All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Tami]

Admittedly sour grapes, but there really should be some law that any time an election result is within 1% or something, then everybody who sat out or voted third party could have a second chance to change their vote, accompanied by a stern reminder that hey, their vote DOES in fact count this time. I know everybody these days seems to favor these ranked choice ballots, but instant runoff systems fail to capture how seeing results coming in real time can create a sense of urgency and spur people into action, especially to avoid the regret from having to live with the results of your mistake for six years. I don't have many good things to say about Mississippi, but I like the way they set up their Senate race and while I doubt the Democrats have a prayer in the runoff at least it won't be because they lost a statistically tied race or got screwed over by the Greens again.

Runoffs often favor Democrats, or the ones that came in second, since the elimination of third or fourth candidates often mean that those voters are more likely to vote against the leader of the vote count.

[worstblogever]

Probably because I'm predictable, and he was Milquetoast?

If only Beto was an exciting old man who regurgitates the same talking points and doesn't know how to use a comb, then he'd be cutting edge.

[numberthirty]

Since I'm not sure how many folks may have read this article, I'll quote a particularly disconcerting part. It's hard to believe that this was their plan(or reflects a complete lack of a plan)...

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5...votes-he-needs

Is Beto O'Rourke Trying Hard Enough to Get the Latino Votes He Needs?

Christel Bastida, a volunteer in Houston, said the lack of focus on Latinos has been disheartening.

She’s noticed that many of Houston’s Latino residents were overlooked by the campaign until very recently. Like Moreno in Tarrant County, Bastida and fellow local O'Rourke supporters in Houston talk and organize online in Facebook groups for efforts that are not tied to the campaign. But when she worked for his campaign as a field organizer this summer, her peers often didn’t think that contacting or reaching out to Latinos was part of their job, she said. (The campaign did not respond to questions about Bastida and Moreno's experiences.)

As of early October, the campaign was still setting up pop-up offices and hiring neighborhood coordinators, at least in part with a focus on Latino neighborhoods.

“That’s a good first step. I really wish this step had [taken place] a year ago,” Bastida said.

Tzintzun agreed: “It’s my understanding that they’re hiring a lot more folks, but it is October now.”

Also from the article. This feels like a completely unforced error...

Within the past week, Bastida has opened a pop-up office in her home, where she is organizing with Spanish-speaking volunteers to block-walk and arranging rides for early voting. But as of late last week, she had not heard whether it’s a paid position or there’s any financial support.

From the end of the article. Democrats everywhere should have to read this...

But ultimately, Bastida worries that if O’Rourke doesn’t win, the blame will fall on Latinos for not voting. “It’s disturbing to me when people say, ‘Latinos don’t vote,’” she said. “If you invest zero dollars, zero staff, and you don’t hire from the neighborhood, what do you expect to happen? It just doesn’t work that way.”

[4saken1]

Admittedly sour grapes, but there really should be some law that any time an election result is within 1% or something, then everybody who sat out or voted third party could have a second chance to change their vote, accompanied by a stern reminder that hey, their vote DOES in fact count this time. I know everybody these days seems to favor these ranked choice ballots, but instant runoff systems fail to capture how seeing results coming in real time can create a sense of urgency and spur people into action, especially to avoid the regret from having to live with the results of your mistake for six years. I don't have many good things to say about Mississippi, but I like the way they set up their Senate race and while I doubt the Democrats have a prayer in the runoff at least it won't be because they lost a statistically tied race or got screwed over by the Greens again.

If lack in voter participation is your concern, countries that have compulsory voting have a much higher turnout which, in turn, usually favors the left. Charge people a $100 fine for not voting, and non-participation because of voter apathy nearly disappears.

