It’s official: the Angry Right of 2009 is verifiably more insane than the Angry Left of 2001-2005.
How do I know? Because of this poll:
The poll asked this question: “Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?” The overall top-line is legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.
Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% — an outright majority — saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided. Among McCain voters, the breakdown is 31%-49%-20%. By comparison, independents weigh in at 72%-18%-10%, and Democrats are 86%-9%-4%.
Now, look: the poll is by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic outfit… but a respectable one, to the best of my understanding. And it’s certainly a leading question — if ACORN wasn’t mentioned specifically, maybe conservatives would get less riled up, and would be more likely to give a reasonable answer — but still: the results say what they say. This poll finds that a majority of Republicans think Obama’s election was illegitimate, that the presidency was “stolen.” This, even though Obama won 52.9% to 45.6% nationally — a margin of 9,549,105 votes — and 365 to 173 in the Electoral College.
So, how does this compare with the Left’s election-related paranoia of the early 2000s? Well, when many Democrats claimed that Bush “stole” the 2000 election, they were being imprecise and annoying, but their beef was at least plausible: Gore won the national popular vote by 0.5%, and lost the electoral vote by a razor-thin 271-266 margin, solely by virtue of a stunningly close, indeed statistically tied, 537-vote margin in Florida.
(On the flip side, GOP claims that the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election and the 2008 Minnesota Senate election were “stolen” fall into a similar category as Dems’ claims about the 2000 presidential election. These arguments are overly simplistic and irritatingly blind to contrary facts, and they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of elections — but at least they’re plausible, in the sense that the elections were close enough that, in theory, they feasibly could have been “stolen.”)
When some Democrats claimed that Bush “stole” the 2004 election, they were being stupid and hypocritical, since: (1) Bush won the popular vote — a constitutionally irrelevant measuring stick, yes, but one these same voters had enthusiastically used in 2000 to discredit Bush’s disputed victory — by a clear 2.4% margin; and (2) Bush’s margin in the decisive state of Ohio, while it initially appeared quite close, ended up being a rather decisive 118,601 votes (2.1%). But at least we were still talking about a small city’s worth of votes in a single state, so the complaints, while unreasonable and ridiculous, arguably were not utterly and completely insane.
Claims that Obama “stole” the 2008 election, on the other hand? Absolute, certifiable, throw-’em-in-a-mental-hospital insanity. John McCain fell almost ten million votes short of a popular-vote victory, and a whopping 97 electoral votes short of the presidency. In order to “flip” the result, McCain would have had to win a minimum of seven states that he didn’t: most plausibly, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire. Obama’s average percentage margin in those seven states was 4.8%. His combined raw-vote margin? 1,058,763 votes. That’s almost ten times Bush’s margin in Ohio in 2004, and almost two thousand times Bush’s margin in Florida in 2000.
And yet 54 percent of Republicans honestly believe that ACORN generated literally millions of fake votes and handed Obama the election. Here is a short list of things that are more plausible than this belief:
• Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
• Sarah Palin is Trig Palin’s grandmother.
• The 9/11 attacks were an inside job.
• The Moon landing was faked.
I’m serious. Each and every one of those insane conspiracy theories is more plausible than “ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama.”
While I could go the “ha ha, Republicans are idiots” route here, I actually take no joy in this at all. If these poll results are accurate, they are deeply disturbing for the health of our Republic. They are also the latest damning piece of evidence against the failed institution known as American journalism, which now rarely rises above the level of substanceless distraction and abject propaganda, and which, as a rule, utterly fails to educate or inform the citizenry about a God damn thing (in large part because We, The People, demand to be neither educated nor informed). Only in today’s media climate could a majority of any group more mainstream than the Flat Earth Society believe something so completely f***ing ridiculous as “ACORN stole the 2008 election.”
I actually really hope this poll is flawed in some significant way, because if it’s accurate, God help us.
Really? Republicans are crazy? WOW!!!
Come on Brendan. You wasted a decent sized blog post on this? This should be obvious to EVERYONE. These people believe anything anyone feeds to them.
There’s crazy, and then there’s crazy.
This is crazy.
Most of these people also thought Sarah Palin was a respectable candidate for the second highest office in the country. This doesn’t surprise me at all.
I have another breaking news flash you might want to cover. Get this, a dog bit a guy down the street form me just the other day.
First, a digression: IMHO there are three reasons the lunacy of Sarah Palin persists on the American political landscape: 1) inertia from folks who thought she was the next Margaret Thatcher and haven’t checked in lately, 2) hostility from GOP true believers stick of the “stupid Republican” meme (around these parts, Gahrie might represent this view), and 3) she’s the ideal Trojan Horse for opponents of Obama to take their desired shots at him (or is it Him?)
Further, I believe that the third reason is growing in its share of explaining her continuing influence, and it ties into why many folks also believe Obama “stole” this election. Put simply, there are a lot of white people who perceive Obama to be the affable, friendly, but more or less useless poster child of everything wrong with Affirmative Action, why they hate that social program but dare not say so for fear of racial backlash.
Go on any decent-sized blog today and read a post about how badly Sarah Palin sucks, and for sure within 15 comments someone will remind you that Obama once thought there were 57 states. Sarah Palin sucking is an invitation for comparison to why Obama sucks, without running into fierce resistance from unprovoked criticism of a mensch, or worse, a mensch black man.
The hard part of this is that the jury is pretty much out on Obama’s competence. Nice guy sure, but there is a troublingly strong presumption that he has floated through life. I was in a similar discussion at one of the Atlantic blogs the other day, and someone made an impassioned and well-scripted defense of Obama’s competence, pointing to the quality of his exams and syllabi from his days as law school professor. Given the fact that the University of Chicago has taught Con Law more or less the same way for dozens of years, such a defense makes one wince. Throw in dcl’s good point about Obama floating through the health care conversation and, well, the dude starts to look a bit Palin-ish.
This is all just a long-winded way of saying that Republican belief that Obama stole the election is a proxy for complaints about Obama that may be real but may not be spoken. An ancillary observation is that this is why so many still love Sarah Palin – she is the ventriloquist’s dummy (pun intended) that allows them to say about Obama what they otherwise could not.
If this poll accurately reflects that a majority of Republicans think ACORN stole over 9 million votes for Obama, then I’d be disturbed. Color me skeptical, however.
First, as Brendan points out, it was a very leading question. I’m curious what percentage of Republicans were nudged to say yes because the question specifically referred to a notoriously corrupt organization that is known to engage in voter fraud, among other criminal acts. I suspect it’s not an insignificant number, but that’s just me.
Second, I’m curious what percentage of Republicans were just venting their frustration to pollsters and being sore losers, which is obviously very different than buying into conspiracy theories (to be fair, the same question should probably be asked about the Left’s election-related paranoia with respect to Bush, but as Brendan points out, that paranoia is at least slightly plausible).
Third, the question is poorly worded because if you believe that Obama was not “legitimately” elected for any reason other than ACORN stealing the election, then the either/or phrasing leaves you with no choice but to blame ACORN. For example, if the question was “Do you think that media stole the election for Obama?” then the poll results make more sense. Of course, the media “stealing” the election via biased coverage is not the same thing as ACORN literally stealing the election via voter fraud (that’s why I put “legitimately” in quotes above — the election results are still legitimate despite biased media coverage).
Fourth, I have not heard a single Republican or conservative — on Fox News or anywhere else — say or imply that ACORN fabricated over 9 million votes to steal the election for Obama. Not even Glenn Beck, who rants about ACORN constantly.
Finally, I don’t know anything about PPP’s methodology, but the last time I touted one of their polls, I had egg on my face.
P.S. Who exactly are the 13% of Democrats who believe or aren’t sure that ACORN stole the election for Obama?
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Hello there, friendly anti-Electoral College spammer! 🙂
I am very much aware of the National Popular Vote proposal. It is a terrible, terrible idea, which guarantees chaos in a close election. Here is my paper discussing the issue in detail.
