Disposal Day #155: The 25,000+ signature question

STORY #1: God loves petitions

If the Obama administration’s “We the People” initiative, which allows people to petition the White House online and even get a response (assuming the petition gets 25,000 signatures or more within 30 days), is used for people to voice legitimate policy concerns, it’s worth keeping. Unfortunately, that hasn’t always been the case. (Example.) I wouldn’t call a petition to label the Westboro Baptist Church a hate group a “legitimate policy concern” on the level of anything else we’ve covered this week. But who would disagree with that plan?

According to the FBI, the central purpose of a hate group is “to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization.” Well, that couldn’t describe Westboro any better. And in case any of you are wondering, these groups don’t have to commit a crime to be on the list, although they do have to commit a crime to be investigated. This would be a purely symbolic move. But it would make a lot of people very happy, and it would make Westboro’s reaction considerably funnier than any of their other reactions.

STORY #2: America’s got Piers

And that’s how the UK likes it, according to a British counter-petition against the one calling for CNN host Piers Morgan’s deportation. At the time of this writing, the original White House petition has 73,000 signatures, while the British one has 600. Of course, both numbers are approximately as meaningful as the popular vote in a Canadian election. The only numbers that matter to Morgan’s stint in the U.S. are the ratings for his show.

Whether “Kurt N.” of Austin likes it or not, you can’t deport a legal immigrant for expressing an (allegedly) unpopular opinion about American law. Nor can you, in all seriousness, call it an “attack on the Second Amendment” when someone calls for “a ban on high-powered assault rifles and high-capacity gun magazines.” Even Justice Antonin Scalia says the Second Amendment allows for that. Unfortunately for Kurt N., Scalia was born in New Jersey, so there’s no deporting him. But thanks for playing.

STORY #3: The Alan Parsons Project

Actually, going by the name of the originator of this petition, the appropriate name for the proposed U.S. Death Star is “the John D. Project.” Not that it matters, because the cost of a Death Star would be 13,000 times what the entire world economy could afford if it stopped paying for anything else. Also, I know of no planets that we desperately need to destroy. But John D. can always start up a battle droid factory. I hear those are cheaper and equally useful to national security.

FC got us fallin’ in loathe again

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by election officials in Fulton County, Georgia, principal county of the Atlanta metropolitan area – which, in case you’re interested, voted for President Obama by a slightly smaller margin than he won in 2008. While other counties across the U.S. no doubt had their fair share of trouble getting the voting process done, Fulton appears to be especially problematic, with inaccurate voter rolls, poor machinery and incompetent poll workers. And then they let Usher vote ahead of everyone else. Yes, that Usher. No word on how his bright crimson shoes voted, but I’m guessing they’re Republicans.

Here’s the county’s excuse, following their notification from Usher’s people that he intended to vote in person, which apparently is kind of a big deal:

. . . Poll Manager Frank Padula was directed to ensure that Mr. Raymond’s presence would not become a distraction by taking necessary measures to move Mr. Raymond through the process as expeditiously as possible. At no point was this decision made for preferential treatment, but to minimize and avoid a distraction at the poll.

How kind of Usher. Be allowed into the polling place through the back door and vote ahead of everyone else so they won’t be distracted. Well, guess what? One of them was. And now your county looks worse.

That voter pointed out that Usher could have voted absentee if he was so concerned about “distractions.” Seeing as we have yet to hear reports of other celebrities being allowed to jump the line, we can only assume they a) did just that, b) voted early, c) waited in line with the peasants or d) didn’t vote at all. If the fact that Usher photographed his ballot and himself – illegally – is any indication, a smooth and simple vote for everyone wasn’t uppermost in his mind.

If the others at the polling place hadn’t been waiting in line for up to 45 minutes, perhaps more, they might not have cared. But this county clearly had major problems helping people do something that really should take about five minutes from beginning to end. The only difference between them and Usher is that Usher’s famous, and officials will take him seriously when his people call ahead to alert them to his presence.

You know who deserves special treatment at the ballot box? The candidates. And their “special treatment” is limited to news cameras following them as they go in and out of the booth. Fulton County should make Usher pay the fine for photographing his ballot to make up for this.

