Recently there’s been a bit of gentle impugning of me as, remarkably, a yellow dog Democrat at least where the rubber hits the road in the voting booth. Remarkable because in Left Blogosphere comment sections I’m usually castigated as a Democrat in name only, a charge in which I see a profound misunderstanding of the Democratic Party.
I’m usually pretty circumspect about this stuff but I thought I’d set the record straight.
Over the period of the last 40 some-odd years I have voted for precisely two presidential candidates that were actually elected: Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008.
In 2004 I ruined my record of consistent failure by voting for Bush not because I liked him but because John Kerry was manifestly such a pompous nincompoop. Additionally, although I opposed our invasion of Iraq in 2003, I thought that our complicity in the carnage that would have resulted if we had bolted the country in 2005, which almost certainly would have occurred had Kerry become president, would have been immoral.
In 2008 I voted for Obama for exactly one reason: I find John McCain’s “national greatness” foreign policy deeply disturbing. Has the man ever met a military intervention he didn’t like?
Prior to that I had generally voted for a variety of third parties and independent candidates. That was, clearly, a protest vote on my part but I gradually came to realize that such protest votes have perverse consequences: they implicitly support the candidate whose views are least like your own.
I believe that not voting at all is the weakest form of protest vote. Nothing will come of nothing. It has the same perverse result as other protest votes: it grants implicit support to the candidate whose views are least like your own.
I still don’t know for whom I will vote in November. I wish that Mitt Romney were giving me more reasons to like him. I find his foreign policy views distressing. I wish the Republicans had presented a candidate for whom I could have voted without such severely mixed feelings. That was not to be.
“I believe that not voting at all is the weakest form of protest vote. Nothing will come of nothing. It has the same perverse result as other protest votes: it grants implicit support to the candidate whose views are least like your own.”
You did clarify your ‘record’ with the above post, as I assumed (from your other posts) that you were a protest kind of voter, if neither major candidate met your voting requirements.
What I’m seeing in my own circle of friends is even some of the more avid democrats are troubled by the Obama presidency. For instance, last night we had dinner with a friend who brought up politics (something my husband cautioned me not to do). But because he initiated the topic we did discuss the fiscal problems of the moment. He pointedly asked me what I thought of Ryan..and, I bluntly said I really liked him. Our friend kind of paused and then said he admired the fact that Ryan was bringing up important issues like entitlement reform that everyone else seemed scared to do. This alone I think was at least allowing him to reflect on possibly voting for a republican — which would be the first time he would have done such a deed.
However, this guy is a businessman, as well as a CPA, so he’s familiar with numbers and how they go up and down depending on incentives and governmental policies. I, nevertheless, was encouraged that such a life-long democrat would be at least entertaining the notion that someone else from an opposing party might be better — in other words, putting principles over personality.
Implicit support my eye. My vote is almost certainly not going to matter, so I may as well protest with it. My state has a 99.999% chance of going to Romney. Voting for Obama or Romney is just as futile as voting third party.
Is it rational to have good feelings about being the 185,511th vote that got Romney my state? Or sticking it to him cause he only won by 185,510 because of me?
I plan to play the lottery instead. At least if I win that I’ll have something cool. Being the 1 vote in the state that pushed Schmoe-I-Don’t-Care-For-Slightly-Less over the top doesn’t seem like it would bring me a lot of satisfaction. Plus I’d have to share that slightly better than par feeling with half my state. And even that’s only if Roberts or Kennedy don’t decide to stick their noses into it.
Thinking about who I will vote for (or against) is just depressing.
My record is six Presidential elections, three times I voted D, and three times I voted R. Four were actually elected, and one that wasn’t elected (Gore) actually got the most votes , so I want an asterisk.
Unlike Dave I give more consideration to domestic politics, particularly through the lens of potential/probable Congressional alignment. Sometimes, but not always, I prefer gridlock.
If I voted today, it would be for Romney, a preference that I realized about the time the Administration started talking about felonies and mocking retroactivity. I’ve personally and intimately been involved in retroactive wind-downs and reorganizations of businesses. I was personally piqued, but I find the notion of electing a Republican Congress (Intrade at 82.6%) and Obama (57%) increasingly to be a terrifying, toxic combination. Still, I could change my preference by November.