If we’re going to switch to a popular vote system, we must do it properly, by amending the constitution and creating the national rules and institutions necessary to make such a system workable. Doing something so monumental and important on a piecemeal, state-by-state basis, without making the necessary changes to the underlying mechanisms of vote-casting and vote-counting and election dispute resolution, is an utter absurdity. This proposal was dreamed up by people who do not understand, or have not adequately considered, the nitty-gritty of how elections work. It is a plan driven by ideology and idealism rather than cold, hard realities and facts. It will not work. It would be a disaster for the country. It must never become law.
You know, I was thinking, and I think I figured out who Palin is.
She’s Walter Mondale.
Remember him? The vice presidential nominee from the previous losing ticket? The affiable guy who appealed to the far left wing of the Democratic Party, but nobody else? He was the Democrat’s Democrat, a guy who appealed to the entire party. And he lost big time.
Why did he lose? Because, after a recession, the economy had recovered. Because when compared with Reagan, he was seen as out of the mainstream, and Reagan was doing well.
All this to say . . . nominating Palin would be a disaster for the GOP. Its the type of disaster a major political party has avoided since Mondale. And while I don’t think a Reaganesque landslide is possible in the current climate . . . Palin would be simply decimated.
Also, I am amused by anybody spamming for or against the Electoral College. Not something I forsaw anybody ever spamming about.
Great analogy, and amusing to boot, considering I just saw a post the other day by a conservative blogger comparing Palin not to 1984 Mondale, but to… 1980 Reagan.
Your analogy is much, much more apt, methinks.
Incidentally, possibly the best thing that could happen to Obama’s 2012 prospects — well, aside from the nomination of Sarah Palin — is for the GOP to take back the House in 2010. It probably won’t happen, but if it does, it would virtually assure Obama’s re-election, just as the 1994 Republican Revolution virtually assured Clinton’s re-election (something I, at 13 years old, actually predicted at the time, the day after the ’94 election — still my greatest feat of political prognostication, amid a minefield of disasters such as “Hillary Clinton will not win a single primary“). When people are inclined to be pissed off, the best thing that can happen to the party in power is to… share power.
*In case anyone is wondering, the above statement should be read as “Obama’s twenty-twelve prospects.” 🙂
National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences. It is a simple matter that your vote should count as much as everyone else’s.
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives “exclusive” and “plenary” control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.
In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
Hee hee. Yes Yes. Ten Four. 🙂
mvymvymvy, I’m not going to rehash my entire paper here. But suffice it to say, your use of the word “simple” to describe what you are proposing — the first national election in the history of the country — demonstrates your ignorance of the subject matter far more convincingly than any argument I could make. Elections are many things, but they are not “simple.”
A true national election (which, again, we have NEVER HAD, so precedents regarding the state-by-state conduct of non-national elections are irrelevant) cannot feasibly be conducted without uniform rules and laws, administered by national institutions. Well, they can, but it’s a horrible idea, because in a close election, the system would break down completely. To claim that the existing patchwork of state laws, regulations, agencies, voting methods, vote-counting methods, and dispute resolution mechanisms can produce a legitimate national popular vote result in a close race is utter lunacy.
Your proposal, again, is based on idealism, not reality. Reform of the election system must be done through the proper channels, and reform proposals without proper input from people who understand the nitty-gritty of elections — not just high-minded ideals about what elections SHOULD be, but actual facts on the ground about what elections ARE, how they work, and what’s needed to make them run smoothly — are downright dangerous.
Despite the title of my paper, I am not unalterably opposed to scrapping the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote. But if this is to be done, it must be done correctly. And I cannot say enough about how terrible this specific “popular vote” proposal is.
Comment 16 was to Brendan’s re Twenty Twelve. / For mvy3, it would be Four Oh Four, maaan. ;> Read Brendan’s linked article. In the only kind of election where it matters — the Very Close Popular Vote one — your Interstate Compact will not Work.
The problem common to both the Palin-is-Mondale and the Palin-is-Reagan theories is that neither Mondale nor Reagan was an Idiot.
The U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.
Now voters in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the voters of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. It is a simple matter that your vote should count as much as anyone else’s, as it does in elections for other offices.
The National Popular Vote bill simply guarantees that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. Adding up votes of all voters and winning with the most popular votes is the method that is used in virtually every other election in the country.
I never claimed that the Constitution requires that (though Bush v. Gore‘s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause does raise some serious questions). Then again, the Constitution doesn’t contemplate the Electoral College being used as a proxy for a national popular vote election! It gives the Legislatures the power to decide how the electors would be doled out, yes, but the Founding Fathers obviously never anticipated that they’d be doled out on the basis of other states’ popular elections, with no central or uniform way to count the votes! All 50 states could potentially have different “national” vote tallies, since there is no central national vote-tallier. You could have a court in Maine deciding what the vote tally in Texas was, and another court in California reaching a different conclusion about the same Texas tally. The idea isn’t unconstitutional (at least not on that ground), it’s just f***ing insane.
It’s just common sense that, if you’re going to have a national election — which, again, we have NEVER, EVER HAD IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, something your continuing insistence in pointing to how things have worked in the past completely ignores — you need national rules and mechanisms for conducting it, and resolving disputes about it.
But seriously: I’ve read your materials. I know what your proposal says. Nowhere in the NPV manifesto are my concerns even remotely addressed. If you want to understand my concerns, instead of dismissing them with rote, copy-and-pasted talking points that have nothing to do with the arguments I’m raising, read my paper.
neither Mondale nor Reagan was an Idiot.
LOL…tell that to the “Reagan is an amiable dunce” / “Reagan had alzheimer’s since he took office” Left.
Stop saying the words “simple” and “simply.” Every time you do, your credibility decreases further. There is NOTHING SIMPLE about conducting the first national election in the history of our Republic.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Under the current system, there are 51 separate vote pools in every presidential election. Thus, our nation’s 56 presidential elections have really been 2,135 separate elections. This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation’s 56 presidential elections. The 51 separate pools regularly create artificial crises in elections in which the vote is not at all close on a nationwide basis, but close in particular states.
A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility. A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections). All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election. The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state. A state’s ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.
If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.
The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee “finality” in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January. These constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents apply equally to a presidential election conducted under the National Popular Vote legislation and an election conducted under the current system.
So, mvy3, you will elect a President by national popular vote but with each State continuing to enact & enforce (as now) different laws re voter Eligibility, Registration, Deadlines, Absentee voting, Voting Mechanisms, Polling Hours, Independent/3rd-party candidacy qualification methods, ballot design, tabulation systems, etc etc etc ad infinitum — AND (AS NOW) with no authoritative National mechanism (i.e., Federal Government authority) to officially determine what the final certified National Popular Vote Totals ARE. Right? [Not to mention, no National Recount mechanism (as now), etc etc. Read Brendan’s paper as linked above. Not just the Synopsis; the paper.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html
You’re verging on troll status, mvy3. I’m fairly certain I’ve read some of this exact language in FAQs on the NPV website. Stop copy-and-pasting irrelevant talking points, and address the arguments that are actually being made.
And read my paper.
Joe Mama, I didn’t say Reagan was a Genius. 🙂
It is important to note that neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
Joe Loy (my father) is a former elections official in the State of Connection. He used to prepare Certificates of Ascertainment. He, and I, are very well aware of what they are.
You, on the other hand, are not, if you think they are responsive to our concerns about the workability of the insane “National Popular Vote” compact plan.
Read my paper. I am aware of every single one of the arguments you’re making. None of them address my concerns.
“No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.”
Of course it does, because there is no conceivable legal authority to stop it from doing so in a close, disputed race.
Just because you say “it’s conclusive!!” doesn’t make it so. Florida’s results were “conclusive,” too. But nothing is ever actually “conclusive” in a squeaky-close race (like the 1960 election would have been, if it had been decided by national popular vote). Legal challenges will be filed, in every jurisdiction where they conceivably can, and they will be heard by the courts, and they will potentially result in inconsistent outcomes.
