the House GOP... I guess I really don't know how far he would have gone on:
- taxing the successful
- growing government programs and handouts
- inviting in more poor people to compete with our poor
- mandating higher minimum wages
- protecting public employees from competition

It seems to me that many "progressives" want the Dem Party to go further left. And GovTrack has Obama pretty far Left.

jerrye92002 said...

"We did have a president for 8 years."

And you're for THAT!!??

I will say again I don't think liberals can be hypocrites, because they hold no fixed standards against which their actions can be measured-- they are "moral relativists." Now, when the Democrat Congress passed the ACA and included them and their staffs under it, I thought that was very principled. When they turned around within weeks and got themselves exempted by, essentially, an Executive Order, they /looked/ like hypocrites, but it was merely political gamesmanship.

Anonymous said...

I think that a large number of Liberals think that he was too Conservative,

Lots of people think lots of things, and Trump said just about all of them. From where I sit, Trump said a lot of things that appeal to me. He was skeptical of intervention. He rejected the Hillary-ist reflexive mindset. He said he opposed the Iraq War. In terms of economics, he tended to be protectionist, very much a liberal as opposed to a conservative view. In health care, he wanted to cover more people at a lower cost. I am certainly for that too. And there are times we see these views in his presidency. I think it's just fine to use the bargaining power of the federal government to force business to hire and retain American workers. What surprises me that it is a Republican who wants to do that.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

can be hypocrites, because they hold no fixed standards against which their actions can be measured--

I am a big soccer fan. In soccer as with most back and forth sports, they have offsides rules. In soccer, unlike football, there is no fixed line crossing the crossing of which creates a penalty. It moves, and sometimes it's just a few inches from the goal. But the fact that it isn't fixed doesn't mean it can't be recognized and enforced.

Moral relativism doesn't mean there aren't standards. What it tends to mean is that there are too many of them. My standard response to double standard claims is that I wish there were only two.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

My problem with the double standard is, as the term is usually used, there is one standard for one side of the divide, and a totally different standard for the other. See:
Mike Shelton

jerrye92002 said...

Responding to the title, one word: Venezuela.

Laurie said...

I don't understand the point of listing your understanding of liberal values of beliefs repeatedly but seeing it for the third or fourth time has annoyed me enough to respond. The phrase strongly supports irritates me in general. Does sending an occasional email or phone call to my rep on an issue make me a strong supporter on that issue? I would consider my 2 issues which I strongly support are health care for all and combat climate change. Anyway I made a brief comment below on my views on the issues listed.


1. Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
I'm ok with continuing to bring in refugees from Syria. The vetting process has worked well so far.

2. Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
this one is just dumb as it is just restating #1 in a different way. Isn't the inflow already slow?

3. Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures
Didn't Obama already do increased border security over his 2 terms? A wall along the entire border seems very expensive and dumb to me

4. Strongly against deporting Illegal Workers
Didn't Obama deport millions? do we rally need 10,000 new ICE agents? Can't we just continue deporting the worst people at a reasonable pace?

5. Strongly support granting border jumpers and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship seems a path to citizen ship for some is better than deporting 20 million people


6. Strongly support giving illegal residents government benefits, sanctuary, drivers licenses, etc
I'd rather share the road with licensed and insured drivers.


7. Strongly support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate...
So spending 1% of the budget on foreign aid is a bad idea?


8. Strongly support more tax payer funded programs and higher minimum wages. Both of which cost American citizens more money. (ie higher taxes, higher prices and/or both) Many greedy citizens are undeserving of a income of millions and billions and sharing a little bit of it is only right. this the most fundamental disagreement I have with your world view.


9. Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures that would reduce drug smuggling from Central America even further. (ie pays for Cartels, gangs, etc) the border wall is a repeat from earlier on your list and is anyone against reducing drug smuggling?


10. Strongly against US military and State Department efforts to remove violent dictators / criminals, stabilize countries and help those people develop a more peaceful self governing society. (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc) And no we can not save everyone, but if we are in there for multiple reasons...
Where has this been done? Are the countries listed ones where you consider this policy a success?

11. Now I do understand that Liberals do support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate.

So, again, what is the point of your list? Aren't these imaginary liberal views ones that you disagree with and consider misguided?

John said...