Actually, very small numbers of votes can have substantial impact at the local level that not voting at all cannot deliver. Using Chicago as an example, the number of votes for a presidential candidate in any given precinct can influence how that precinct is clumped with other precincts into wards and into Congressional districts. That, in turn, influences the composition of the City Council and the Illinois Congressional delegation.
Party organizations do count votes.
I vote for president mostly on foreign policy issues and Congress mostly on domestic. In Senate races my vote is about 50-50 between the two major parties. I voted for Obama in 2006 (the alternative was Alan Keyes, a madman) and Kirk in 2008. I can’t imagine voting for Durbin in 2014 but it’s a possibility if the Illinois Republican Party runs a candidate heinous enough. Or I might vote third party.
Most of the time my vote is weighted pretty evenly between domestic and foreign policy — or at most 60/40. However, this year I’m looking mainly at fiscal philosophies in relationship to energy, business and jobs. It’s not to say that foreign policy issues don’t concern me. But, the more pressing ones seem to be the stimulation and allocation of revenues, IMO.
PD, I didn’t like Gore. Even if he carries my name. He was callow, too. Why does privilege foster stupidity?
Entitlement. Lack of responsibility.
I, like PD, do also question the primacy of foreign policy in presidential voting preference.
I understand that many feel that domestic policy, and let’s get real- that means the economy- is out of the presidents control. I disagree vehemently. See umpteen of my comments. But more importantly, if you do not have a strong and vibrant domestic economy, what are you going to do on foreign policy that is rational? I’d say zip. You will be reactionary, not resolute on principle. So I think this is a false assertion or dichotomy.
The country is going into the shitter if Obama is re-elected. Agree or disagree. That’s my view. He is incompetent, totally in over his head, and philosophically wrong. I have some issues with Romney, but on whole, he’s in my opinion the right guy for these times.
The greatness of our country is that we will have a reasonably honest referendum in about 80 days. I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. My economic life won’t materially change if Obama wins. And I have the resources to protect my daughter for the carnage I think Obama will bring to our country and economy. I’m safe.
But I look out over the landscape and think about the angst of the unemployed, the angst of those with some financial assets that are fallow, the icepicks of the world who are at wits end because they have talent, but have nowhere to go. The incoming workforce. The “tweeners” if you will. I think about that shit.
This guy Obama has to go. Period. Full stop, or they are fucked.
I’m
going to Grceland.
Graceland, Memphis, Tennessee. I’m going to Graceland..
Drew
You have some good points. Basically, if you don’t have your own house in order, it makes it more difficult to help or be of benefit to people/countries outside of your sphere. It follows the 12-step philosophy in al-anon, where taking care of yourself is essential to taking care of a family member with substance abuse issues.
Peabody Hotel in Memphis. Watch the ducks parade at tea.
Silly Californians.
Drew,
There’s a difference between influence and control. My point has always been that Romney cannot deliver what he says he will deliver without the consent of Congress.
Frankly, I don’t understand why so many people don’t seem to understand the limits of the office or realize that our system of divided, adversarial government exists for a reason. The President is not the CEO of the economy but he’s also not a helpless pennant streaming in the wind.
PD,
Could you explain a little more about this please?
@jan
The problem is that few of the Republicans have admitted they have a problem, done a moral inventory, stated the exact nature of their wrongs. Made a list of all persons harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible. Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it. (Liberties were taken with the wording.)
I think Rep. Paul Ryan has done some of these, but what about Mitt Romney? Why would I hire a Republican to do a Democrat’s job? I never expected President Obama to spend less than President Bush, but I did expect President Bush to spend less than President Clinton.
@Dave Schuler
I believe that not voting at all is the weakest form of protest vote. Nothing will come of nothing. It has the same perverse result as other protest votes: it grants implicit support to the candidate whose views are least like your own.
A not voting is the same as voting for the winner. I do not understand how it follows that his/her views are least like mine. In 2000 & 2004, my views were more like Bush’s views. In 2008, my views were more like McCain. In both instances, “more like” should be understood in the context of shit. Is there really much difference between horse shit and cow shit?