The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December). This sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal “safe harbor” statute to mean that the deadline for the state to finalize their vote count is 6 days before the meeting of the Electoral College.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”[Spelling as per original]
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called “safe harbor” date established by section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code).
In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.
It may be argued that the schedule established by the U.S. Constitution may sometimes rush the count (and possibly even create injustice). However, there can be no argument that this schedule exists in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes; that this schedule guarantees “finality” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections under the current system.
OK, mvy3, that’s not even remotely relevant.
Oy. Anyways, watching an anti-electoral college TROLL is even more interesting!
I’m officially done feeding this copy/paste troll:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+state-by-state+winner-take-all+system+is+not+a+firewall%2C+but+instead+causes+unnecessary+fires.+%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+common+nationwide+date+for+meeting+of+the+Electoral+College+has+been+set+by+federal+law+as+the+first+Monday+after+the+second+Wednesday+in+December.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22It+is+important+to+note+that+neither+the+current+system+nor+the+National+Popular+Vote+compact+permits+any+state+to+get+involved+in+judging+the+election%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22You+can+see+the+Certificates+of+Ascertainment+for+all+50+states+and+the+District+of+Columbia+containing+the+official+%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Well, the second post was a bit more relevant.
But is that going to stop court challenges in a close election? I think not. And I doubt that if there are 20 states with challenged counts, that this will be able to be resolved by Inauguration Day, much less by the time the Electoral College meets.
If we’re going to go to popular vote, we need to amend the Constitution to support that. Not enact a piecemeal system destined for disaster.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. Awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The state-by-state winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All the U.S. Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.” A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.
mvy3, the Certificates of Ascertainment show the popular vote in each state for that state’s various slates of candidates for the state office of presidential electors — votes cast under the several states’ highly non-uniform rules for electing such electors. There is no official, uniformly-administered, national direct popular vote for the federal offices of President & Vice President. / There CAN be — but not administered & Determined by the members of an Interstate Compact. / You’re missing the point here: to be workable, fair, and democratic a true National Popular-Vote Election MUST dispense entirely with the present nonuniform state-by-state election system, with respect to the offices so elected. An Interstate Compact cannot do this. A Constitutional Amendment can. / To argue the wonderfulness of state-by-state election-law federalism in support of a National Popular Election is absurd.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22There+is+nothing+in+the+U.S.+Constitution+that+needs+to+be+changed+in+order+to+have+a+national+popular+vote+for+President%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Dad, mvy3 isn’t “missing the point.” Indeed, he/she is not making, or responding to, any “points” at all. He/she is literally just copy-and-pasting from NPV promotional materials. It’s possible he/she isn’t even a real person, but rather some sort of Robot Troll which automatically picks up on keywords in selected blog conversations and “responds” with the purportedly relevant talking point. I doubt it — but it’s possible. Certainly, he/she/it has expressed no original human thought as of yet on this thread.
Its time to give it up. He’s copying and pasting paragraphs with no regard to what we’re saying.
Its like talking to a computer. Sure, you can argue with it, but is it going to hear you? And who has wasted their time in that scenario?
Btw, on the original topic here: IMO the only US Presidential election that was verifiably Stolen was in 1876. (Ah yes, I remember it well. 🙂
mvy3, without exception your CopyPasties ;> are informing us of things that we already know. Inform yourself of some things that you Don’t. Go read Brendan’s paper.
Changing the way we elect the President is an important topic that deserves careful scrutiny. Responses to concerns that have been raised before and now during the course of the debate on the National Popular Vote bill can be found at
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php
Brendan: OK, but surely even a Robot could benefit from reading your Paper. 🙂
Hm. OK, maybe Not. 😉
Brendan, it’s time to break out your ban hammer 🙂
Is . . . . is . . . . is it done yet?
Incidentally, I predict that if Palin runs, she’ll run 3rd Party.
Granted, she’ll have to get somebody with a Brain to reconstruct the data re what that Means & how it’s Done & how shockingly Early one must start (“…and would you please Explain about the Fifty Ways” ~ Paul Simon 🙂 — but there are professional Wheel Reinventors who rediscover these processes Quadrennially so I’m sure she’ll be OK. ;>
No, Sarah’s big Problem will be that the equally-egomaniacal Lou Dobbs will be damned if he’s gonna take 2nd spot on Anybody’s ticket. Hm. :}
1) Joe: “IMO the only US Presidential election that was verifiably Stolen was in 1876.”
You mean the one in which the Democrats traded the presidency to the Republicans in exchange for the end of reconstruction and the rise of the Democratic Redeemers who imposed Jim Crow on Blacks in the South?
Also, aren’t you forgetting the election of 1960? It’s as verified a stolen election as 1876 was.
2) Brendan: This was one poll, from a Democratic operation. Before you begin hyperventilating can we have a cite of any Republican official, any Republican organization or any media figure who is making this accusation?
3) How about a post about ACORN’s proven voter registration fraud? Proven voter fraud? Proven financial irregularities and embezzlement? Documented (and videotaped) support and advice for defrauding the government and prostitution, including child prostitution. Proven lies to the media? For variety you could run a post or two about their affiliation with SEIU and SEIU’s attacks on protestors, and the failure of Democratic officials to prosecute them.
4) Gov. Palin is not stupid. Would she make a good president? I don’t know. But I do know that the rabid attacks by the Left on her says far more about the Left than it does Gov. Palin.
5) Do you want to know the biggest reason why Middle America likes Gov. Palin? Because they know she is not an elitest and they see the coastal elites attacking her unfairly and so she has become a symbol of the resentment the average American feels about the way the elites think, feel and treat average Americans.
Gov. Palin is not stupid
If you believe that, then I can only conclude one thing, you think she is not stupid, which means her intelligence level must be at or above yours. Knowing that explains a lot of things.
David K:
You prove my case..both about the rabid Left, and the supposed elites.
This woman is a college graduate and has been very successful in business and politics.
You have a very bad problem with attacking people personally instead of their positions. It makes it very hard to treat you seriously.
Can you really call her “governor” Palin still? I mean she was only governor for like 18 months inbetween running with McCain on the Republican ticket and then a 6 month publicity tour outside of Alaska.
I never knew there was such a thing as a “National Popular Vote Troll”. I must frequent the wrong message boards.
Palin wouldn’t ONE state in a Republican primary. The crusty old white bastards would chew her up and spit her out, so the 3rd party route is the smartest and easiest route for her. Ross Perot delivered the re-election to Bill Clinton, just like Palin will deliver the re-election to Barack. No wonder Obama doesn’t have anything negative to say about Palin.
gahrie, there’s nothing impressive about someone who completes their undergrad degree in 6 years after attending 4 different colleges and junior colleges in the process.
What is stupid?
Is it referring to the 57 (or 60) United States?
is it confusing the Medal of honor with the Congressional Medal of Freedom?
Is it referring to the “Austrian” language?
Is it giving the Prime Misister of England a bunch of DVDs he can’t use?
Is it trying to go through a plate glass window instead of a door? (remember how we all laughed and laughed when Pres. Bush couldn’t find the door in that room in China?)
Is it claiming that jobs is a three letter word? (imagine if VP Quayle had said that!)
Is it claiming that FDR talked to the American people on TV?
Is it asking a wheelchair-bound man to stand up?
Sandy:
You are forever banned from commenteing on anybody else’s intelligence.
At least Gov. Palin acknowledges that we went to the Moon.
I think 70% of Americans believe we went to the moon, so what? More than half of Britons believe we never went, so I guess they’re morons too. I don’t think that’s a referendum on intelligence.