What we’ve learned so far

It’s 10:21 p.m. here in Winnipeg, and CNN has just called the election – not only the national one, but Ohio, which is probably more painful for Republicans – for President Obama. I honestly expected the vote to go farther into the night, given the closeness of even the earliest results. But, here we are. Four more years for Obama. Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) will now, and possibly forever, be former Gov. and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. For both camps, the hard part is just beginning.

Seeing as Obama had the sense to write a concession speech, he must have known this election wasn’t in the bag – a foolish thing for anyone to believe. He is very, very lucky to have been entrusted with a second term. You might chalk this up to his generally good response to Superstorm Sandy, or the fact that no Democrat used the word “rape” except to talk about how horrible it is. But it could come down to this: Anemic economic growth, even if it took more government intervention than we usually like, is enough.

He will need to get to work as soon as he can to maintain that trust. There can be no more pet projects before the midterms. There can be no more picking winners and losers in terms of industry. And there definitely can be no more token tax cuts. He needs to go big on jobs and bigger on the debt. And once he’s proven that he’s put America on the right track when it comes to both, he needs to go big on immigration reform and ways to control costs (education, health care, etc.) that restrict social mobility. No more fucking around. It’s time for work.

As for the Republicans: While dining with Steve from Winnipeg yesterday, we agreed, with great disappointment, that the likeliest Republican reaction to an Obama win was that Romney or his surrogates – Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), namely – were insufficiently conservative. They’ll be tempted to do another hard-right drive, at least until the hard-rights inevitably get picked clean in the primaries. But, as we all know, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Romney needs to be the one to speak truth to bullshit. “Moderate Mitt” has always worked best for him. He needs to talk up the need to moderate the party, and be consistent about it. And he definitely needs to remind them about the need to appeal to Latino voters. After that he can go run a PAC, or become president of a university, or write more books, or whatever. And then he’ll be done. As one very intelligent tweet put it, he’ll be a Trivial Pursuit question. If he can’t do something to reform the GOP, he’ll be even more insignificant.

Let me express congratulations to Sens.-elect Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN), plus opponents of the Minnesota marriage amendment, which was defeated last night. Thank heavens.

Final election thoughts, until later anyway

OK, kids, tonight’s the night. My election post-mortem column will be up tomorrow, so be sure to tune in if you’re not too hungover or on hold with the Canadian consulate. (For the record, only Democrats should consider it.) There isn’t much in-depth analysis left to do, unless you’re into election mathematics, which I’m not; that’s why there won’t be any Electoral College or House/Senate projections here. So, tonight we’ll just go over some random observations I’ve had about the campaign and haven’t had occasion to mention yet.

Tone: I don’t know who’s been having President Obama’s ear since the first debate, but that person is an idiot. On the rare occasions he hasn’t been negative on the stump, he’s been clichéd, which can be even worse. On the other hand, former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) message of change, optimism and tomorrow feels as tacked on as it could possibly be. His messaging advisers have obviously been going for a Reagan-esque aesthetic, which would be a good thing if it weren’t so easily identified as a Reagan-esque aesthetic.

Precedent: As I see it, this election will turn out like one of two previous ones:

1. 1980: One-term Democratic president dealing with an unimpressive economy and surging gas prices gets whipped by Republican ex-governor who speaks in generalities and has a message of change, optimism and tomorrow.
2. 2004: Incumbent president with a certain charm beats tall, boring, pandering, flip-flopping opponent from Massachusetts against all odds, namely an unimpressive economy and a bungled foreign event.

Two-party preference: Despite my endorsement of former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM) and the frequency with which I’ve slagged him over the past year or so, I still prefer Obama, for the simple reason that I know what to expect from him. My concerns over Romney’s actual economic strategies, his possible judicial appointments and his nearly invisible credibility on foreign policy scream AVOID. Obama has accomplished the bare minimum. America needed more, but at least it got something.

Campaign marketing: Here’s an idea for the FCC: Install all new phones with a button that will zap a random campaign office volunteer in the event of a robocall or robotext. Seriously, send them to hell.

Vote no twice!: In addition to the national election, I’ve been keeping an eye on two ballot initiatives in Minnesota, on to require photo ID for voters and one to enshrine heterosexual marriage as the only marriage in the state Constitution. If you’re a Minnesotan, you’ve probably heard this before, but vote no twice. Do it.