If I understand correctly, Bush supporters would have preferred non-voters to have voted even if it was a Gore vote.
andy, I had a serious problem with this quote from Stephanie Cutter:
“Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments.â€
Notice the false dilemma, which in light of the facts known to be true (Romney had left Bain) and attested by affidavit, constitutes an accusation of a felony in my book. The fact that its coming from the President’s spokesperson seems to be unprecedented. Obama has the authority to have Romney charged with SEC fraud. I asked at OTB a few days ago if anyone can recall that happening before, and I don’t believe I received a reply. I’m certainly aware of awful things printed in newspapers in Presidential campaigns since 1800, but I’m not aware of someone speaking on behalf of the President’s campaign doing so.
Retroactive agreements are most commonly used to reflect in writing what happened in fact, but the agreement couldn’t be reached when it happened. This happens frequently with unincoporated businesses (LLCs, LLPs, partnerships) when the officers have equity interests to be resolved.
Has the man ever met a military intervention he didn’t like?
Given that he wanted to go to the mattresses with Russia over Georgia, I find it hard to believe he has ever opposed any US military intervention.
For the record, I’m not accusing you of being a Democrat. I am saying that you will vote for the Democrat come this fall. Although since you live in Illinois, it is possible you will vote for the Democrat no matter what you mark on your ballot….
Graceland, Memphis, Tennessee.
Janis (and my wife, if you’re lurking), don’t take this the wrong way, but I think I love you!
We’all ain’t stupid. There has to be a way
TastyBits
Clever rendition of the 12 steps, as it applies to a political candidate. 🙂
I’m not voting because (a) there is no third party I feel I can support at this time and (b) I refuse to reward incompetence. The Republicans were in control for a good chunk of years not too long ago, and what did they produce? An economic ‘miracle’ that was purely bubble-driven. Drew tells me Romney, with essentially the same supporting crew Bush had, will ‘unleash’ the entrepreneurial class into a frenzy of economic activity. How are they going to do that NOW when they couldn’t do it THEN without creating the biggest goddamned real estate and financial bubbles this country has ever seen? How is Romney going to turn things around when consumers still have massive amounts of debt to ‘deleverage’ before they’re back to healthier levels?
Specifics matter, but more importantly I refuse to vote for the second least terrible disaster. Hurricane or earthquake, you’re still pretty much fucked. The only thing I can do is to withhold what little legitimacy I can give them, and that is what I plan to do.
(Again I’ll note that Drew is claiming that the only way to go is to vote for the second worst choice every time, in the hope that eventually things will get better through magic. Brilliant.)
Icepick
Then you are simply doing ‘nothing.’ No energy expended to rectify a problem sort of makes your comments irrelevant.
For the record, going back to 1988, I’m
1988 (R)
1992 (L) – protest vote. I’m one of two people I know that thought Bush did okay domestically and completely fucked up internationally. I voted for Jerry Brown in the primary (at that time he was for gun rights(!) and a flat tax(!)), and Andre Marrou in the general election. Bush had lost his chance, Clinton was an obvious sleazebag, Perot was crazy, so that left (L).
1996 (R) (Yes, I was one of the two people in Gainesville Florida to vote for Dole.)
2000 (R) Detested Gore – CCR’s Fortunate Son always comes to mind when I think of him. Yes, he went to ‘Nam, and kept the bars of Saigon free from the VC menace.
2004 (R) Kerry was a tool. Consider this a protest vote against the Ds for continually picking tools and sleazebags.
2008 (R) This one still pains me. I detest McCain for a variety of reasons, and had no intention of voting at all that year. But shortly before the election the dog fighters, drug dealers and the people that invaded my Mom’s home that March put up Obama signs in their yards. I was furious, and voted against Obama based purely on that. I still feel sick having voted for McCain.
Most of my votes have been purely a matter of choosing the lesser incompetent, hopefully one more closely aligned with what I have believed at the time. That means (R)-tards over the (D)umbasses. But in recent years I have realized that all I am doing is supporting terrible candidates, thus giving the party I vote for no reason to do anything but screw me over for the clueless tool I am. No longer.