Saying Sarah Palin is stupid is redundant. Your list of gaffes is ridiculous. There’s a difference between saying 57 when you mean 47 and believing Africa is a country or not being able to answer any questions in your only debate, or making a fluff interviewer like Katie Couric look like Mike Wallace because you don’t know anything, including the magazines and newspapers that you don’t read.
Tell you what…here’s an easy one for you lefties:
1) Name one smart Conservative.
2) Name one stupid Liberal (or progressive)
1) Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity
2) Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Jesse Jackson
I mean what’s the point of this excercise? I don’t believe that Limbaugh, Hannity or O’reilly actually believe the things they’re saying (in O’Reilly’s case the things he said during the Bush presidency). It wouldn’t surprise me for a second if Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly all voted for Clinton and/or Obama and John Kerry. They’re smart, their audience is ignorant as hell and they deliver a product for them. They’re entertainers not leaders. They want money and drawing an audience is how you get it. I could argue all day long for conservative values, creationism, anti-abortion, anti-minorities, Jesus, and anything else I don’t believe in if you offered me a $300 million contract too. Who cares, it’s just words for cash, and a product for people with low level cognitive constructs,
wow..you may be loony (literally) but you sure know backhanded compliments..
I’m starting to feel a little sad for you
By the way, none of the “smart Republicans” you mentioned is a Republican (except maybe Hannity), they are media figures.
By the way, gahrie, SandyU didn’t mention any “smart Republicans.” He simply enumerated your two categories, which were:
“1) Name one smart Conservative.
2) Name one stupid Liberal (or progressive)”
Whaddaya, Stupid or sumpin’? 🙂 [Granted, Sandy did err. He didn’t name One each. He named Three. ;]
My nominees are:
One Smart Conservative: George F. Will
One Stupid Liberal: Keith Olbermann
And now, expanding the categories whilst continuing to draw from the deep pool of MediaLand:
One DumbBunny RadicalRightie: Michelle Malkin
One Brilliant RadicalLeftie: Rachel Maddow
;}
OK..my bad..what about my comment to you above about stolen elections?
“1) Joe: ‘IMO the only US Presidential election that was verifiably Stolen was in 1876.’
“You mean the one in which the Democrats traded the presidency to the Republicans in exchange for the end of reconstruction and the rise of the Democratic Redeemers who imposed Jim Crow on Blacks in the South?”
gahrie: Yup. The Very one. 🙂
“Also, aren’t you forgetting the election of 1960? It’s as verified a stolen election as 1876 was.”
Nope. I wasn’t forgetting it (honest, I thought about it :), and I think it isn’t as verified. Granted, Hizzoner da Mayor Dick Daley, and Guv’nuh Price Daniel and/or other LBJ minions, may have stolen Illinois and Texas respectively; but it’s far from Conclusive. Of course it’s become the Stuff of Legend: ballot boxes floating down the Pedernales; voter-registration drives in the Southside cemeteries; “Hello Mistah Mayuh, Bobby heah, now uh, how much do you think ouah mahgin in the uh, City will be?” “Bob, how much da ya Need?” etc. ;}
gahrie, the fact that you can’t differentiate between success and intelligence is pretty telling. The fact that you don’t understand the differences between simple brain farts and outright stupidity is another. You made this about YOU a long time ago, I just got tired of taking the high road and decided to respond to you at your level. Not ideal, but ohwell, its kinda fun.
David K: I don’t know about you, but I would much rather have a successful president than an intelligent one. That goes for every politician in my book.
By the way..when Pres. Obama or VP Biden mis-speak..it’s a brainfart. When a Republican does it, it’s proof of how stupid there are. Nope..no bias here.
Just to revert (again) to the Original topic here — as y’all know, I’m always a bigfat Fan of Originalism in all its Forms 🙂 ~~ here are two more Microcosmic Manifestations of the very Madness that Brendan was ranting about: the bogus “election” of “Congressman” Owens in NY CD 23 was conjured by a rampantly-contagious Virus craftily injected (presumably by ACORN software geniuses 😉 into the uncertified Voting Machines (which, btw, were in No way electronically Connected with one another).
Trust Me on This (I’ve worked with comparable voting systems) ~~ the above-linked articles are utter Crap. / But, sadly, they do illustrate & reinforce the Point of the original Post.
If Sarah Palin were a regular commenter in this community, she would far and away be the least effective contributor to these discussions. I have in mind a stereotypical discussion of…you name it….FISA or guns or Cindy Sheehan or something like that….and in the one corner you have Joe Mama and Gahrie and in the other might be David K and pthread with someone like dcl on the fence.
Gahrie, you can label Sarah Palin smart based on whatever amorphous definition of smart you prefer, perhaps you define smart as “getting Gahrie to believe in you”, in which case, perhaps she’s smart.
But you saw her resignation speech. Based on that, it simply beggars belief that you and Joe Mama would want Palin’s vapidity on your side on some stereotypical lefty-righty Irish Trojan debate. You probably think David K is an easy foil in these debates; but even if that’s true, if Palin jumped in on your side, you’d lose. You betcha.
I never said Gov. Palin was smart. I said she wasn’t stupid. She like hundreds of millions of other Americans is probably average.
By the way, I’m still waiting to see Pres. Obama’s test scores, grades and course selections in his academic career.
What is the reason for all the secrecy?
In fact, Palin’s incomprehensible and bizarre resignation rant is certainly in the conversation for least impressive political moment of the last 25 years. May have a hard time eclipsing Admiral Stockdale’s unforgettable “gridlock!” performance in the 1992 VP debate, but it’s surely in the same ballpark of unfathomable content-free word salad.
Not smart. Not even close.
Given the performance of the Ivy league intelligensia over the past 21 years (and yes I am including both of the Pres.s Bush) millions of average Americans and I are taking the following William F Buckley statement to heart:
“I would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the phonebook rather than the faculty at Harvard University.”
Add in the open contempt the coastal elites have for average Americans and their irrational attacks on Gov. Palin, and you have your answer as to Gov. Palin’s popularity.
Gahrie,
When you refer to “irrational attacks” against Governor Palin, that is no doubt code for “Andrew Sullivan thinks her kid is really her nephew”. People use that code all the time, but oddly no one talks the details, which point I have fruitlessly raised here before. But this added wrinkle occured to me today:
As has been endlessly rehashed, Gov Palin’s water broke sometime the morning of her talk in Dallas. She gave the talk anyway, pressed the flesh for awhile, drove to DFW, waited for a plane, flew to Seattle….etc…
A big chunk of that trip would be from north of Vancouver island, not long after departure from Sea-Tac, up to Anchorage. A long way, and not much civilization there. If her child had been born during that ~4-hour window, he’s pretty much screwed if he needs emergency care. No controversy there. Sake of argument, let’s say that the trip from Vancouver Island to Anchorage was about hour +9 to hour +13 from discovering her water broke that morning in Dallas. Ballpark, at least, right?
What are the odds of a 5th child, 2 months premature, being born somewhere in the window of +9 hours to +13 hours from the water breaking? Well, I am not an OB, and even if I were, Palin’s particular situation would complicate such a forecast. Nevertheless, we armchair OB’s know the odds are pretty good, for fun, let’s say they are around 1 in 3. 1 in 3 fifth pregnancies, 2 months premature, may end up in delivery at +9 to +13 hours post-water breaking.
Now 50% of children born with Down Syndrome require emergency NICU care for heart problems at birth. If Palin’s child is born over the mountains of northwest British Columbia without needing such care, and there’s a friendly GP on board to stabilize the baby, that’s a win for Palin, the story actually helps her career.
OTOH, if the baby is born needing the care, and its nowhere near available, and the baby is severely damaged, or worse, dies from those circumstances, then by all means that series of events would kill Palin’s career. It may also be a felony, but even if you don’t think a village has any business interfering with the raising of the child, the bad repurcussions from carelessly delivering a baby over the uninhabited mountains of NW BC, and the child dying because there was not adequate care – career killer, yes?
