U.S. Electile Dysfunction 2016

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by garo

Ummm, Reagan.

Before I posted, I double-checked at least one list of popular vote totals, which clearly showed that Reagan got less than 50% in 1980. I'm trying to recall/figure out where that was.

Later: All the lists I now find show Reagan as having more than 50% of the popular vote, so I don't know where I saw the 49%+ figure for Reagan.

Thanks for catching my error.

[Xyzzy]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/m...-election.html

[rogue]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Before I posted, I double-checked at least one list of popular vote totals, which clearly showed that Reagan got less than 50% in 1980. I'm trying to recall/figure out where that was.

Later: All the lists I now find show Reagan as having more than 50% of the popular vote, so I don't know where I saw the 49%+ figure for Reagan.

Thanks for catching my error.

I heard a local news broadcast repeat cheesehead's error last week. Since "local" is the same for cheesehead and I, maybe the local news had the same source of misinformation.

Honestly though I was frustrated by the fact that it was stated as fact when it wasn't true and that checking the veracity of it would have been easy. I know newscasters are not perfect and make numerous mistakes, but mistakes like this should be the easiest to catch. I wonder if the mistake was an honest mistake or if someone had a political agenda in making it. I consider both to be equally likely, but I don't know which it it.

I strongly disagree with this. The Republicans have control in the state (as they do in Michigan) and redrew the districts to benefit them. According to the article, Wisconsin has voted for a Democrat in every presidential election since 1988. It would make zero logical sense for the Republicans to get more electoral votes even though the Democrats have more popular votes. As much as I dislike the electoral college, this is not the way to solve the problem. IMO, the presidential vote should be by popular vote alone. I feel sorry for the states with low population density, but this would help address some of the shenanigans going on at the state level in various states (think Florida).

[chappy]

http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/31.html

Methinks he doth want it not many times.

[cheesehead]

Opinions on how to fix the GOP:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-gop-must-c...063000331.html
"Why the GOP must come to terms with George W. Bush's disastrous presidency"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/op...aganomics.html
"Reaganism After Reagan"

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ef=rossdouthat
"In Search of Republican Reformers"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...ublican-party/
"How to Save the Republican Party "

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...al-yuval-levin
"The Republican Renewal"

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...es-pethokoukis
"No to the Flat Tax and Other Stale Ideas "

http://theweek.com/article/index/238...er-not-smaller
"Why conservatives should make government simpler, not smaller "

- - -

... and two commentaries on how the current U.S. political situation arose:

http://claremont.org/publications/pu...pub_detail.asp
"Upon Further Review: A CRB discussion of Political Extremism"

http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...article/139271
"Left 3.0"

[Xyzzy]

http://news.yahoo.com/first-intervie...-politics.html

[jasong]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Opinions on how to fix the GOP:

<snip>

I tend to side with the Republican Party, but when I saw the above, I decided I just had to say it.

Best way to fix the Republican Party: saltpeter

Now I just hope I got the term right and didn't state a joke that doesn't make any sense.

Spoiler in case I screwed up, or you just can't figure it out.

I believe saltpeter prevents erections when consumed in large enough quantities

[ewmayer]

Ever try putting salt on yours to see if it works as advertised?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Ever try putting salt on yours to see if it works as advertised?

As RDS might have said at this point: assumes that which is not in evidence.

[cheesehead]

Yet another candid statement of the GOP's real motives since 2008:

"'Opposing Black Guy in the White House' Is 'Good Politics' for This South Carolina Medicaid Flip-Flopper"
http://news.yahoo.com/opposing-black...161127452.html

"It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party," said Republican South Carolina House Member Kris Crawford in an interview about how he supported a Medicaid expansion despite his party affiliation. Now just guess what he did on Tuesday. Crawford voted on party lines and shot down a measure which would have granted a three-year expansion of Medicaid for the uninsured — an amendment which would have extended taxpayer-funded health insurance to 500,000 more people. (And you thought the governors had been having trouble on this issue.) Of course, now Crawford is going to have to delicately explain why he said what he said, did what he did, and not try to sound like he's pandering to racists and politics.

The dilemma facing Crawford, who was convicted of tax evasion in November, stems from a January 29 interview with the Charleston Regional Business Journal. The piece was a rather unexciting story on how there might be a few Republicans, like Crawford, who would support a measure for Medicaid expansion in the state. These are two key sentences from that interview:

So, to be clear, Crawford was for this measure a little over a month ago, but said there would be Republicans who would vote against what appears to be an Obama/Democrat initiative just because of the "good" optics of voting against President Obama... because of his race. Now, Crawford looks like one of those Republicans he spoke about, and hasn't released a statement (yet) explaining his vote. ...

[ewmayer]

Not to disagree with Richard's "GOP evil! Dems good!" repeat-o-meme, but it seems the "imperial presidency" is now a fixture associated with the office, not the party affiliation of its holder:

Obama's Promised Transparency: Where the Hell is It?

(See also the recent Guardian piece posted in the "Torturers: 100" thread.)