Voters not of demographic born

It was still all about the female vote this weekend as both campaigns used their most effective attack lines to hook them. For President Obama, the theme was “They’ll take away your reproductive rights and public services”; for former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), it was “They’ve been bad for this economy, and that means they’ve been bad for your families.” When you take away the fact that Romney doesn’t have an alternative vision we haven’t heard from every national candidate since the birth of America, his line is much more effective among the general voting population – meaning, more effective, period.

You could ascribe this to the simple fact that more Americans are affected by economic woes than bizarre approaches to contraception. But there’s a little more to it than that. How do you deal with the rare voter who is generally satisfied with their life and isn’t swayed by pitches based on their gender, age, race, religion, marital status, employment status or anything else? What’s a candidate to do with a voter who has absolutely no horse in this race, except America’s horse?

I call these people the anti-identity voters. They have identities, to be sure, but they ignore them at the ballot box. They have their own political values, but are willing to push them aside if certain situations make them untenable for most affected. They are typically highly educated on general policy matters and may even work in the policy field. They have also typically experienced a party or ideological camp firsthand and decided the whole concept was a waste of the country’s time. They save their emotions for situations in which emotions might actually benefit somebody.

You can truly spot an anti-identity voter by how they react to appeals to their identity. Say the voter is a twenty-something woman and the candidate loves to talk about how good his leadership would be for youth. The voter sends the message that she doesn’t give two shits about how good he’d be for youth and wants to know what he’d do to pay down the debt. If he doesn’t have a decent answer, she rejects him as a lightweight. (This is purely hypothetical, I assure you.)

There is a risk to candidates if they spend too much time trying to attract this voter. As much as it kills me to admit it, there aren’t many of them. Prioritizing them above the average, identity-based voter runs the risk of alienating the latter in the short run; you have to resonate with both. But proving that you have a substantive, broadly effective policy agenda assures the former that you’re worthy of a second look should you be elected and want to run again.

Besides, having a substantive, broadly effective policy agenda is a good idea even when nobody’s looking at it. What else would you be running to do, anyway?

Don’t hate us because you can’t label us

Michelle Cottle may find it odd that I’m filing my response to her latest Daily Beast column under “Centrist Studies.” After all, she’s not attacking centrists, just swing voters:

. . . the vast majority of people still waffling aren’t . . . “independent” or “thoughtful” or centrist so much as . . . utterly clueless.

Already we have fallacy #1: People with ideological labels, “centrist” included, know more about the issues than everyone else. Therefore, they are not worth the candidates’ time, which is the crux of her entire argument. Unfortunately, she offers no evidence supporting the idea that swing voters are less informed than wingers, only the assumption that this is true because they haven’t picked a candidate. There is over a month to go, and there are many things President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) can do to make their ideas and records more appetizing in that month.

Fallacy #2: “5 or 10 percent” is a “wafer-thin” number of voters. That’s a pretty thick wafer. In the latest polls, Obama and Romney are separated by anywhere from zero to seven points. Does Cottle expect a 10-point-plus difference every time, or believe the candidates realistically expect a difference above that? Obama won by seven in 2008. Five or 10 points is the difference between a squeaker and a mandate. It’s enough to appeal to millions of voters outside your base. It’s the exact opposite of wafer-thin.

Fallacy #3: She ignores the guy she quoted who points out the role of swing voters’ economic circumstances. While gleefully posting quotes that make her argument look better, Cottle doesn’t address this point from pollster Jefrey Pollock: The daily political back-and-forth is repellent to people who worry how to keep their households afloat. Will Romney releasing his tax returns, or Obama holding a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, make them feel more optimistic about who can make their lives easier?

Fallacy #4: Not only do swing voters know nothing, they believe nothing. She does offer evidence suggesting that most independents trend left or right. Those who do not are not “thoughtful” – a word she repeats with such scorn that you could replace it with “menacing,” as she did in her headline for some reason – just lacking in conviction. This won’t be the last time someone accuses true independents of this, simply because they can’t be pigeonholed.

Fallacy #5: These voters “don’t really give a damn.” Then why are they voting?