Following my numbers then, there’s a 1 in 3 chance of delivery, and from there a 1 in 2 chance of a catastrophic outcome (speaking specifically career-wise). So Sarah Palin arguably took a 1 in 6 risk at destroying her career (to say nothing of a helpless infant’s life), for what reason? Oh, cause her family doesn’t like Texas OBs. Gotcha.
You see, I am actually with Andrew Sullivan on this one, I think that story can’t possibly be true because I can’t imagine anyone taking such a callous risk with the wellbeing of their child, to say nothing of their career. But for you apparently that’s no big deal, it isn’t nuts (though questioning it is), and indeed says nothing negative about her fitness to be President.
I can’t help but asking: if taking a 1 in 6 chance at destroying your career, for no reason, isn’t nuts but rather rational, do you belong to the local Russian Roulette club? Are you guys meeting at one of your homes tonight, or will it be at that abandoned warehouse down by the river?
David K: I don’t know about you, but I would much rather have a successful president than an intelligent one. That goes for every politician in my book.
THIS is your counter-argument? You can’t actually provide a defense of Sarah Palin being intelligent, so you claim that successful Presidents are better than intelligent ones (as if the two can’t be one and the same)??
So you claimed that Sarah Palin is a success based on what? Barely graduating from some of the weakest academic programs in the country? Being mayor of a tiny Alaskan town? Being Governor (and then quiting) of the easiest State in the Union? None of those things speak all that highly of her being successful in the Vice-Presidency/Presidency. Heck, she could be the worlds best janitor, still doesn’t mean she’ll make a good President.
By the way..when Pres. Obama or VP Biden mis-speak..it’s a brainfart. When a Republican does it, it’s proof of how stupid there are. Nope..no bias here.
See gahrie, this is yet another reason why I think you are a blind ideologue and intelectually not all there.
First, you make a blanket statement that has absolutely no substance.
Second, you make a black/white pronunciation on an issue that is obviously not black and white.
You are completely ignoring content here! Accidentally saying 57 states instead of 50? Slip of the tongue.
Believing that Alaska would be the first line of defense in a Russian invasion of the U.S. by Vladimir Putin? Sign of stupidity, lack of knowledge of the world, and frightening. Of course the idea that Russia would invade the U.S. is ridiculous on its face to begin with, but through Alaska? Then what? Slog through Canada too?
I don’t think Sarah Palin is an idiot because of some slips of the tongue, I think she’s an idiot because she can barely put a coherent sentence together during a non-hositle interview (then attacks the interviewer for her own ineptitude). When asked what magazines and newspapers she reads she couldn’t answer the question. Thats not a trick question or a surprise quesiton or a hard question. Its a question a 5th grader can answer. She actually believes the governent is trying to set up DEATH PANELS! The woman is a loon! She may be popular with a particularly uninformed, blindly-partisan far right group of people, but that doesn’t change the fact she’s an idiot. Lots of idiots are popular, just look at high school!
That you are conflating my criticism of Sarah Palin’s intelligence with some sort of over-arching attribution of idiocy to every Republican politician out there is yet another sign that you are incapable of intelligent discourse. Please provide some examples of instances where I’ve called Republicans stupid for simple slips of the tongue. Good luck, because I haven’t done so.
Jazz:
OMG..you’re a birther!
So now we have someone who doesn’t believe we landed on the moon, and a birther calling Gov. Palin stupid.
What is even better, it is in a thread in which Brendan attacks Republicans for supposedly believing that an organization convicted of vote fraud and voter registration fraud may have stolen an election!
“She actually believes the governent is trying to set up DEATH PANELS!”
You mean like the panel the government set up that just recommended that women have fewer and later mamograms that will inevitably result in more women dying of breast cancer?
“Of course the idea that Russia would invade the U.S. is ridiculous on its face to begin with, but through Alaska?”
1) People were saying the same thing about Japan attacking Hawaii in 1941. They thought that Japan would never attack the U.S., and that if they did they would attack first in the Phillipenes.
2) Russia still resents the fact that we bought Alaska from them for far less than what it was worth, and definitely covets all of the oil, gold and natural resources that Alaska has. Considering that Alaska has a very low population, is extremely close to Russia, is full of valuable resources and that the Russians are much better at cold weather fighting, I don’t find it at all ridiculous that if Russia attacked that they would attack Alaska first.
Jazz: OMG..you’re a birther!
Technically, Gahrie, I think believing Obama was a Kenyan would make me a birther. Conversation for a different thread. In the end, Trig’s true mother is an empirical question, but let’s consider two scenarios:
a) FIRST – (the one that Andrew Sullivan, the Anchorage Daily News, and some others, including yours truly, suspect is true): Palin’s sister Heather Bruce discovers in late 2007/early 2008 that her pregnancy is a baby with Down Syndrome. Already struggling (fairly publicly) with an autistic child, Bruce chooses to abort and informs the Governor of this.
For her part, Sarah Palin would have been a couple months post-Kristol-starbursts, now a rising star in the Republican ranks, but with the baggage of being female for the misogynists in the evangelical movement. She recognizes that having a baby with Down Syndrome would be a huge win with that demographic, and it would help her sister to boot. Living in a small town that her family dominates, the logisitics aren’t nearly as challenging as they might be in a big city.
Very unfortunately for Sarah Palin, things move along with Heather Bruce while Palin is in Texas, which almost botches the plan, and the rest is history.
Then there’s the second possibility, which you and most other folks believe is true:
SECOND – Sarah Palin went into labor while in a major metropolitan area far from home. Though the baby had special needs very predictably needing post-birth emergency care, though she was in a major metropolitan area, though people give birth with an unfamiliar on-call OB every day, though the baby was pre-term, though it was her fifth child, she nevertheless flew half a day across half the uninhabited planet to give birth.
Empirically, either story may be true. But two implications baffle me:
1) You think scenario 2 makes Sarah Palin look less insane than scenario 1, and
2) You think I’m nuts for believing scenario 1, while you also believe scenario 2 is, patently, obviously true.
Really?
This thread is remarkable…a popular vote autotroller? BS-flinging back and forth about who’s smarter with a sideshow about whether “smart” is actually even a good thing? Awesome.
I woiuld like to address one thing, though: gahrie @ 76 wrote
To equate the updated USPSTF mammography recommendations with “death panels” is profoundly ridiculous. I would highly recommend a few in-depth discussions on the issue that can be found here, here, here, and here–it’s a complex medical argument that weighs the relative gains of early screening against the drawbacks, which includes a high rate of false positives that do lead to expensive, medically stressful procedures and ultimately unnecessary radiation exposure (which carries its own oncological risks).
The USPSTF, which has been around since ’84, clearly has been very clumsy in the release of its guidelines and has some major PR issues, and the guidelines may never be adopted by the relevant professional medical organizations. It’s not Obama trying to kill anyone by denying cancer care.
” I never said Gov. Palin was smart. I said she wasn’t stupid.”
gahrie, you may be right: Stupidity as Such may not be the problem.
The Smothers Brothers:
Dickie: “That’s about the stupidest song…not only that, the song’s stupid, you’re stupid!”
Tommy: “WELL OH YEAH?”
D: “You’re ignorant, too.”
T: “I’m not questioning that. I just like that song.”
🙂 Yes, it’s entirely possible — even common — to be cognitively functional and simultaneously Ignorant. The former is a gift; the latter a Choice. / Ignorance being Bliss, this explains why so many of us walk around all Delighted so much of the time. ;>
“She like hundreds of millions of other Americans is probably average.”
Right again. (Emphases added ) —
Indeed they are. Which is why Senator Hruska, himself both a Person and a Lawyer, was grateful for the Chance to provide just such Representation to his Constituents, who were Delighted to elect him to the House and then the Senate for a total of 24 years. ;}
(This concludes today’s edition of “Snark: the Bulletin of the Coastal Elite” 🙂
” It’s not Obama trying to kill anyone by denying cancer care.”