Andy
Of course there is a difference between influence and control. This is my essential point about Obama. Executives learn how to influence their organizations and garner support for policy initiatives. And they have the so called bully pulpit. But they have to have learned how to be an effective executive and leader.
Anyone who thinks an executive “controls” their organization (a reasonably large organization anyway) is an idiot, and has never run an organization. It ain’t that simple, folks.
Obama- no experience, no desire, no chance. Romney- a fighting chance.
There are so many entrenched interests in Congress any President has a tough job.
Then you are simply doing ‘nothing.’ No energy expended to rectify a problem sort of makes your comments irrelevant.
Jan, you will be voting for increased spending and decreased revenues. That’s the Ryan plan before Romney’s additional tax cuts and Defense spending. How is that going to fix the problems of a deficit that annually tops $1,000,000,000,000?
I went through a semi-detailed accounting of the federal budget yesterday. Given Romney’s stated preferences, I was able to reduce spending by 10% – on the backs of cutting food stamps to children, education and law enforcement. That was before Romney reduced revenues with tax cuts. Given that the annual deficit is ~35% of the budget (those numbers were probably a couple of months out of date) reducing by a mere 10% isn’t going to accomplish much other than put the day of reckoning back a little further.
So, I guess that means that you are voting to kick the can down the road until the next election, yes? You aren’t voting to solve the problem, jan, you are voting to further institutionalize trillion dollar deficits. So don’t tell me about how goddamned effective your vote is for a vain twerp who loves working out and can’t do the math and some rich asshole whose past policy ACTIONS gave Obama the framework for his signature piece of legislation.
WHERE’S THE CHANGE?
See page 64 on this PDF. That is Ryan’s proposal. You will note that it had spending decreases in the first year (from 2011 to 2012), and every year after that includes spending increases.
EVERY YEAR A SPENDING INCREASE! And that is before Romney bumps up Defense spending. (I’ll also note that it seems odd that ‘OTHER MANDATORY’ would go down by that much over time.)
Sweet Baby Jesus, how can you people on the (R) side tell me you are serious about reducing the deficit when you actually want to increase spending and decrease revenues? Your only argument is that the other guys are worse. Even if true, that still means you’re terrible.
Ice
With all due respect, your comments are defeatist, simplistic and non-constructive.
Not a good mix.
Drew, your comments are full of magical thinking. How does increased spending and decreased revenues improve the situation we are in? Because THAT is what the Romney/Ryan plan calls for. It’s in their own FUCKING NUMBERS.
Icepick
When I get a chance I’ll look thru the link you provided above. However, in the interim, I’ll just say that I don’t expect Romney/Ryan to have a comprehensive plan on paper showing 100% full detail. As with most administrations, it starts out with a plan based on premises and assumptions which quickly are tweaked to work with the realities at hand.
Why I am voting for the R ticket is that at least their basic aims are in line with my own — stressing the need to not over regulate business, shrink or at least stop the growth of centralized government etc. Obama’s philosophy, though, runs along the lines of collectivism, class separation, a great society format which is not where I perceive the American vision or dream to be at.
So, between the two candidates, I am differentiating the men more from their political view sheds and private sector experience than their actual words…as words change once real governance settles in.
Icepick
Also, Romney is planning on lowering the tax margins but will eliminate deductable loopholes (yet to be enumerated), which will actually create a higher income level subject to these margins of taxation. I also think revenues increase because his goals are to increase growth, rather than just ply more taxes out of the ‘rich.’
Voted straight R 80-92. D-96. R 04 and 08. D 08. That was for president. Split my local votes based upon whom I know. For Congress and Senate it was straight R until 2000. Since then mixed, but the only pol to whom I donate is our Repub Congressman.
My reading is that Romney is trending neocon in his foreign policy. I dont want more poorly run wars of aggression. I was brought up by and maintain contact with the GOP base, Christian evangelicals. They worry me.
Drew is correct that leaders dont usually get to dictate to everyone. Even in the military, TV movies aside, you dont really get to order everyone around all of the time, though you do have the power to fire (Chainsaw Al Dunlap anyone?). You need to be able to persuade people. However, that means that people must be persuadable. They must have some possible incentive. In business, that is usually money, though it can also be a new location, more autonomy or whatever.