Laurie,
Since it seems you support all of them to some level... It seems they are not just in my imagination...

I will pose the same question that I asked Sean on the previous post...

"So how do reconcile these when our American working and poor classes are apparently struggling as is?

Now I agree that is generous to accept refugees if one is paying the bills themselves. But the Liberal desire to welcome many of the world's poor here to compete for jobs with our own poor... And expecting other citizens to pay more taxes and bills to support the Liberal's "caring action" seems funny strange.

That is why it seems much more coherent to me to help our struggling citizens by deporting illegal "low end" workers, constraining how many of these workers we bring in and instead helping them in their home country.

That is likely why I find the Liberal mantra of "the USA low level jobs don't pay enough" while they spend their money elsewhere, they provide sanctuary to illegal workers, they demand we let more needy in, etc seems very incoherent to me." G2A

John said...

The more interesting thing to me is why do Sean and yourself keep questioning the lists accuracy. And calling it imaginary.

And then you turn around and try to explain why the items on the list make sense...

Laurie said...

My views and votes are not incoherent and are for the greater good. They are in support of making a small corrective to the imperfect economy which overly rewards the greedy, undeserving rich. We as a country are rich enough to help some of the poor both here and abroad. Are you familiar with the starfish story?

It seems like your view/policy would leave employers unable to fill many positions. I think in the twin cities this is sometimes already a problem. It was at my school. We are currently looking for another ELL teacher (again)

Anonymous said...

My problem with the double standard is, as the term is usually used, there is one standard for one side of the divide, and a totally different standard for the other.

Oh sure, but that isn't something I have a problem with. Or the problem I have with it is the double standard argument itself, the claim the we haven't multiple standards, that we don't quite rightly hold different standards for different people. And I have a real problem with the cynicism this argument is made often made, since it's power is based on using an individuals own morality against him.

Double standard arguments are used just to obscure and bog the argument down. We saw this recently with regard to health care, the notion that policy shouldn't move forward unless treated the American people and Congress exactly the same, something which I don't even know what it means. Health care policy is hard enough. Should any of it's crafters be required to create a policy that not only serves the needs of three hundred million Americans but exactly serves the interes of 535 members of Congress, an infinestismal portion of the overall population? How much can we really ask of those folks?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"...overly rewards the greedy, undeserving rich."

Laurie, I was agreeing with you right down the line on your point-by-point responses, until I saw this. I want to know why you think the rich are undeserving? Did they not achieve their wealth by providing some great service or product, that people willingly purchased? Are the poor and objects of liberal generosity deserving of other people's money, extracted by government force? I have no problem with the ideal of helping everybody, and I almost commend you for that generous spirit. But I DO have a problem with the real-world implementations. I suppose that makes me a "conservative." It doesn't make me evil or stupid, which is what I often hear when I say that health care is not a right, or that fossil fuels are NOT catastrophically warming the planet.

jerrye92002 said...

"Should any of it's crafters be required to create a policy that not only serves the needs of three hundred million Americans but exactly serves the interes of 535 members of Congress, an infinestismal portion of the overall population?"

A. What makes that "infinitesimal portion" of the population think they are smart enough to craft a policy for everybody else, and
B. If they are insistent on exempting themselves from the law they write for everybody else, isn't that a sure sign it is a clinker?

I keep saying Republicans should repeal the law for everybody, but allow anybody that wants to keep the O'care they like can do so. Then let everybody else, including Congress, choose what works for them.

Anonymous said...

What makes that "infinitesimal portion" of the population think they are smart enough to craft a policy for everybody else

They were elected.

B. If they are insistent on exempting themselves from the law they write for everybody else, isn't that a sure sign it is a clinker?

I am sure it is, but all policies have their clinker aspects. If the clinker aspect here is that a policy disadvantages 535 individuals out of a country of 300 million, I would say that's a pretty small price to pay. It doesn't make sense to me that their personal interests should serve as a rationale for holding the rest of the country hostage.

Basically what Republicans want to do is retain the benefits of Obamacare while getting rid of the provisions that pay for it. There willingness to do that sort of thing is a major reason why Republicans govern so badly. It's why their policy in this area isn't intended to deal with the issue, it's designed rather to shift political responsibility in ways that deceive voters.

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie... Is this the Star Fish story you are talking about?

