Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events9/26/16 - Debate #1
10/4/16 - VP Debate
10/9/16 - Debate #2
10/19/16 - Debate #3
11/8/16 - Election Day
Tag Cloud2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Election 2016 Republican National Convention Abortion Affirmative Action Affordable Care Act Antonin Scalia Ben Carson Bernie Sanders Bob McDonnell Canada Chris Christie civil rights Delegates Delegate Selection Donald Trump First Amendment Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Iowa Caucuses Iran Jeb Bush John Kasich John McCain Marco Rubio Martin O'Malley Missouri Nevada New Hampshire Paul Ryan Pennsylvania Philadelphia polling Puerto Rico redistricting same-sex marriage Supreme Court Ted Cruz Title IX United Kingdom Voting Rights
DCW in the News
Clinton Sanders 2842 1865 56 not voting/abstained Trump Cruz 1537 569 1237 to win
Category Archives: Politics
Eight years ago, when President Obama took office, Faux News and others spent a good chunk of their time complaining about President Obama’s use of “czars.” By czar, they meant members of the White House staff who did not have to face Senate confirmation who were assigned responsibility for certain policy areas. Now that Republicans are back in the White House, they are about to learn the same lesson that the George W. Bush and the Obama Administrations knew — that the White House staff serves an important role in a functioning government. But, you can be pretty sure that these positions will not be referred to as czars by Fox News.
If you’d told me that “President of these United States” was an entry-level elected position, I would have laughed.
Who could have predicted that the Weekly World News would have gotten more right over its years of publication than what is shown on most news stations. (At the very end of this post is the best story EVER about the Weekly World News.)
I spent Election Day working for the county, greeting voters, putting those voters in one of six lines to make things move more quickly. Our polling place saw about 2200 voters that day, plus 184 absentee ballots. From that one polling place, there is a lot of insight about what went wrong.
The loss was obvious when the tape was run a little past 9, indicating that while Clinton had won the vote, turnout wasn’t high enough and the percentage wasn’t big enough. This ended up being the pattern across both the state of Pennsylvania and the country at large.
First, an anecdote that explains something. The voter who came out from voting grinning ear to ear, proud. Told me that although a lifelong Democrat who had never voted for a Republican, she proudly voted for Donald Trump. Why? “I did all my research because I wanted to be really sure and I think Clinton went bad when she shot all her partners at the Rose Law Firm and then Vince Foster.” When told that never happened, the response was: “Yes it did. I read it on the internet.”
In setting up the federal judiciary, the Framers wanted to separate the judiciary from politics to a certain degree. By giving judges and justices an unlimited term, judges would be free from having to decide cases on what is currently popular. Not that the courts would be absolutely immune from politics, but the influence of politics on the courts would be that elections to the “political” branches would be in the choice of new judges and justices to fill vacancies. The courts would be “conservative” in the sense of reflecting the values of the time at which judges or justices were appointed with a gradual change reflecting changes in those values over time through the appointment of new judges and justices. (On the Supreme Court, nine of seventeen Chief Justices served more than a decade, and thirteen of seventeen served more than six years. Of the Associate Justices sixty-eight of one hundred have served more than ten years, and another thirteen have served more than six years.)
The fact that federal judges do not have to stand for election does not mean that judges are not political or aware of politics. To ask that judges not view close legal issues through a certain political philosophy and that judges not be aware of the potential impact of decisions on elections is asking too much. However, the Supreme Court wants the public to perceive that they are above politics and would prefer that the Supreme Court rank somewhat low on the list of important issues in any election. This desire to “lay low” has been reflected in pushing off the arguments on the most controversial cases until after the election (or even later for cases that might currently reflect a 4-4 split). Even in terms of which cases are being granted for review later this year, the Supreme Court was avoiding cases that were likely to generate headlines. That changed yesterday when the Supreme Court issued its order reflecting which cases it had just accepted for full review. While none of the cases on the list are surprises in terms of the Supreme Court granting review, two of the cases are highly controversial — one dealing with transgender rights and the other with sex offenders and the First Amendment — and most expected the Supreme Court to push a decision on reviewing those two cases until after the election, particularly with the election controlling who gets to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.
In the United States, unlike most major democracies, election law is primarily set by the state. Additionally, elections are run by local officials — usually elected in partisan elections. For those involved in elections (candidates, supporters, and voters), there are two significant consequences to this aspect of American democracy. First, every state has its own rules and timetables for registering to vote and for voting. Second, even within those rules, local officials have a lot of discretion that can influence the results of elections.