1) Never said it was. What I said was that it was a panel making a recomendation regarding healthcare that will inevitably result in more women dying from breast cancer.
This is objective truth. The key word in your defense of the recomendation is “expensive”. To the women who die from early onset breast cancer, the gains are hardly relative.
2) If you believe that this is the only such recomendation we will be seeing you are fooling yourself. I cite every single nationalized health care system in the world as my evidence.
There are millions of truly excess procedures in our healthcare system. These are the tests and procedures order by doctors to defend themselves from malpractice suits. sadly, not only do the Democrats ignore tort reform (Which has worked extremely well in the states who have tried it) they actually increase the ability for lawyers to sue doctors in their bill.
Gahrie, if you think that a recommendation is the same as what Sarah Palin’s “death panels” were, then I was right in my first estimation of where your intelligence level stands relative to Palin’s. I mean come on you aren’t even TRYING to answer the criticisms here. You accused me of having a double standard based on zero evidence, and can’t even respond when i call you out on it. You keep changing the subject because you know you can’t address these criticisms head on.
“…I don’t find it at all ridiculous that if Russia attacked that they would attack Alaska first.”
gahrie, I’m not too sure about the Harry Reid Deathpanels ;> but you’re right about WW III starting in Alaska, all right, and here’s the Proof. Any doubters, just go ask Brian Keith & Rock Hudson. Yes, this excellent Tee Vee Documentary scared the crap outta Me back in the Nineteen and Eighty-Two, lemme tellya; and now that Sarah’s no longer standing watch for Putin to Rear his Head over the Bering Sea, well, let’s just say it’s time to start taking a Crash course in the Cyrillic alphabet. ;]
David K: As to you”calling me out”..I reject your premise. Pre. Obama’s 57 state remark and Austrian language remark are exactly the type of incident seized upon by the left to label Pres. Bush as stupid.
Just imagine the reaction if Pres. Bush had so obviously depended on teleprompters as Pres. Obama does.
You have stated a distinction without a difference.
The death panels that people including Gov. Palin’s have been talking about are exactly the same as the governmental panel that has recommeded fewer and later mamograms.
There will be government panels and bureaucrats deciding what is the appropriate level of medical care. These decisions will set the level of coverage that will be permitted. These decisions will always be in favor of less treatment and less expensive treatment. These decisions will result in more deaths. They will be justified by a cost/benefit analysis that will always come out againt the interests of the individual.
These panels already exist in every country that has nationalized medicine. Check out the cancer mortality rates, and survival rates after diagnois in any country with nationalized medicine vesus the US.
They are much lower, because the cancers are diagnosed later, patients have lengthy waits for treatment, and are denied operations and drugs that we routinely administer.
We are going to have government bureaucrats deciding how much our lives are worth, and I for one am not happy about that.
To further split this thread: not only does the Andrew Sullivan, Heather-Bruce-didn’t-want-the-Down-Syndrome-kid-but-he-was-useful-to-Palin story transparently fit the fact pattern far better than the official story, as evidenced by the otherwise unimaginable trip over the wilds of Western British Columbia in the window when the disabled child would quite possibly be born. Occurs to me there’s another detail even more damning to Palin than that.
Because Palin’s weird journey didn’t end with the plane flight from Seattle to Anchorage. Having pushed her luck that far, she deplaned in Anchorage and then drove another hour+ to the wilds of Wasilla to “give birth” to Trig. Stretching my imagination as far as it will go, I’ll concede (try) that for some weird reason the kid has to be born in Alaska. Who knows, maybe the Palins are really secessionists and don’t want to take a chance of a Texas or Washington birth for a handicapped child when Alaska seeks its great identity as an independent nation. Or something.
Even if that were true. Palin is sitting in the airport in Seattle waiting for a 4-hour+ plane ride to Anchorage. For unfathomable reasons her doctor in Wasilla needs to deliver this baby. Already having carelessly jeopardized this baby by flying to Anchorage, she can’t freaking call ahead and have her personal doctor waiting for her in Anchorage??????
I mean she has this vaunted 80% approval rating, right? And the whole backwoods state/nation of Alaska loves her, right? And she’s like the Alaskan Evita, right? Yet, somehow, having already insanely endangered her handicapped baby by flying all the way back to the wilds of Alaska, she doesn’t even have enough pull to get her random, smalltown GP doctor to drag her sorry-ass to Anchorage to spare the beloved Governor one final trip, assuming she even makes it to Anchorage?
In summary, then: the official Trig birth narrative leads to two troubling implications: 1) Palin takes insanely bad risks for no apparent benefit, and worse 2) Even as the “most popular governor in the country”, Palin lacks the pull to get an anonymous small-town GP to travel an hour or so up the road, even though her kid’s life could hang in the balance.
Funny thing is, there’s a large part of the population that believes Andrew Sullivan’s version reflects disrespect for Palin’s intellect or power. I’ve no doubt Andrew Sullivan disrespects Palin’s intellect and power. However, even the slightest reflection should reveal that the official narrative makes Palin look far
more stupid and
more powerless
than the proposed conspiracy.
The mind reels.
1) It’s not, in fact, an objective truth that less aggressive early testing will “inevitably result in more women dying from breast cancer”. The whole point of the USPSTF recs is that substantial overdiagnosis occurs under the current guidelines and such overtreatment has its own morbidity and mortality risks. If you factor in costs as well, overdiagnosis can unnecessarily and substantially burden patients, insured or not, which can limit access to other necessary health care. Please read those links…it’s far more complex an issue than you appear to make it.
2) It’s a valid scientific question to determine when ‘proactive’ steps becomes comparably or more dangerous than the risks targetted. When faced with limited resources in time, money, equipment and training, the search for best practices is an effort to maximize a particular intervention’s role in overall healthcare. I’m perplexed as to why any conservative (or anyone else, for that matter) would be opposed to determining the most efficient utilization of finite resources. You can’t see the obvious and offensive bullshit ploy to label ‘best practices’ studies as ‘death panels’ for what it is, pure reactionary skullduggery?
Source please. According to this set of data, cancer mortality rates in the US rank above and below various European socialist paradises, pretty much right in the middle of pack of the First World.
“I’m perplexed as to why any conservative (or anyone else, for that matter) would be opposed to determining the most efficient utilization of finite resources”
We’re not. We’re opposed to the government making these decisions and imposing them on us and our doctors.
Cancer mortality rates:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
Did the government do that in this case? While the USPSTF is a government agency (part of HHS), did the recently-released guidelines automatically change the standard of care for anyone? Should HHS have no role in determining best practices? There was no uproar over their 2009 recommendations regarding coronary heart disease screening, bladder cancer screening, screening of adolescents/children for major depressive disorder, aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, etc. For anyone to equate such recommendations to ‘death panels’ is, in my opinion, profoundly ignorant.
5-year survival rates don’t equal mortality rates, gahrie. There is an important consideration of lead-time bias in those that are diagnosed…actual mortality rates–the deaths per population (see my link in #88)–aren’t substantially different between our helathcare system and many of those that are demonized by the politcal right.
“Did the government do that in this case? ”
Not yet..after all they don’t control health care in the United States..yet.
And this panel’s recomendations do effect both medicaid and private insurance coverage for mamograms.
Don’t you think this recomendation was just a little odd considering this same panel published a report in May of this year recomending mamograms either every year or every two years for women over 40? The same report expressed concerns that the number of women getting such tests was not as high as it should be.
Why is the HHS Secretary telling women to ignore these new recomendations?
I think it’s solely a PR move and I think Sebelius has thrown these USPSTF scientists under the bus…and I think the USPSTF has made several major errors in the presentation of the guidelines that has contributed to the public backlash.
I’m not sure if I support the USPSTF guidelines, but I think they’re an important voice in the debate; the raw data does provide a lot of support for some paring back of breast cancer screening, but maybe not to this extent.