"A young girl was walking along a beach upon which thousands of starfish had been washed up during a terrible storm. When she came to each starfish, she would pick it up, and throw it back into the ocean. People watched her with amusement.

She had been doing this for some time when a man approached her and said, “Little girl, why are you doing this? Look at this beach! You can’t save all these starfish. You can’t begin to make a difference!”

The girl seemed crushed, suddenly deflated. But after a few moments, she bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as she could into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied, “Well, I made a difference to that one!”

The old man looked at the girl inquisitively and thought about what she had done and said. Inspired, he joined the little girl in throwing starfish back into the sea. Soon others joined, and all the starfish were saved.

Adapted from The Star Thrower"

John said...

If so... 2 key points...

1. The little girl and the man were practicing charity through their own efforts. Something that Jerry and I both advocate for. What Liberals advocate is "doing good deeds and making others pay for it"... That is a pretty big difference.

2. When the little girl threw the Star Fish back into the ocean, it did no harm to the other Star Fish in the ocean.

When the Liberals support large numbers of Illegal, Immigrant and Refugee Workers coming to or staying in the USA... It floods the job market for low skill / low knowledge, and additional competition drives down wages... Which of course harms our working poor.

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, bringing people in raises the demand for services pushing prices up. Like many swords, immigration policy has two edges.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

The economy worked much more fairly back in 1965.

The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 295.9-to-1 in 2013, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.

I am sure their are policies in addition to tax the rich that could decrease inequality slightly. I just went with the most obvious and easy to understand.

So what is your answer to employers who can't find workers under your no immigration policy?

John said...

Laurie,
I think you have stumbled into the point of labor markets and capitalism...

I think the employers should PAY MORE and OFFER BETTER BENEFITS to help them attract employees. Then once wages and benefits increase so the Liberals are happy, then we start selectively allowing more legal immigrants and temporary workers into the country.

This along with controlling welfare wisely should encourage people to strive too learn, work, move, etc and overall improve their lives. Definitely much better than flooding the low end work force with applicants and complaining about low wages.

As for CEO to worker compensation... Let's stop complaining about the size of numerator, and start working to grow the denominator. And since you care so much about the unfortunate folks in America, I expect you to help Trump and me promote the Buy American Hire American concept.

John said...

That of course means rewarding the employees in the USA with your money instead of those in other countries... And rewarding American businesses who have a strong presence in the USA, even if it personally costs the consumer a few more dollars, a little bit less reliability, etc.

John said...

Hiram,
Legal immigration of people who support the needs of America is GREAT...

Flooding our low end work force with applicants does more harm than good.

Anonymous said...

Legal immigration of people who support the needs of America is GREAT...

Is illegal immigration of people who support the needs of America Great? Two guys are working at McDonald's making Egg McMuffins. One is here legally, the other here illegally. Are the Egg McMuffins made by one any less great than the Egg McMuffins of the other? Are their children, all of whom will be American citizens, in exactly the same way I am, be any less important to America's future?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Flooding our low end work force with applicants does more harm than good.

How do you know? I believe as a rule of thumb, people working does more good than harm. But I don't know exactly how to evaluate that. Good isn't something you can weigh or count. Maybe we could give them a test like we do in the schools.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Working is good in many ways, however most Liberals and some Conservatives are concerned that wages and benefits are not adequate in many low skill / low knowledge lines of work.

Now the 2 people making egg McMuffins may both be great employees who are doing a wonderful job, but if the illegal worker working there prevents a legal worker from getting the job or enables employers to pay less for the same work... Well, that is not good for America's legal working poor.

jerrye92002 said...

Quoted from Mullings:
"An interesting non-Trump question had to do with the two political parties. The question was: Do you think the Republican/Democratic Party is in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today, or is it out of touch?

For the GOP that response was 32% in touch, 62% out of touch. But, before you snicker into your morning coffee the response for the Democrats was 28% in touch 67% out of touch.

A Democratic Party in the gravitational pull of a Progressive black hole is not, apparently, playing very well out in the American countryside. "

Anonymous said...

Do you think the Republican/Democratic Party is in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today, or is it out of touch?

Parties tend to be in touch with their constituencies, as opposed to being in touch with "most Americans". But of course, this is a major issue within the parties, or at least within the Democratic Party, "How and to what extent should we reach out beyond our base?"

