Another election, another autopsy of the American electorate.
Here's what we know. Americans generally believe that the minimum wage should be increased, that the War on Drugs is stupid, that draconian prison policies should be scaled back (if for the wrong reasons), and they elected by sizable margins what may be the least likely human beings on the planet to enact policies along those lines.
On the surface it makes no sense, but this pattern is becoming familiar. Democrats do well or something approximating well during presidential elections when a larger share of peripheral voters – younger, poorer, generally disenfranchised, and more cynical voters who can be enticed into voting only with great effort – show up at the polls.
Then the midterms roll around and turnout is embarrassingly low, limited mostly to old white people. This certainly contributes to the schizophrenic nature of our elections in comparison to public opinion on major issues, which is generally pretty stable over time. Our preferences don't change dramatically yet the balance of power swings back and forth regularly. Why?
Differences in who turns out across elections are part of the answer.
buy symbicort online buy symbicort no prescription
The other is that American voters have extremely limited choices. Third parties, leaving aside the occasional billionaire independent candidates as anomalies, have no realistic hope of winning elections beyond the local level. When people are highly dissatisfied (which they are) and feel that the country is a clustercuss (which it is), what option is there when the Democratic Party appears to be in control than to vote for Republicans?
buy lipitor online buy lipitor no prescription
When the GOP has been in charge for a while, what else is there to do but vote for Democrats (see 2006, 2008)?
Unwilling to devote the kind of time and energy it would take to be well informed about the issues and demand decent candidates – not that we could compete with the influence of unlimited and unaccountable money – we have little choice but to mix and match different combinations of institutions of government and the jackwagons that are offered to us on the ballot. The only inherent advantage Republicans have is their superiority at playing the "They're comin' for your guns!" game. With the demographic tide firmly against them, that trick won't work forever.
In the meantime we all have to live with the consequences of constantly electing people who are hellbent on doing things large majorities of us find either reprehensible or merely stupid.
Heywood J. says:
It didn't help that practically every major Democratic candidate spent most of their time running from their own president. The teahadis may be nuts, but they at least have the testicular fortitude to stand by their nonsense. As Bill Clinton pointed out once, Americans would rather be strong and wrong than weak and right.
The Coke-Pepsi dynamic of constrained choices, millionaires competing in a game owned by billionaires, definitely makes the whole process off-putting, which is of course a feature and not a bug. It makes sense that people don't have the stomach for it; I assume that most of us who did vote don't really have the stomach for it anymore. We vote for the same weird reason we buy lottery tickets, but only when the jackpot is nine figures, and the odds are even worse than usual.
Still, every self-identifying liberal who complains about things for the next two years needs to be asked right away if they voted, if the people they know showed up to vote. And every conservative who gets their water poisoned, or loses their health care, or gets their job shipped to Bangalore — hey, you made your bed, die in it, hoss.
Xynzee says:
Don't discount "voter fatigue". While there was merit to having an election E-V-E-R-Y T-W-O FREAKIN' Y-E-A-R-S!!! I don't think the FFs envisioned what it has become. A near relentless never ending election cycle. The government cannot get on with the job of doing their job in a proper way as they're constantly pandering to the 24hr news cycle and constant polls.
Just as you start to clean up the confetti and vomit from the last election, they're back to stumping again. I for one have always hated the mid-term. It's sort of "The Friendship Games" of politics only legally mandated so it won't just die quietly as it should.
HoosierPoli says:
Data from my former stats professor at the election project:
http://www.electproject.org/2014g
Topline turnout: THIRTY SIX FUCKING PERCENT.
If you want to know the problem with American democracy, you can look in the goddamn mirror.
Xynzee says:
Sorry. My bad, I meant "Goodwill Games" =)
mk says:
Wow. You said all that with an apparent straight face.
c u n d gulag says:
I picked a hell of a time to give up sniffing glue, and huffing solvents!
Yes, I still drink – but I don't know if my liver is well enough to last through the next two years of clownish Christian insanity.
Oh well, I have good seats to watch the shit-show that is 'The Decline and Fall of the American Empire.'
Where are the lions to eat the Christians?
We need more lions.
They may be our only hope!
Tim H. says:
Was pleased to see the Congressional district I live in re-elected a Democrat. I'll second Xynsee, elections every 4 years would be enough. And I'm thinking it may be time for the Democrats to give up on being GOP lite.
Neal Deesit says:
@Heywood J: "we buy lottery tickets, but only when the jackpot is nine figures, and the odds are even worse than usual."
The odds of winning a lottery do not vary with the size of the jackpot; the odds are exactly the same every drawing. A ticket is an array of n numbers; a winning ticket's numbers match the numbers chosen mechanically by the lottery. Every winning ticket beats the same mathematical odds, no matter what is at stake.