If you want a realistic and academic examination of swing voters that is actually worth the column inches, pick up Linda Killian’s The Swing Vote. I’ll be disappointed if five of you don’t mail copies of it to Cottle.

Disposal Day #135: The Ryan reaction

STORY #1: Badger State battle?

Most pundits agree that former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) never wanted to shatter the Earth with his running mate selection. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has his strong points, but the ability to shatter the Earth isn’t one of them, although I will give him credit for being a rare politician who enjoys delving deeply into policy matters. But what do the numbers say? The Obama team is making hay out of the fact that Romney’s poll numbers haven’t moved much at all since the selection announcement – except, possibly, in Wisconsin.

The land flowing with cheese and bratwurst has 10 electoral votes – not a defining number, unless it’s the last state to be too close to call come Election Night, but not a number you can easily dismiss. If the GOP took Wisconsin this year, their win would be more symbolic than mathematical. Wisconsin has gone blue since 1988, and President Obama took it by 14 points in 2008. And the Midwest is where everything important happens on the stump. Keep your eye on the dairyland.

STORY #2: Thanks, but no thanks

Somehow Ryan’s turnaround on the 2008 stimulus package neither surprises nor bothers me. He’s been spending a good deal of time complaining about how “wasteful” it was for the American taxpayer. Turns out he tried to secure stimulus funds for two Wisconsin companies, and succeeded for one of them. And it was the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., no less, despite his promise to kill Energy Department subsidies for green jobs efforts.

He won’t have too much explaining to do about this. If anything, a line to the effect of “I believed the stimulus would be good for the state at first but I was wrong” is much deadlier than just “The stimulus was wrong.” The same could go for federal green jobs funding. Besides, any member of Congress who doesn’t try to get a piece of any federal pie for their district would be almost suspiciously principled.

STORY #3: Bonesaw is ready

Oh, boy: “The president, I’m told, is talking about Medicare today. We want this debate. We need this debate. And we will win this debate.” That’s what Ryan had to say to supporters at his alma mater, Miami University (in Oxford, Ohio). Unless the Obamans have mastered the numbers or have someone available who has, they would probably lose in a Medicare debate with Ryan if they were to hold it today, especially if a bunch of wonks were listening. He knows too much for their comfort.

Disposal Day #126: For all you numbers people

STORY #1: Buck you

I would like everyone who reads this to post a comment with their answer to this question: Without doing any research, which state is the biggest indicator of a presidential candidate’s performance? Everyone who answers correctly will avoid my contempt, which is as good as a prize. Anyway, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) is currently leading President Obama there by three points, which isn’t surprising for a blue-collar swing state. That, and he probably has the most potent political weapon of the two: Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH).

I didn’t mention this when I made my case for Portman as Romney’s running mate – and I credit Brian from Massachusetts for reminding me – but a partner from this state could put it squarely in red territory. I say could because it’s not a guarantee; as of February, Portman was less popular than fellow Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). However, much of that was due to his poor name recognition, and this would be the biggest profile-booster he could get. So it’s still a pretty safe bet.

STORY #2: Love us more

The Democratic establishment is finally starting to acknowledge that things aren’t looking good for their man – so not good, in fact, that he might actually not win!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!111!!!!!! (As you can see, I’m trying to contain my terror.) So what’s their solution? Look critically at the political situation and rework proposed new policies to suit it a little better? Nope. The solution is to get the people who are already going to vote for them to send them more money.

That, apparently, is why the Obama campaign wasted so much time on that Sarah Jessica Parker/Anna Wintour campaign. They know the magic is gone when it comes to Independents, liberal Republicans and new voters. Now they have to hang on even tighter to the people who were hanging on to them. That they’re giving up in public just goes to show how badly they’ve screwed up.

STORY #3: But not that badly

However, on a somewhat brighter note, Americans still say former President George W. Bush is more to blame for their economic woes than Obama. The spread isn’t nearly as great as it was in 2008 – then 80 percent Bush/32 percent Obama, now 65 percent Bush/52 percent Obama (see link for methodology). If Obama wants to use this, he can’t frame it as “I’m still trying to clean up this guy’s mess,” but “Romney will make this guy’s mess even worse.” Given who Romney has surrounded himself with, that might not be much of a stretch.