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

You raise an interesting point, but between the 32% who agree with the GOP and the 28% who agree with Democrats, you have 60% of the population, about the number that actually vote in an election. Perhaps we err when polls of the general public are taken? If you don't vote, you shouldn't kvetch.

John said...

Math question: 28% + 32% + 60% = 120% ???

I thought schools were better in the old days... :-)

Anonymous said...

I could go on at length about polls. Among other things, I don't think polls say what many people think they do.

--Hiram

John said...

Especially polls like this one...

"Do you think the Republican/Democratic Party is in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today, or is it out of touch? (GOP:32% in touch, 62% out of touch, Dems: 28% in touch 67% out of touch.)"

Since many hard core Progressives like Paul think the Dems are out of touch, not because they are too liberal... But because he thinks they are too Conservative.

Same for the GOP... Many Tea Party folk probably think the GOP is out of touch.

My guess is that only 20% or less of the population lie in between the parties. And maybe 10% lies outside each party on either end of the distribution.

jerrye92002 said...

28+30 EQUALS 60.

And you can't say that 20% lie between the parties until you distinguish between voters and the general public. about 40% do not vote at all, so their opinion doesn't matter, and they are probably uninformed or misinformed, IMHO. Of those who vote, I estimate 35% blindly vote GOP, 40% blindly vote Dem, 15% vote blindly, leaving about 10% (still a swing voter) who actually pay attention to what's going on. So, appealing to the base looks like a necessary strategy, and then fooling or convincing the remaining 25% is the key to victory.

John said...

Of course I can... But I think you are close... Maybe

"then fooling or convincing the remaining 15% is the key to victory."

Though the electoral college throws a wrench into that...

jerrye92002 said...

Actually, the electoral college saves us from having citizens of one state control the presidency. It does not apply to the House, or Senate, or the Courts. Those are controlled by "local" voters and majority rule.

I see Bernie Sanders making a pitch today against the Democrat Party establishment, saying the Party needs to "get in tough with the grassroots" again. If the grass roots really wanted Socialism, he might be right. Unfortunately, it is Democrat activists which seem most inclined in that direction.

I also note DNC chair Perez yesterday saying that pro-life Democrats will not be tolerated in the Party. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Actually, the electoral college saves us from having citizens of one state control the presidency.

Then how come I knew Trump won when he carried Ohio?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Why did the founders believe that where a person lived should have an impact on how much his vote should count? Was this discussed at the Constitutional Convention?

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Same old answer... We are a Republic of States, not a National democracy...

Anonymous said...

"Socialism"

Democratic Socialism. And Bernie is right.

Anonymoose

jerrye92002 said...

Right about what, please? That the grassroots wants socialism, or that the Party has lost touch with the grassroots by promoting socialism?

Anonymous said...

"Right about what, please?"

Just about everything.

Anonymoose

Anonymous said...

We are a Republic of States, not a National democracy

Does it say that somewhere in the Constitution? It seems unlikely that was discussed at the Constitutional Convention because the founders didn't envision a role for voters at all. That being the case, it's hard to conclude that they felt the vote of individuals of some states should count more than others. And the fact is, Ohio wasn't even a state in 1787.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"Just about everything."

Just the sort of answer I would expect from a liberal. If two liberal wishlist items are mutually exclusive, liberals will fervently favor both.

John said...

Hiram,
Are you one of those guys who blames the poor field goal kicker for losing the game when he misses that last second 50 yard field goal attempt? Ignoring all the actions taken by all the other players during the other 59 minutes of the game?

Ohio has no more power than the other states.

Anonymous said...

"Just the sort of answer I would expect from a liberal."

As if anything you've ever written here is anything more than Conservative Republican boilerplate nonsense. You don't like that Liberals can entertain multiple ideas while trying to figure out what will be the best option for the greatest number of people. You don't like that the world isn't nearly as black and white as you'd prefer. That's fine...it's just the sort of answer I would expect from a Republican.

Anonymoose

Anonymous said...


Ohio has no more power than the other states.

The issue isn't one of state power. States aren't registered voters. The question rather is whether people who live in certain states have more power.

"Are you one of those guys who blames the poor field goal kicker for losing the game when he misses that last second 50 yard field goal attempt?"