What incentives do Dems have to cooperate with Romney? Most come from perfectly safe gerrymandered districts. They have all paid attention for the last 4 years. The way back to power is obstructionism. If Romney performs poorly, he gets booted. They have also seen that cooperation with the other side means a primary challenge.
All that said, as I have noted before, Mitt has one big advantage. The GOP will do anything to stay in power, even pass record unfunded spending bills. If polls show that a tax increase of some sort to help reduce deficits is positive with independents, the Tea Party might go for it. Yes, they will be miserable about doing it just like Ryan was (LOLOLOL), but they might do it to keep Romney in power. They would never do it with Obama in office.
Steve
Jan, the document I linked to is Ryan’s celebrated plan from 2011. Ryan was THE budget guy for the house Republicans. He outline runs over 70 pages. They were broad brush strokes, but they were also enumerated with actual numbers. Ryan had a spending cut from 2011 to 2012 (all years fiscal), but after that Ryan had the federal government spending more each year – over a 34% increase over the ten years of his plan, or an average increase of about 3.35% a year. So he forecasts continuing growth in federal government. And I believe that Romney wants even bigger Defense spend growth than Ryan does. That does not help the fiscal health of the country. So the only argument is that your guys are less terrible than the idiot in charge now. A true statement, they’re truly less terrible, but still terrible.
Ryan was also planning on tax cuts. Now unless you’ve consumed a whole six-pack of Laffer-aide, that isn’t going to help your revenues. (As someone here, I forget who, sorry, likes to point out, it is one thing reducing the top rates from 70% to 35%, versus piddling around by three or four percentage points here or there.) So, lower revenues to go with greater expense.
How are they going to make it up? In volume! Ryan was projecting nice vigorous growth in the economy because of his plan. That increased rate of growth would would boost revenues.
And that’s fantastic, but see any number of Schuler’s posts about growth in the last 20 to 30 years and tell me how the Ryan Plan is going to beat those numbers without a bubble of some kind? (Also, Ryan does not allow for a recession at any point. How realistic is that?)
That’s right, your guys are going to unlock the entrepreneurial spirit of the country. That’s all well and good. But to do that you will need Congress. Some of the worst of the leadership from the years of the Bush II ascendency are gone, but a lot of them remain. The people that brought us Medicare Part D, bloated farm bills, bloated transportation bills, and wars without end. The guys that brought us Sarbanes-fucking-Oxley and called it ‘reform’! Why am I supposed to believe that those guys are going to do anything different this time around? And why am I supposed to believe that Romney + Congress will do much of anything different than Bush II + Congress? Did that unlock the entrepreneurial spirit of the nation, or just saddle us with the after effects of the bursting of two humongous bubbles?
But this time it will be different, I’m sure.
Yes, I’m defeatist on this, because we have two parties that have completely lost any claim to respectability on pretty much any issue you care to bring up. They’re both profligate, they’re both believers in expansion of government authority into every facet of our lives, and they’re both bloody fucking incompetent.
And people that ought to know better by training refuse to say “STOP!” If Drew’s presented background is somewhat close to the truth (and I don’t doubt it), he ought to be able to look at Ryan’s proposals and go, “This is horse shit.” Instead, he’s all over him like Ryan’s Tom Jones and Drew is a pair of recently removed panties. It is absurd.
Will Ryan and Romney be better than Obama? Probably. But will they be any good? There is no chance in Hell of that happening. And you want to reward that with money, votes, and moony-eyes.
…
I’m scared by what I see. This nation hasn’t had an economic crisis because of the federal debt – yet. It is coming soon, don’t know when exactly, but soon. This level of spending cannot be sustained without deleterious side effects for much longer. The longer we kick the can down the road, the more severe the crisis will be in the end, and we will have less flexibility to deal with it. And absolutely none of the elites in power want to do a goddamned thing about it. Neither do the voters, apparently, not even those of you who pride yourselves on caring about these matters, or you wouldn’t be all googly-eyed about the candidates you are supporting.