Ultimately, I viscerally object that an important set of scientific and medical questions can be completely derailed by political gamesmanship at the expense of truly determining the optimal strategies for cancer prevention and treatment. This column captures some of the politics vs. science realities that underlies this kerfuffle.
“Ultimately, I viscerally object that an important set of scientific and medical questions can be completely derailed by political gamesmanship at the expense of truly determining the optimal strategies for cancer prevention and treatment. ”
Don’t you understand that this is inevitable when the government control healthcare? And who decides what is optimal? Who decides how many “life-years” are worth paying for? Right now, doctors and patients make these decisions and I think it should stay that way.
Don’t you understand that insurance companies currently make these “what is optimal?” decisions for most Americans? Don’t pretend it’s otherwise. There are many valid criticisms of increased government involvement in health care, but to act as if the current system is some sort of doctor-patient free market utopia is laughable half-a-false-dichotomy.
“Don’t you understand that insurance companies currently make these “what is optimal?”
Yes, and if I disagree with the companie’s determination, I can take my business elsewhere. If the company does this enough everyone takes their business elsewhere and it goes out of business. The government never goes out of business, and if the Democrats get their way, will have no competition.
The answers to our healthcare problems in the US are:
1) Tort reform. Every state that has tried tort reform is having great success in bringing down healthcare costs. Tort reform eliminates the need for defensive medicine. The Democratic plan actually makes it easier for lawyers to sue doctors.
Every state that has tried the Democratic plan is going bankrupt, reducing service and desperately trying to get the federal government to bail them out.
2) Increased competition. Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines.
3) Eliminate third payer billing. Make people pay for their healthcare and get re-imbursed by their insurance companies. (just like every other form of insurance) Why are plastic surgery, bariatric surgery and lasic surgery getting cheaper and cheaper even as they get better and better? Increased competiton and the fact that people are paying for these procedures out of their pocket.
David K: As to you”calling me out”..I reject your premise. Pre. Obama’s 57 state remark and Austrian language remark are exactly the type of incident seized upon by the left to label Pres. Bush as stupid.
Were you dropped on the head as a child? Believe it or not I am NOT “the left”. You made your double standard accusation against ME based on my criticism of Palin’s intelligence. YOU continue to try and twist this around and around while avoiding the actual issue at hand. Admit it. Admit you were wrong. Admit you tried to accuse me of a double standard based on zero evidence, based on completely distoring the situation. Give up this pathetic attempt to try and justify your behavior by throwing out irrelevant arguments that have NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. You just can’t get it right gahrie, not when you are talking about anything. You are just plain wrong 99% of the time.
David K: I have never ever heard you say anything good about the right or anything bad about the left. I have never seen you support a conservative idea or attack a liberal idea. I have seen you attempt to make a distinction where there is no distinction to be made. I stand by what I have said.
On to the other topic of this thread, while I didn’t read Scientizzle’s links, because I assume that on a technical basis he is almost certainly correct, I have to admit I agree with Gahrie that the coming rationing of American health care, whether codified in law or not, will be an unmitigated clusterf*** in the US, much more so than in other, more socialist First World countries.
I believe this because Americans, relative to those other countries, are basically much more selfish. Not only selfish, but also solipstic and beauty and coolness-obsessed. As a result, essential compassion and understanding necessary to run a just health care rationing system will have a hard time existing here, though we have something that looks like compassion it is often just a badge to satisfy our solipsism.
How this relates to rationing is that every American wants to be beautiful, and while we are beautiful, or near enough to being beautiful that we can fool ourselves that we are, we are certain that we would never want to live ugly. Corrolarily, we cannot imagine that if we were ugly, we would think that ugly beats the alternative, from our position of wholeness we figure it would just be better to die.
I don’t exempt myself from this (full disclosure: not beautiful, but fool myself regularly). I probably told the story here of the time my wife and I were doing pet therapy with our pooch at the nursing home, and one severely shrunken wheelchair-bound woman had just celebrated her 100th birthday the night before, to which I was all patronizing, saying “Hey, what a cool accomplishment! You made it to 100! What a life achievement!” and she scolded me saying “This isn’t it for me. I’m going to make it to 110.”
Along these lines, 60 Minutes did a piece tonight on end of life care, how expensive it is, and how often fruitless. They had some older physician, maybe Cedars Sinai, who was apparently some sort of expert, saying how utterly foolish it was for all these end-state patients to want this heroic care, don’t they know its expensive and often results in needless suffering? Why not just die?
And they showed this dude in action, talking to some poor soul suffering from end state liver disease, about whether the patient would want CPR if his heart failed. The patient said yes. The doctor explained, as if to a child, that the CPR would probably lead to much suffering and prolonged agony for this guy, and after all (pat pat on the hand) you’re not going to get better, so why not just die?
The patient’s face contorted in pain at the news that the CPR would prolong his agony…but he chose it anyway. The doctor was shocked. Why? He asked. The patient said “What choice do I have? What is the alternative?”
And you can see the wheels turning in the doctor’s mind “Alternative? How about: die real soon? With a smile on your face from the morphine? So that your relatives write me all these glowing notes about what a caring doctor I am, and then I will spend Friday night at the country club regaling all the other members with how much I care…”
This will go badly in America. I don’t see how it cannot.
gahrie, you are an idiot and a liar. You can stand by that all you want, it still doesn’t change the fact that you made a false unsupported accusation against me and proceeded to defend yourself by saying things that had NOTHING to do with said accusation. Can’t you admit when you’re wrong? Because you were, unequivocally wrong. So man up and admit you were wrong. Or are you afraid that once you start, you won’t be able to stop considering how wrong you are all the time.
As for saying anything good about the right, currently there isn’t much good to say about them if Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are what they have to offer as far as leadership goes. When the right actually starts standing for things like being fiscally conservative or defending individual rights, then I’ll have something good to say about them. When they look up to idiots, racists, and hate mongers? Sorry, there is nothing good to say about people like that. I don’t love the left, but they are far far FAR better than what the right presently offers.
Wrong about what?
That you irrationally attack the right and conservatives at every opportunity?
That you irrationally attack Gov. Palin?
That you engage in constant personal attacks?
That you have never said anything bad about anyone or anything on the left?
Returning to that poor patient on 60 Minutes who was being coached, or bullied, into a death for which he wasn’t prepared, consider the interests of various stakeholders:
1) The Doctor: prefers a quick death. Less hostility from management for wasting resources, less tension from family members as loved one suffers.
2) Family members: prefer a quick death. Don’t have to go through the agony of watching the poor guy suffer seemingly needlessly.
3) The hospital: prefers a quick death. For obvious cost reasons.
4) Society (you): prefer a quick death. See #3.
5) The patient, when he was young, perhaps via advanced directive: prefers a quick death. Figures that if he is ever in that situation will just want to die.
6) The patient, today: absolutely wants to live.
So you’re left with a system where all stakeholders want one outcome and the most important stakeholder wants another one. In this way the patient is like a special interest, looking to manipulate a system to get his way even though everyone else wants the opposite outcome.
Unlike other notorious special interests, such as subsidy-receiving farmers in Iowa, the dying man has few options to manipulate the opposed masses. The best he can do is appeal to the sympathies of his family or, perhaps, the doctor.
Which sort of situation is rather logically solved via a Death Panel. FWIW.
This is an entertaining thread.
I agree with Jazz that rationing health care in the U.S. will be a clusterfuck, but that might just be because I’m cool and beautiful.
And, again, Palin: one very smart thing her supporters have done is ending their discussion of the curious Trig birth circumstances with: “people who believe in conspiracies are nutters”. This imposes a cost on someone like David K for asking too many questions, as he will have to withstand “you’re nuts like Andrew Sullivan” crossfire, and perhaps this is a topic for which a guy like David K. wouldn’t want to sacrifice a pound of flesh. Understandable. And good strategy from the Palinistas, since questions are the bane of this story. One more example to distinguish between Andrew Sullivan’s questioning the possibility that “Heather-Bruce-didn’t-want-the-Down-Syndrome-kid-but-he-was-useful-to-Palin” and the official narrative:
Palin told no one in Texas why she had to leave in a rush.
