Tag: elections

By on

The problem with the present party system is that both parties nominate people that some party members don’t like. Republicans are locked into only Trump supported candidates while ignoring any candidates who might hold differing opinions. The Democrats are a quibbling bowl of mush. The candidate is either a party stalwart who the partly elders foist on the members as the only electable candidate (See Joe Biden) or a left wing ideologue (See Bernie Sanders) who would have trouble winning a state that wasn’t located on either coast.

In almost 50 year of voting I have rarely ever voted for the person in the general election who I voted for in the primary. It’s almost always my second or third or even fourth choice. I am a party man so whoever gets the Democratic nomination almost always gets my sometimes less than enthusiastic vote. But I think they should know that it was less than enthusiastic.

I am not sure if it would change things but it might be helpful to know how genuinely popular the candidate is. Polls might point to this but actual voting would be confirmation of the weakness of the person and is the only accurate way to get this information.

So when you voted instead of seeing:

  1. Jenny Jones Republican
  2. John Smith Democrat

You would get an additional drop down box for each candidate:

  1. I am voting for candidate who I think will be a great President.
  2. I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

The candidate would get the vote for either option but if a candidate got a lot of I am voting for the lesser of two evils votes it might (might is the key word here) remind the candidate that yes they did win a lot of votes but that a lot of his voters are doing so as a last resort. I imagine a candidate who won and got 70% lesser of two evils might behave differently than a candidate who wins and gets a 10% lesser of two evils.

By on

Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York and billionaire, donated $5 million plus to Andrew Cuomo’s losing bid for mayor. Cuomo lost but is staying in the race because he thinks he can win in the general election. This leaves billionaire New Yorkers in the dilemma of which incredibly weak candidate (Cuomo or Adams) to throw their cash at in their effort to stop Mamdani.

Before you shed too many tears for Bloomberg, realize that he dropped all this money when it became apparent that Cuomo might lose and the people with money were desperately trying to drag Cuomo over the finish line. He probably knew he was flushing money down the toilet but he had to start somewhere, Cuomo’s losing campaign was as good a place to start as anywhere.

If a normal person were to donate $100 to a political campaign, it hurts a little. $5 million is a lot of dollars to drop on one mayoral campaign, yet Bloomberg seems to be more alarmed about a Socialist running the city than the fact he blew 5 million on a loser. Even after such a large loss of money, he is financially able to throw even more money at any candidate that might beat the Commie Mamdani. Think about it. He lost $5 million dollars and still has money burning in his wallet to give away to really lackluster candidates.

Bloomberg is also donating to other candidates running for city offices in the upcoming general election. This is not without consequence in how Bloomberg is seen at City Hall. Some officials might have the courage to vote against one of their bank rollers, but they certainly would feel obligated to sit down in a tony Manhattan eatery and listen to what Bloomberg has to say. Particularly if Bloomberg is paying. Bloomberg is getting access that the average New Yorker is unable to get.

If anyone has this type of cash, they also have enough cash to pay more taxes. Let’s face it if he is willing to panic contribute to a losing campaign, he can afford to drop some money in the public till for a better pay for government employees, better services for the poor, more money for education and a whole list of general welfare needs.

What about a law that if a person can contribute $1 million or more in any one campaign they must also pay an equal amount in taxes. It doesn’t discourage small contributors and big contributors get a reality check and, perhaps, think a bit harder before blowing their wad on losers like Cuomo.

By on

I remember when a lot of liberals thought George McGovern was going to be president because he was winning all of the Democratic primaries in 1972. I was also devastated when Richard Nixon crushed him the general election. Liberals, based on absolutely no real evidence, think that all the Democrats have to do is become even more liberal than they are presently are. And when the more liberal candidate got beaten, money was the problem.

There just wasn’t enough money to win. If liberals only had enough money, the people would vote sensibly. Donald Trump has proven the money theory wrong. It is about noise and media attention. Trump used very little of his own money instead he created a media feeding frenzy in which he made headlines every day saying outlandish things and the press would slavishly report them.

Zohran Mamdani, the new Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, may have the right stuff to get elected but I am yet to be convinced that he is the answer to the Democratic Party’s problem getting elected. I have been burned too many times — George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson while more conservative Democrats seem to do better – think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There is a perception problem that liberals fail to see. Liberals see a young energetic well polished candidate. Other people might else sees a Muslim Communist.

This is why I am being cautious in my enthusiasm:

  1. New York City has a fundamentally different electorate. It is a different group than what one would find in Missouri or Ohio. Test driving well in New York, doesn’t mean he will test drive well in the rest of the country. Just because the most liberal candidate won in New York doesn’t mean this translates to the rest of the country.
  2. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s main opponent, was a severely wounded candidate. He had to resign his last post because of credible reports of sexual harassing his employees. There is also growing evidence that he mishandled the AIDS crisis in his state. A lot of people didn’t like him and weren’t going to vote for him.
  3. In first round voting, Mamdani’s opponents got 57 percent of the vote. So even with a more liberal electorate than the rest of the United States, an awful lot of people voted for other candidates.
  4. Now that he is the Democratic candidate, the knives are out for Mamdani. His socialism becomes communism. His support of the Palestinians becomes his support of terrorism. People thought Obama was a Muslim without any evidence whatsoever what can the Republicans do with an actual Muslim.
  5. Making fun of establishment Democrats might be a lot of fun now but, in order to win, the Democrats need to keep everyone on board. There might be two former Democrats in the general election — Adams and Cuomo. Plausible alternates for people who might be afraid of Socialism. Gloating about your win is unseemly and irritating. A better use of Mamdani’s time, particularly now, would be reaching out to Cuomo and his supporters.