I don't know that I go around blaming players a lot, but obviously the kicker is one of the most important players on the field. I certainly don't think the outcome of games is influenced by the benchwarmers.

In general, most football players on any team are simply generic and replaceable. Only a handful matter, and have a significant outcome on the game. For whatever it's worth kickers fall in that category. In general, pro sports deals in a lot of false equivalency. Most teams don't matter, they are simply opponents, someone to give the Patriots to play before the playoffs start.

--Hiram



Anonymous said...

In planning a football team, just as in planning a presidential election campaign resources need to be allocated on the elements that matter. On any given football team, most players don't really matter. They are paid at or close to minimum wage. Their careers last only three or four years. The big money contracts go only to just a few players. Similarly, in presidential politics most states don't matter. In Minnesota, for example, the presidential campaigns barely exist. Our votes just don't matter to the national campaign.

--Hiram

John said...

Of course the MN votes mattered, it gave Hillary all of the State's delegates. And if she could have won a couple of more States, she may have won the election...

Here is an interesting graphic.

John said...

Thank Heavens for the electoral college and the power of the States. Otherwise it looks like the election would have been decided by 2 states... NY and Calif...

Sean said...

"Otherwise it looks like the election would have been decided by 2 states... NY and Calif..."

That makes no sense at all.

John said...

Of course it does...

Snope Clinton Win From Cali

It makes as much sense as Trump's win came from Ohio...

Anonymous said...

Of course the MN votes mattered

Then why wasn't there a presidential campaign here? Or in California? Or in New York? Or in fact Texas?

Thank Heavens for the electoral college and the power of the States.

States don't vote. It's because they don't register, and because they aren't people. Our system doesn't favor voters; it favors voters in certain states, at the extent of others. States, by the way, that didn't exist when the constitution was created. Voters who vote in largely underpopulated states have far more power than voters who live in California or Texas. Why is that? Is it because they are smarter?

Following the football analogy, why should football games be defined by the quarterback? Why does he get paid most of the money? Isn't the part time special teamer just as important? Shouldn't he get the big contract too?

--Hiram



Sean said...

California and New York represented 15% of the votes cast in 2016. It's impossible for them to have decided the election. (And I note that when Republicans talk about the outsized impact of large states, they always seem to leave out Texas.)

Anonymous said...

Just a reminder, California is a state, not a voter. It's people who decide elections, and the argument is made that the impact an individual voter should vary depending on where he happens to live on election day.

--Hiram

John said...

Sean,
And Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan have only 10% of the electors... What is your point?

Hiram,
Who wins elections is actually dictated by the votes and the election rules that are in place. And as you know, I am very happy that the people in the cities / coasts don't get to dictate the laws to the rest of us. :-)

By the way, no one would come to MN either way. Our population is not large enough. We will likely get more visitors if the rules stay as they are and the MN race gets closer.

jerrye92002 said...

"As if anything you've ever written here is anything more than Conservative Republican boilerplate nonsense."

At least "everything... I've written" is reasonably consistent, at least in my own mind, with some clear ideology or, dare I say, objective reality. The liberal ability to entertain two diametrically opposite ideas simultaneously has always baffled me. Perhaps it is sign of great intelligence that there is no cognitive dissonance, but to me it just sounds stupid when, for example, Nancy Pelosi says she never called for Trump's impeachment, and then Fox News plays a dozen video clips of her doing exactly that.

If "going further left" means this kind of "logic" plays out across the board, then I doubt that ordinary folks like me are ever going to understand, let alone embrace it. Please, please, Democrats, go further left!

jerrye92002 said...

I remember, years ago, we had a large influx of Democrats showing up at the GOP caucuses because they felt their pro-life views were no longer being supported by the Democrat Party. Now DNC Chairman Perez has made it abundantly clear that unless you are a radically pro-abortion candidate or voter, the Democrats don't want you at all. Thanks, Tom! We will be happy to take these "deplorables" into the GOP.

Anonymous said...

Who wins elections is actually dictated by the votes and the election rules that are in place.

The rules we have put in place favor voters in some states over others. Why should a vote in Ohio count more than a vote in California? Are their no cities in Ohio? Florida is another state where individual votes count more. Are there no cities in Florida? Is the Sunshine State lacking in coastal regions? And of course, for those who believe the original intent of the framers should matter, neither state was part of the union in 1787.