The legacy of Lugar

As I write this, NBC has just projected that Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) has lost the Republican nomination for his own seat to some Tea Party asshole who I can’t be bothered to name. (OK, his name is Richard Mourdock, but you may know him as STPAWICBBTN.) Unlike other GOP veterans who retired before they could be ousted by other STPAWICBBTNs in their own states, Lugar stuck it out; this would have been his seventh term. Sadly, in the next few days, you’ll see many Tea Party-type Republicans slapping each other on the back for a successful RINO (Republican In Name Only) hunt.

Honestly, what more could they ask for in a senator? Aside from being the chamber’s expert on nuclear proliferation and its longest-serving Republican, he has executive experience (mayor of Indianapolis from 1968-1976) and business experience (currently manages a 604-acre family farm and worked in the family food machinery business before entering politics); he was an Eagle Scout; he’s been married for nearly 56 years; and he’s never not been a Republican. There’s only one reason to discount him: He works nicely with Democrats. GASP.

I could take this moment to repeat the same old talking points about how irrelevant that is when your other option is a genuine statesman. Seeing as this is Indiana, home of the centrist Bayhs (the last of whom, former Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN], could charitably be described as the Democratic Lugar), you’d think they would have continued a strategy that was working perfectly well for them. Lugar lent the party some much-needed credibility and maturity. And his constituents knew it. Until now, apparently.

But STPAWICCBTN? What does he have to offer that every other Tea Party candidate in the country doesn’t? (He is a geologist by trade, which is pretty rare in politics, but so what?) Actually, his biggest offer is to the Indiana Democrats. They may actually run a candidate for that seat this time. And if voters start missing someone like Bayh in the absence of Lugar, that candidate might win.

It’s been proven many times for the past four years that Republicans, more so than Democrats, don’t like candidates who independents and centrists approve of. Perhaps this is because the biggest political fad of that time (the Tea Party) has favored them exclusively. But it will pass. Those same voters will ask where the people they elected have gotten them. Fads fade away, but wisdom and ability are forever.

If the worst thing you can say about Lugar is that he’s been in the Senate for six terms, or that he’s a insufficiently right-wing, he’s a much better member of Congress than most.

Review: “The Swing Vote” by Linda Killian

This year, I have been sent two books to review (and I’ll take more!), which is a very cool part of being a political blogger: It reassures you when you wonder if anyone is paying attention to your opinion. Such is the problem facing the people described in Linda Killian’s The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents. The book is a study of Americans who feel disconnected from the two-party, two-wing dichotomy, of whom there are millions – a true silent majority that needs to get louder.

Killian’s profile of a random American centrist/Independent/swing voter (these terms are often interchanged) is a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian voter who has had a history with both parties at different stages, then inevitably finds that the cons of one party have begun to outweigh the pros. Once they have gone through both, their only option is Independent status or nothing at all. Since “nothing at all” is of no use to any politician, there is no escaping Killian’s contention that both parties must appeal to Independents or perish.

Indeed, there is little room for excuses when she fingers the usual suspects for the American polarization: money, the media, closed primaries, gerrymandering. Every moderate member of Congress who has ever retired on account of partisanship has named one or more of these as the reasons their rabidly ideological counterparts stay. They have bigger machines behind them. Killian’s second-last chapter offers evidence that an Independent infrastructure is beginning to coalesce, which may provide the best hope for rising above the wingers.

One especially interesting aspect of The Swing Vote is Killian’s studies of Independent voters in four swing states of her choosing: New Hampshire (“the NPR Republicans”), Colorado (“the Facebook Generation”), Virginia (“the Starbucks Moms and Dads”) and Ohio (“the America First Democrats”). I would have included Indiana, Maine and North Carolina in there, but no doubt all of the states she chose are considered essential by both parties; one wonders why they risk tuning them out so often.

However, one missing element of Killian’s book is conversation with actual partisan voices, which are key to understanding why wingers behave as they do despite all evidence that it’s wrongheaded. “Why do you stick to this?” “Because it’s right.” “So what happens when Americans don’t think it’s right?” The answer to that would have been extraordinarily telling.

Overall, I found The Swing Vote an effective call to arms for centrists and Independents, and a foundation upon which to build for Independent books to come.