To win, campaigns need to do two things. First, they need to communicate a message that connects to potential voters. Second, they need to get those potential voters to vote. The messaging part is like the tip of the iceberg. It occurs above the surface. At this time of the cycle, advertisements are a rising tide. Depending upon where you live and what races are competitive, political ads are slowly becoming more and more omnipresent (ultimately peaking in the week before the election when ads for consumer goods will all but disappear from the air). But political ads are run out of the campaign headquarters and involve the local activist very little. It is the part beneath the surface — the get out the vote campaign — that requires a good field operation and local effort.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump — again — expressed his admiration for the strong leadership of Vladimir Putin as compared to the current leadership of the United States. It is understandable why somebody who is the head of a closely-held family business would sympathize with the leadership style of Vladimir Putin. There is a lot of similarity in the ability of such individuals to make decisions for their company or country between such a business and a police state. The leader of a democracy, however, does not have the same ability.
In Missouri, we have an interesting case working it’s way through the system. (The trial court issued its ruling yesterday; any appeal will have to be expedited.) The basic facts of the case are: 1) about five hundred people cast absentee votes; 2) the incumbent state representative got just under 80% of the absentee vote (picking up a net of approximately three hundred votes); 3) the challenger got the most votes from votes cast on election day; and 4) the incumbent won by a total of ninety votes. Given the small number of votes cast in primaries for state representative, the margin was significantly over the threshold for a recount, and the only option for the challenger was an election contest. In this case, the election contest focused on the validity of absentee voting. While there was some evidence of some improprieties by the incumbent in with some of the absentee votes, the evidence of such “fraud” impacted less than 20 ballots. Instead, the case came down to whether the election authority properly followed the rules for absentee ballots., and the current ruling emphasizes the difference between a true early voting system and an absentee ballot.
First and foremost, to Matt and Oreo – wow! our third convention together. How things have changed. For those of you new to DCW, while Matt started DCW in 2005, we really took off in 2008 when we were THE place for Superdelegate information. Before anyone else even thought about them (except the Obama campaign) we were covering Superdelegate by Superdelegate, naming names when the MSM was only giving rough numbers. Heady times.
Back then, bloggers were in our heyday. The DNC ran a contest for which bloggers, a few national and one from each state, would attend. At Denver there were special places for bloggers. There were many fewer bloggers in 2012, but still. This year, there was “Specialty Media” which included the very few bloggers, plus local outlets, some foreign press, and other outlets that are related to a “special interest” area. There was a “Specialty Media” area, where they didn’t really want pictures taken, which had tables set up with paper signs at each: “ADA” “Jewish” “Women” “LGBT” and like that. There were also comfy chairs arranged around power strips. But no specialized WiFi as there had been previously. I plan to write about what has happened to bloggers, and it’s a sad comment on media and society, which I hope will be rectified. But that’s for another day.
I spent a lot of time yesterday doing two things; first, attending a panel discussion hosted by the Roosevelt Institute, on which economic message will win Hillary Clinton the election, and which will cost her the election. The panel included Joseph Stiglitz, who I would have crawled over hot coals to hear. They handed out a lot of information which I am still synthesizing, and will post over the weekend.
There is no constitutional mechanism for a federal referendum in the United States. The federal government has only limited authority over elections, and that limited authority does not give the federal government the ability to put legislation to a national referendum. That is not the case in other countries. In recent years, the United Kingdom has put major constitutional issues to a referendum. This Thursday will see the latest of these referendums in which the issue is whether the United Kingdom will stay in the European Union.
The first time I was in a voting booth, I was 5 years old. It was one of those machines where you pulled the lever to close the curtain, clicked down the little metal bars, and then pulled the lever to open the curtain. My dad held me and told me which metal bars to pull and then put his hand over mine and we opened the curtain together. It was so much fun, I wanted to do it again, and the next guy on line offered to take me into the booth, but my dad was having none of that. I loved voting even then.
I’ve voted a lot since then. Since coming of age, I have missed exactly one election, which was an off-year primary, missed due to a medical emergency. And I always know for whom to vote: at the local level normally I know the candidates, and they know me. But this year I am facing a huge dilemma. Who to choose? Which of them?
The race in question is the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary. The candidates are Joe Sestak, Katie McGinty and John Fetterman. None is a stranger to me. I interviewed Joe a number of years ago, have run my dog with Katie and her dogs, and spent an evening in a bar with John and a bunch of people. They are all good people. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Any of them would be a far better choice then Pat Toomey. There’s not a whole lot of daylight between their positions: each is more passionate about their favourite causes and issues, but none would likely vote against my positions.