The expected value of a wager is the odds of winning times the amount of the prize. The expected value of a one-in-a-hundred chance to win $100 is $1, to win $15,000, $150. As a lottery jackpot grows larger and the odds stay fixed, the expected value of a ticket increases; hence, more people buy them, a perfectly rational way to ration one's lottery dollars.
Mr. Prosser says:
The common sense issues you pointed out (wages, weed, prison sentences) were state initiatives that were approved or rejected (personhood laws) in blue or bluish states. I don't think you can use them as a valid comparison to the raving loons of Kansas, Wisconsin and Florida or Tennessee which essentially approved personhood. And some states voted their wallets, face it, McConnell and Capito were sent back from coal states and Ernst and Gardner from states with large rural populations. Yeah the loons and jackwagons are there but their states didn't have the initiatives you used as comparisons. I know, Colorado voted in Gardner and rejected personhood but Gardner was running away from from that from the get-go.
HoosierPoli says:
Prosser: Medical weed got 58 percent in FLORIDA. Not enough to pass, but a clear majority came out for it in the midterms, which is, frankly, stunning.
Nate says:
Mr. Prosser says, "The common sense issues you pointed out (wages, weed, prison sentences) were state initiatives that were approved or rejected (personhood laws) in blue or bluish states."
Alaska voted for weed. Nebraska voted for a higher minimum wage.
I don't think either of those are, by any stretch of the imagination, blue states.
Dave De;; says:
Take a look at the Rude Pundit blog re: his brother in law.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/11/random-observations-on-reaming-thatll.html
Dave De;; says:
Oh, Nebraska did elect a Democrat to a seat in the House. Defeating a Republican in an otherwise incredibly red (neck) state. Why? I dunno. They "redistricted" after President Obama won one electoral vote in 2008 to insure such a thing wouldn't happen. Representative elect Ashford is virtually the only Democrat in office here in NE at any level.
jestbill says:
In about 1975 I said that there would be no progress until a lot of old people died off.
I now believe in reincarnation.
Emerson Dameron says:
Alan Grayson, a "difficult" candidate, cruised to reelection in fuckin' Florida. Largely on the strength of an impressively obnoxious get-out-the-vote initiative.
Candidates such as Grimes seemed comparatively unprepared to behave like Democrats who were playing to win.
verbal says:
Well, at least I don't have any children.
Captain Blicero says:
It amazes me that Republicans can still win elections with their bullshit.
I know "independent" voters, at work, whose sophisticated political philosophy, as you alluded to, is "Derp, well the Republicans have had the presidency for 8 years, let's give it to a Democrat, *drool*". They will no doubt vote Republican in 2016 using the same logic. Very intelligent! These are the people deciding your elections!
quixote says:
Ed's right. You can't blame the voters. They're given exactly two hammers, a claw hammer and a sledgehammer, and told to rearrange the complex organism known as government. Of course it doesn't work. (Like someone said upthread, that's probably a feature and not a bug.) And of course they keep trying the other one because what else can you do. It's not like anyone makes it possible to get the money out of politics, which would get 95% support across every party line there is.
Anubis Bard says:
I think for most people who aren't attentive political geeks it doesn't feel like careening. They simply don't experience that strong a difference whether a Democrat or Republican is in power. Especially at the federal level where it can appear nothing at all is happening except in-fighting. The Democrats don't really do anything about climate change or prisons, and the Republicans don't really ban the IRS and round up the immigrants – so most voters can be forgiven if they think the careening is really just hot air. Otherwise, I think Ed's right. The part of the constituency that swings these elections are using the only tool they have to punish politicians they don't like. It's why political ads are so negative these days. If you can get the voters to hate the other guy more than they hate you – that's how you win.
Whatver says:
How about we cull scared old white people? Install disintegrator booths that look like voting booths for the midterms.
Skipper says:
@ jestbill — you have to realize that your generic "old people" demographic is a renewable resource. As soon as one dies off, another one takes his place. You'll be an "old people" some day, shaking your cane at the pigeons and chasing kids off your lawn. The "old people" demographic isn't going away. In fact, it's going to get larger.
As far as Ed's point about no choices, it's even worse in CA. My ballot had two candidates for each office — one D and one R — except in one race where there were two Rs, one a crook and the other a cipher.
There were no third parties and no chance to write anyone in. The election system was destroyed in the last election, when voters were bamboozled into voting for ballot propositions (don't get me started on that) that changed the system. Now, the general election ballot contains only the top two vote getters from the primary. So, you'll never see a Green candidate, Socialist, Progressive, Labor, or anything else on the general election. If you try to get one on the ballot in the primary, you increase the chances that there will be two Rs running against each other in the general.