What I called Schuler’s Lament yesterday talked about how interrelated our problems are. They’re woven together tightly. And all you guys want to do is nibble around the edges at this or that.
Yes, I’m scared and sick from observing that even intelligent people can’t get beyond simple “my team/your team” thinking, even when the candidates put the evidence out there themselves that their own plans are not credible.
What incentives do Dems have to cooperate with Romney?
It occurred to me today, while stuck in a bouncy house, that the Dems have no reason at all to prevent the nation from going off the fiscal cliff or suffering taxmageddon if the get their asses kicked on November 6. Not one damned reason. Good news for me – something will get done about the deficits! Bad news for everyone – it will be in a completely nasty manner, with little judgement exercised. (Not that the yahoos running the funny farm have any judgement, but still.)
What people aren’t understanding:
Most of the criticism of the Democratic Party and its leaders is valid.
Most of the criticism of the Republican Party and its leaders is valid.
Both statements are true.
“Neither do the voters, apparently, not even those of you who pride yourselves on caring about these matters, or you wouldn’t be all googly-eyed about the candidates you are supporting.”
At this point, what is the alternative? Is not voting for anyone going to help turn things around? If not, is voting for Obama going to help ratchet down the deficit? Then we have Romney/Ryan, who you indicate aren’t supplying the needed push to make a real dent in our fiscal problems. So, come November and beyond, what is your advice?
First things first, jan. Quit rewarding the elites for being slightly less terrible than the other side. Otherwise you are going to get more of what you are rewarding. What incentives do they have to do anything different? Don’t subsidize stupid.
jan, really it is hopeless. We have reached the bread-and-circuses part of the program. The Republic has been losing its little ‘r’ republican ideals and virtues for generations now. The Tea Party looked like a good movement at the start, but it has now devolved into more of the same “my team/your team” thinking. I’m not opposed to partisanship, but I am opposed to partisanship without principles. And that’s what we’ve got. Seriously, jan, why are you expecting the Republican Party to do anything different this time around than it did from 2001-2006?
Icepick
While I acknowledge your frustration with the rituals of current day politics, I personally think we are worse off than we were when Obama took office. And, I totally believe that, if given another 4 years, the whole situation would be far more disheartening than it is today.
Whether or not the R’s can do anything about it, remains to be seen, as it is with all new administrations. However, I’m willing to throw the ball into the Romney/Ryan court, because I already have had enough of how Obama runs his government. It’s what I call a vote against Obama, as well as exercising a choice for the ‘other’ guy.
The problem with the economy is a number problem. Too much debt is based on under priced assets. New debt cannot be created until the old debt is either paid down or written down (or a combination). In 10 – 20 years, the debt will be paid off. At this point the assets can be sold, and new debt can be created for the seller. The other option is to quickly write down the debt, but somebody is going to lose a lot of money. This money was used as leverage for the various financial instruments, primarily CDS’s.
The numbers are staggering, and there is nothing any politician can do to change this. GDP has to grow to fix the problem, but it will need to be more than 3.5% per year. As @Icepick has written, it will need to be bubble growth, but bubble growth is created through debt creation. See above for the debt creation problem. This is not defeatist. It is reality.
I would generally agree with @Drew, but if everything he advocated were put in place, there would be a minuscule increase in economic activity. Japan has been trying to fix its problem for 15+ years, and Europe will be shortly in the same situation. The US is experiencing the same problems, but the last time Europe’s collapse allowed the US to grow out of it.
When the EU begins to collapse, money will flee to the US, and as China’s problems increase, money will flee to the US. The US is considered to be the safest haven, and no other country comes close. Switzerland may be the closest.
As the capital flees from the rest of the world, their GDP will suffer causing them to become less competition for the US. The cycle will feed upon itself increasing the desirability of the US. (This will also fix a lot of other problems – Social Security, Medicare, tax revenues.)
Whichever party is in power at the time will claim that its policies were the cause. I am more aligned with the Republican philosophy, but unfortunately, Republicans are more aligned with Democratic philosophy.
The national debt will likely hit $20 trillion in 2016. We’d better hope TB is right, because if our interest rates start going up we are hosed.