If the Heather Bruce conspiracy were true, that decision makes absolute, rock-solid sense. Suppose Heather Bruce indeed gives birth to a child with Down Syndrome in Wasilla, which is forthwith “adopted” by Sarah Palin. If the timing can be managed correctly, and the information flow is limited, it could work. Of course, it also easily could not. Depending on the difficulties the baby has at birth, a wide range of specialists may need to treat it, and the wider the range, the more difficult to control the spin. Palin has influence in Wasilla, but she is also famous, and her sister would also be moderately so, which means there’s a good chance that a random cardiologist attending to the struggling newborn would realize who its mother was and raise a fuss.
If that happens, Palin could easily go to Plan B given the fact pattern of the story: I left Texas because I knew my sister was about to deliver a special needs baby, and it was so important to me to be there for her. Who knows, maybe Palin even publicly adopts her sister’s child under those circumstances.
Again, its very odd to leave a professional conference early to fly home to give birth and not tell a soul why you’re leaving. Very odd under normal circumstances. Perfectly sensible if something like the possible Sullivan conspiracy were true. In fact, what reasons could there be for her leaving in secret under the reported story? That she’s ashamed of her Down Syndrome baby? No way. That she doesn’t want to make a fuss? Palin. No. That her baby needs to be born in Alaska, since she’s a secessionist? Hm.
In other words, if the polity unpacked the details of the Trig birth story, they would rapidly realize that it all paints a rather unflattering picture, all the way around. To their credit, Team Palin has “solved” this problem by quickly imposing a “You’re nuts!” cost on anyone with the temerity to ask a question, and if its someone from the media, crying foul at the intrusion of media figures, who, you know, ask questions.
rationing health care in the U.S. will be a clusterfuck, but that might just be because I’m cool and beautiful.
Small point of clarification, but to my way of thinking the problem with rationing in the US arises from the fact that someday, doubtlessly a long way down the road, you will no longer be either cool or beautiful, but you will wish to live on nonetheless.
1) Look guys.. with as much hate as there is directed at Gov. Palin; as many bloggers (including some who live in Alaska) who have spent countless hours tearing her down; as many reporters sent to Alaska to dig up trash about her; as many Democratic officials who have filed harassment lawsuits against her; as much money offered by national media for trash on her; as many interviews that Levi Johnson has given….and the best you can come up with is….”well her sister might have been pregnant instead?”
For such a stupid woman she sure has been successful in covering her tracks and fooling the national media.
2)To their credit, Team Palin has “solved” this problem by quickly imposing a “You’re nuts!” cost on anyone with the temerity to ask a question, and if its someone from the media, crying foul at the intrusion of media figures, who, you know, ask questions.
If this is true, it is obvious that she learned the tactic from the Clintons. You know the people who created the nuts and sluts strategy in the first place?
3) http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzdiYTliN2MwYmJiNWY4OWVlZTA4ZmIwYzJkMjFjOGI=
Goldberg’s column, more or less emblatic of the establishment right’s defense of Palin, is replete with accusations of bilious hatred toward Palin. With respect to Sullivan, there may be some truth to that, as his pursuit of the Trig birther story often seems to have the flavor of a personal vendetta.
For me (not that you would have any reason to care, I am, after all, a nobody), the motivation is not so much hostility as trying to get to the bottom of curious or unlikely fact patterns. Perhaps I should have been Magnum PI (though see post #100: not beautiful enough).
FWIW, when faced with the choice of a) the published story of Trig’s birth and b) something like the Heather Bruce scenario, I certainly hope that the Heather Bruce story is true! Should it turn out to be true, that would not elicit hatred on my part toward Palin; it would elicit relief, as the “real” story would be consistent with rational behavior where the reported story is certainly not.
The right-wing establishment can say “hater over here” and “hater over there” as regards Trig birth skeptics, and your point about Clinton is well-taken, but can anyone say that they have more confidence in Palin’s judgment/rationality/etc. based on the published Trig birth story than if the Heather Bruce story were true? That seems hard to believe.
Jazz..did you read the column?
Someone published a quote from Gov. Palin’s book. The quote was attacked and Gov. Palin was attacked. Then the quote was revealed to be from one of Pres. Obama’s books. All of a sudden the same people were saying the quote actually wasn’t so bad.
If I had to guess, I’d predict that less than 10 pages total in the three autobiographies/memoirs (so far) from Palin + Obama were actually written by Palin/Obama. The presence of cheese in either book is an indication of poor internal controls from either camp; not really the kind of thing that would lead one to draw substantial conclusions about either.
Though it does seem that the right-wing punditry smells blood via the Palin bait-and-switch. (I.E: a) You think Palin’s stupid, b) Here’s a stupid thing about Palin, c) Surprise! Its really Obama.) The tactic is all over the rightwing blogosphere, already past its cleverness expiration date but showing little signs of abating, and as I have written elsewhere, it seems to me to be a real, if not overwhelming, threat to Obama, as it represents a possible Trojan Horse on the offchance that he is not who we think He is.
Someone published a quote from Gov. Palin’s book. The quote was attacked and Gov. Palin was attacked. Then the quote was revealed to be from one of Pres. Obama’s books. All of a sudden the same people were saying the quote actually wasn’t so bad.
My god?! There are jackass trolls on the internet?! Film at 11!
gahrie, let me give you a tip. Posting an article from the National Review isn’t really going to help your cause any. They are right up there with Fox News when it comes to objectivity.
Objectivity? Try credibility.
There’s no way that Palin gave birth to Trig, not that that determines a mother, of course a good mother would be with their down syndrome infant instead of running around the world on publicity and book tours, but I digress. Palin wasn’t showing at 9 months on her 5th child? Come on. You’re showing 2 or 3 months into your 2nd child, but this time nobody knew? Palin went about her life as if not pregnant? The most brainless part of this story is that she gets on a plane supposedly after her water breaks to fly from Texas to Alaska? WTF!!?!? She wouldn’t have been allowed on the plane at 9 months pregnant in the FIRST place flying TO TEXAS!! Pregnant women can’t fly 6 months into their pregnancy, so give me a friggin break with this Bullcrap story.
Palin is a pathological liar as much as she is a moron, and that just makes her irresistable entertainment.
David K:
OK..I know I am going to regret this..but just who do you believe is an objective source?
And for extra credit:
Which objective source is going to publish/research stories about ACORN, the hacked climate e-mails and left wing hate?
One Brilliant RadicalLeftie: Rachel Maddow
Doubtful, Joe.
What’s the big story with ACORN? A bunch of inner-city buffoons working on a shoestring budget getting paid 10 bucks an hour?
Hacked climate e-mails? Give me a break, like there’s a conspiracy by evil-doers to force people to not pollute the earth. Ooooooh, evil has a new face.
Talk about hate wing speech, tune out Glenn Beck, I think he’s targeting you for his audience.
Sandy:
What’s the big story with ACORN?
The big story is that ACORN is an organization deeply involved in Democratic politics subverting election laws and defrauding the government. An organization that until the recent relevations was to play a key role in the 2010 census. An organization still being protected by Democratic officials in California and Maryland. The story is the fact that the mainstream media still continues to ignore the corruption.
like there’s a conspiracy by evil-doers to force people to not pollute the earth.
If that’s all it was it would still be bad enough. Scientific fraud and a systematic attempt to subvert the scientific method? The whole global warming house of cards is built upon the data these “scientists” have corrupted.
But the real threat is that the movement does not seek to force people not to pollute. The US today is one of the most environmentally clean places on Earth. No, the movement seeks to seize control of the economies of the world and dictate to the people of the world their standard of living. They want to “redistribute” the wealth of the US and Europe and give it to third world kleptocrats.
And now it is becoming increasingly clear that it was all based on fraudulent science.