To have write-in candidates, someone has to declare him/herself as write-in candidate and be certified by the state.
But, I was explaining the national system to a friend just this morning. It's basically a Punch and Judy Show. The Rs and Ds beat each other up, yell at each other, and hit each other with sticks. The booboisie sits out front and cheers and jeers, moans and groans, and roots for one or the other. BUT – if you look behind the curtain, you'll see that the same guy has his hand up both their asses.
12StepstoNowhere says:
I was talking to someone about this who made the following point: It will be increasingly more difficult to get sane, rational people to run for office because they see the dysfunction in Congress and the influence of money. There isn't much incentive for people to run when they know they won't have huge sums of money to finance a campaign and even if they're able to get elected, they feel like they won't have a voice.
Andrew says:
@Neal: The odds of being a jackpot winner do not decrease with increased ticket sales, but the odds of having to share the jackpot with others, and the number of those others, lower the expected value of a lottery ticket when the jackpot is large.
Bonnie ringen says:
Sixty four percent of white MEN voted republican. White men, not even exclusively OLD white men if I am reading the Slate article correctly. Sixty percent of single women,and I would bet that there are a lot of older single women in that group voted Democrat. I am old and I just voted to legalize marijuana, for Jeff Merkley, for John Kitzhaber, for resident aliens to have a driver's card, pretty much the whole liberal agenda on the ballot here in Oregon. I am tired of hearing how old people are screwing up this country. You have an excellent blog,but be a little more specific to make your point. Not all old people are out to get you.
Andrew says:
Bonnie: This oldish (49) white guy agrees with you. I vote progressive all the way.
Captain Blicero says:
@ Bonnie
You are the outlier. There are exceptions to everything.
Scout says:
I'm old too, and at this point I am glad that I don't have kids in school, or have to worry about reproductive rights. Here in AZ the very people who voted to trash our public school system and elect a man who is in CAP's pocket deserve what they get. Fuckers.
anotherbozo says:
Did I call attention before to my favorite pre-election cartoon?
http://luckovich.blog.ajc.com/2014/10/30/1031-luckovich-cartoon-gobble-gobble/
Luckovich credits campaign ads. Leaving me the only glimmer of hope in what I see as the virtually irreversible snowball effect of big money in politics: that the young no longer watch much TV. And are discovering their capacity for instantaneous social communication. Perhaps the billionaires pulling the strings won't be able to reach them, or will catch on too late. Not that I can wholly convince myself of that possibility.
Meanwhile, as an old fart I've been very lucky, raised in a 50's and 60's world when the playing field was almost even: great public schools paid for by corporate taxes, a degree from a free state university, a Sputnik loan for graduate school, earning a decent salary teaching college full-time, buying a building in NYC that now supports us. None of those options exist today. None.
Skepticalist says:
As has been said, Money Party headquarters had a helluva night.
You're right. Fear is the great Republican issue. People who watch nothing but cable news and reality TV, run around with surgical masks trying to escape Ebola and because they refuse to subject themselves to the horrors of vaccination. Isis is just around the corner and people boil water because TV told them a woodchuck shit in the reservior.
Standing in line at the drugstore waiting while a retired couple has to decide which heart medication is safer to omit this month, doesn't seem to register as a problem. That's real fear.
I miss the old voting machines. Not every area had them which was too bad because they were kind of fun. There was a certain satisfaction slamming down a lever against some worm that got stuck on the ballot. The new system here requires more steps just to get your vote counted. It reminds me of some atempt to show third world brown people what voting is like. I've been a little suspicious about the whole thing.
It's history now but I remember Socialist rows on those machines way back when. it's just hysteria now.
brian says:
Alaska voted to:
– legalize marijuana
– increase the minimum wage
– increase protection of environmentally sensitive areas
– reject anti-union measures passed by our largest city.
Alaska also:
– Re-elected Don Young (noted octogenarian crazy man)
– Ousted Mark Begich in favor of a Koch funded carpet bagger who moved here just to be in politics.
I wonder why we are never happy with our legislature.
david says:
The older one gets, the bigger the Amygdala grows, I guess.
And "keeping informed"? that's a deal breaker.
Alan C says:
I get tired of the conventional wisdom the pundits always start spouting after an election like this that "Americans like divided government." I don't think it's true. We like government to deliver certain essential services (from defense to filling potholes) even if not all of us want to pay for it. I don't think most people care if that gets done with one party in power or with divided government, as long as the system isn't too dysfunctional.
erase says:
having multiple valid parties to vote for wouldn't necessarily fix the problem. here in canada (where there are usually 3 viable parties) the vote percentages for right/center/left tend to be able the same year after year, but small changes in the center "swing" voters can cause massive left/right careening – leading to an even bigger vote%/seat% inbalance.
proportional representation would fix the multiparty careening problem in canada and would probably fix (or at least alleviate) the party duopoly in the US. sadly, in both countries trying to change the voting structure would be nearly impossible with the combined forces of big money and voter ignorance working to prevent it.