--Hiram


Sean said...

"What is your point?"

The popular vote results are not determined by one or two states. It's determined by aggregating all of the individual votes from across the country.

jerrye92002 said...

If we're going to debate the Electoral College, then consider the Republican proposal to allocate the Electoral College votes as the Constitution provided them. That is, each state received a number of Electors equal to the number of their representatives in Congress, plus two from each state, as they have Senators. Minnesota therefore has 8 (Congress) and 2 (Senate) for a total of 10. The Republican proposal would allocate 8 of those votes according to which candidate won each Congressional District, and only two to the statewide winner, rather than all 10 to the statewide winner as is now the case. In the last election, therefore, rather than Hillary Clinton receiving 10 votes and Trump nothing, they each would have received 5. That far more accurately reflects the popular vote, and reduces the advantage the big states have. In California, Clinton would have received only 48 of the 55 EC votes.

jerrye92002 said...

"The popular vote results are not determined by one or two states."

Take out the popular vote advantage Clinton had in just two states (that is, make the state a tie) and she loses.

Sean said...

OK, but there are lots of factors that made up the overall gap. The fact that Trump dramatically underperformed in Texas, or failed to make much of a dent in the usual Democratic gap in his home state of New York played a role, as did Clinton's underperformance in places like Minnesota.

Anonymous said...

If we're going to debate the Electoral College, then consider the Republican proposal to allocate the Electoral College votes as the Constitution provided them.

Many Democrats are advocating this also. By requiring the electoral college to in effect validate the popular vote, the electoral college would cease to be a factor in presidential politics.

The practical problem is political. Donald Trump has argued that the electoral college gives Democrats an advantage. If he is right, I would think you would find that Democrats would be reluctant to give it up. On the other hand, Republicans are very aware that the last two presidents to win the electoral college while losing the electoral college vote were Republicans. That may help to explain why Republicans seem not to favor eliminating the electoral college. So without either Democratic or Republican support, change is unlikely. But the downside is that we now have a president seen by huge segment of the population as politically illegitimate.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Generally speaking, the way we design electoral districts is pretty hideous. It's an incredibly politicized and partisan process which results in a bizarre form of gerrymandering. It makes little sense for Congress to be organized that way, and so I don't see that it makes much sense to extend the political impact of that process to the election of the president. It's the rare dumb idea that gets smarter by making it bigger.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Actually, in the last election, just two states, MN and CA, would have given 12 more EC votes to Trump than the current winner-take-all system. It makes sense that if Republicans control both House and Senate, the Electoral college would reflect that "popular" vote, whereas the current popular vote totals include those districts and states that vote overwhelmingly for one candidate or the other, completely disenfranchising the "huge segment" of the state that voted the other way.

I point out it is impossible to "gerrymander" the Senate, but House Districts do, indeed, tend to favor the party in power, unless they are Republicans. Here in MN, in particular, the "fair" districting proposed by the GOP in 2010 was taken to court by Democrats seeking to use their wildly gerrymandered proposal. The resulting "compromise" slightly favored the DFL.

My solution has been to point out that the mathematical algorithms to do this already exist, and a completely unbiased mathematical solution to redistricting could be employed. I suspect it would make nobody happy, except mathematicians, and only 39.7% of those.

jerrye92002 said...

And if MN loses a Congressional seat in 2020, this is going to very difficult to do "manually," while a piece of cake for the computer.

Anonymous said...

It makes sense that if Republicans control both House and Senate, the Electoral college would reflect that "popular" vote,

Lots of things make sense of course, but there isn't much of a link here. As President Trump points out, he won the electoral college by a fairly substantial margin, yet he lost the popular vote by a significant lack of plurality. In terms of proportion, there isn't much of a relationship between the popular and electoral college vote.

In terms of gerrymandering, the job was done by the founders who favored smaller over larger states, for reasons not particularly relevant now.

I think it is possible to reapportion congressional districts in ways that would result in a Congress and electoral college that would reflect the popular vote. But that sentence is full of disputable issues, and would require elective officials to very often act against their own partisan interests. In this partisan environment the effort required to start that process would be better allocated to teaching pigs to fly.

Since Minnesota barely retained the 8th seat in 2010, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which we wouldn't lose one seat in 2020.

--Hiram