I wish Zohran Mamdani all the luck in the world. Right now, I am thinking he can win but a lot of work needs to be done to make that happen. Assuming Mamdani is going to win just because he is the Democrat in an overwhelming Democratic town is short sighted (see Guiliani, Rudy).

By on

Lucian Truscott IV proposes the most bizarre reason yet for the Democrats loss in last year’s election. His idea is that too many of the potential Democratic voters were high on legal marijuana. Yes. You heard it right. As a legal marijuana smoker, I can only reply one way. For Christ’s fucking sake, man, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for that one.

His opinion, which he himself concedes is based in speculation and no data whatsoever, sees millions of potential voters emotionally deadened to the prospect of an authoritarian takeover of their government just failed to vote. They just weren’t scared enough to vote because they were floating on feel good marijuana.

This isn’t even worth consideration — not even worth a maybe and lets look into this further. This is bullshit with a capital B. It is just a way to avoid looking at the bigger problem that large swaths of the Democratic Party establishment are out of touch with regular voters. Hell, they are out of touch with their own voters.

I hang with a primarily liberal Democratic group and I don’t know anyone who cares about proper pronoun use or support sex change operations for children. Republicans managed to attach these really suspect ideas onto the Democratic brand. The Democratic Establishment did relatively little to change this perception. Instead of Hell no this isn’t what we are about, they downplayed the importance of the issues saying that the vast majority of voters don’t care about these issues as they only affect a small number of Americans. Not talking about an issue that is unpopular to the general population is a terrible response to the question. It is as good as admitting that these issues were indeed important to the Democratic Party but are too toxic to talk about.

If people in my liberal circles aren’t particularly worried about proper pronouns and child sex change operations, then I am pretty certain that people who have less liberal inclinations are baffled. This awkward non-response left a lot of people asking why are we talking about transexuals in the schools in the first place. Parents would much prefer children learning what a pronoun is before learning which is their child’s preferred pronoun. These aren’t issues that will capture the imaginations of mainstream voters.

Say like the homeless overrunning the streets of our cities. I happen to agree that this is a bigger problem and isn’t easily solved. It also sounds like an excuse to do absolutely nothing. Well, then, if you can’t do anything to resolve the problem, then why wouldn’t people opt for someone, no matter how awful he is, who seems willing to take on the problem. Liberal government has to perform with the resources it has and perform well. Right now the perception is that government is failing to deal with the homeless problem and, I am afraid, this perception is right.

A lot of this caution is due to concern about the rights of homeless people. Middle class people vote, the homeless do not. Political parties have to deal with reality in order to get elected. This means addressing the concerns of this larger electorate is an important step in winning elections. When people have homeless people camping out on their streets and government says we are unable to help you because the homeless have rights, well what the hell can you do then? Shrugging your shoulders in despair is hardly a motivating call to action.

In the meantime, by all means, go after the non-voting marijuana smokers if you must. But, I think a better use of our resources would be to learn how to deliver better government services to the people who vote. All I know is that after reading all Truscott’s bullshit, I need to smoke me a joint.

By on

People are scratching their heads wondering why more Blacks, one of the most, if not the most dependable Democratic voters, are saying they are going to vote for Trump. It is so frustrating to see the bewilderment, shrugged shoulders and the inability to explain what is going on here.

What is more disturbing is that people in the Democratic Party don’t seem to believe that there is anything wrong. The experts just remark how none of this makes sense for Blacks to voting against their own self interest and that Biden will retain the Black vote in November. Well, maybe, but it would be nice to see a more energetic effort to determine if this is true and, if it is true, what they are going to do about it.

Polls may be wrong. They also may be right and this is the canary in the coal mine. The question is Is anyone listening?

By on

More polls are coming out on the 2024 presidential election and pundits everywhere are trying to explain what they mean. This might be a useful exercise if the polls weren’t so damn depressing. But they are depressing. No matter what polls come out, it points to a close election with Biden behind in all the states that need to be won for a Biden victory. It doesn’t really matter why at this point. What matters is can Biden change this in time to win the election. I see no evidence of this.

Nate Silver was looking at the polls and had some interesting thoughts about what to do. The Democrats seem committed to a strategy that insures a close election particularly in regards to the Electoral College. Silver sees the most likely scenario for a Biden win is Biden with 270 Electoral Votes(the minimum number needed to win) and Trump with 268. This result has numerous potential for election stealing complaints with all of the contingent problems those complaints would bring. The better question is there an option?

Obviously, a different candidate might help. But isn’t this a roll of the dice when Biden, at least, has a chance of winning? It is. This, however, misses the point. As Silver noted the Democrats are already rolling the dice with Biden. He isn’t a sure thing and numerous things could get worse with a Biden candidacy and very little can get better. If the Democrats are going to roll the dice, why not roll it on a different candidate that could shake things up for Trump because Biden, at least as of this date, isn’t.