Mo says:
Why I think David Atkins is a genius.
The country is broken, and everyone who isn't already wealthy knows it. Wages are stagnant; millennials are a lost generation with high student loan debt and unaffordable housing; the rich just keep getting richer; entire industries are disappearing, work hours are getting longer with lower pay, and life is generally less stable than it used to be. And it seems like absolutely nothing is going to change any of that, no matter who gets into office.
If you're liberal you're inclined to blame the plutocrats for that, and you would be right. If you're of a more conservative bent, you'll probably blame immigrants or government regulation or godlessness. And then there's a very confused sliver of the electorate that blames all of the above and bounces back and forth between which side they want to punish more, exacerbating the now familiar midterm and presidential turnout seesaw.
As things get worse, the hostility of Americans toward each other and the political process itself is only going to increase. Conservatives don't want to live near liberals or let their children marry them. Liberals feel the same way, as well they should. It's getting to the point culturally where you can almost just look at a random person on the street and guess their political ideology simply by demography and the way they dress and carry themselves, and sense the palpable discomfort as members of the opposite team pass each other on the street.
Compromise isn't going to fix any of this. People say they want compromise because in their personal lives compromise is how normal people solve problems. But compromise isn't the goal–it's a means to an end. What people want is problems to get solved. If stuffed shirt Democrats aren't fixing things, maybe the nice smiling folksy pro-business lady will get in there and do something.
Xynzee says:
It's a good thing that at least Kansans when faced with what is a pure conservative agenda were smart enough to reject it… Oh? Wait…
The bizarre thing about conservatives is that they run around and their own little self fulfilling prophecy that government cannot work and is all about screwing people by electing people who intend to screw them and ensure government doesn't work.
Robert says:
Every time I'm tempted to congratulate myself on living in Barbara Lee's district (Oakland represent!), I remember that the people who kept electing Michele 'Crazy Eyes' Bachmann were looking at us and thinking, 'why do they keep electing that crazy blah woman?'
I feel certain that if that convocation of demigods we call the Founding Fathers had had any inkling of what was to come, the eleventh amendment in the Bill of Rights would have banned political parties.
Right now, I'm imagining President Clinton in 2016 with a solidly Republican Congress. Happy happy joy joy.
MS says:
As for hoping the old folks will die off – there will never be a time in history when the U.S. has as FEW old people as it does today. Every future election will have a larger and larger share of the elderly voting. The median age of the U.S. population is increasing by something like a half-year per year, every year.
The median voter who actually casts a vote is in their 60s now, and that is steadily increasing.
Meanwhile even the parties know that the electorate is becoming more and more polarized. Almost 400 of the 435 House seats were completely uncompetitive. In 30 House races, the opposing party didn't even bother to run anyone. Didn't even contest the election! And that number is increasing each cycle as well. For state legislatures, only something like 60% of seats are contested. Something like 10% of the public is getting a ballot with almost no choices on it – a single candidate for each major office.
The Republicans cater to crazy old racists, but the Democrats aren't much better: they run the country for the benefit of the oligarchs, but try each election to come up with some sort of catchy branding exercise to make people think that this time, things will be different. If the public believes it, they vote D, only to be brutally disappointed, which means next time they don't believe it and don't vote D, leading to a back-and-forth cycle.
Can't wait to see how Hillary is sold. She is female, which is a step forward. In every other respect, she is the very definition of old guard status quo conservatism. But I assume her slogan will be something like "Hope Change Forward Together For A New Better Different World!"
Skepticalist says:
40 some odd years ago, in one of William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" interviews, a conservative pundit, perhaps George Will, said the best thing for the country is "Don't vote."
It works for them.
Xynzee says:
Robert: ugh!! I cannot imagine anything worse than having the embodiment of Repuglicant Lite leading the ticket. It'll be bread and circus social issues for the plebiscite and all of Wall St's Christmas list wrapped in bows and hand delivered.
The only hope we'd have is the Repugs going apoplectic at her even daring to suggest that SS is privatised and trying to turn Medicare into Vouchercare. For no other reason than it was *she* who suggested it.
fuzzbuzz215 says:
Ed, have you heard the Common Sense podcast from Dan Carlin? He talks all the time about oligarchy in the United States. Also his Hardcore History podcast is a good listen