I am an advocate for Ranked Choice Voting, however, and am eager to see how it develops in Maine and San Francisco. I wish the Green Party would spend more of it's energy getting it on the ballot across the country and less time trashing Democrats in hopes of increasing their perpetually stagnant 1% of the Electorate. I have heard arguments against it wrt the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by the Supreme Court, though, which might have some weight in this SCOTUS if it is ever challenged. Allowing a 'do over' Election seems like it would have the same affect that you criticize IRV voting of having in that people wouldn't have a sense of urgency to vote because their vote the first go-round isn't going to affect a 1% shift in the Electorate anyhow. "Why go out and vote the first time, I'll just vote if there's a close call do over" would be the attitude of many.

[numberthirty]

If lack in voter participation is your concern, countries that have compulsory voting have a much higher turnout which, in turn, usually favors the left. Charge people a $100 fine for not voting, and non-participation because of voter apathy nearly disappears.

I am an advocate for Ranked Choice Voting, however, and am eager to see how it develops in Maine and San Francisco. I wish the Green Party would spend more of it's energy getting it on the ballot across the country and less time trashing Democrats in hopes of increasing their perpetually stagnant 1% of the Electorate. I have heard arguments against it wrt the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by the Supreme Court, though, which might have some weight in this SCOTUS if it is ever challenged. Allowing a 'do over' Election seems like it would have the same affect that you criticize IRV voting of having in that people wouldn't have a sense of urgency to vote because their vote the first go-round isn't going to affect a 1% shift in the Electorate anyhow. "Why go out and vote the first time, I'll just vote if there's a close call do over" would be the attitude of many.

Personally, I have no desire to see what happens when Americans who are casting a vote just to avoid being fined do so.

[4saken1]

Personally, I have no desire to see what happens when Americans who are casting a vote just to avoid being fined do so.

I doubt a significant percentage would vote out of spite against their beliefs. Besides, there are other penalties that can be associated with compulsory voting instead of fines. In Belgium, not voting can make it harder for someone to get a public sector job. Other countries have compulsory voting on the books but it's not enforced. Despite this, most still have much higher turnout than we have here.

Many probably wouldn't like compulsory voting, but from what I've heard it actually does increase the number of left leaning candidates and policies that are enacted in places that have it.

Another policy which I think would help is if all citizens were automatically registered to vote at age 18 upon birth.

[numberthirty]

I doubt a significant percentage would vote out of spite against their beliefs. Besides, there are other penalties that can be associated with compulsory voting instead of fines. In Belgium, not voting can make it harder for someone to get a public sector job. Other countries have compulsory voting on the books but it's not enforced. Despite this, most still have much higher turnout than we have here.

Many probably wouldn't like compulsory voting, but from what I've heard it actually does increase the number of left leaning candidates and policies that are enacted in places that have it.

Another policy which I think would help is if all citizens were automatically registered to vote at age 18 upon birth.

One guy's take...

Fine? I can completely see Americans casting a "Bite Me" vote based on that they are facing a fine. That happens? You don't need a significant percentage to throw elections into something like chaos.

Something not enforced? It will be ignored.

[PwrdOn]

If lack in voter participation is your concern, countries that have compulsory voting have a much higher turnout which, in turn, usually favors the left. Charge people a $100 fine for not voting, and non-participation because of voter apathy nearly disappears.

I am an advocate for Ranked Choice Voting, however, and am eager to see how it develops in Maine and San Francisco. I wish the Green Party would spend more of it's energy getting it on the ballot across the country and less time trashing Democrats in hopes of increasing their perpetually stagnant 1% of the Electorate. I have heard arguments against it wrt the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by the Supreme Court, though, which might have some weight in this SCOTUS if it is ever challenged. Allowing a 'do over' Election seems like it would have the same affect that you criticize IRV voting of having in that people wouldn't have a sense of urgency to vote because their vote the first go-round isn't going to affect a 1% shift in the Electorate anyhow. "Why go out and vote the first time, I'll just vote if there's a close call do over" would be the attitude of many.

My issue with ranked choice voting is that it assumes that everyone goes in with a clearly defined ranking of candidates already in mind and that they will never want to change their list as votes are counted and candidates eliminated, which might be true if all voters were perfectly logical but is a bit of a stretch in practice. If there are a lot of candidates, trying to rank them all can be quite confusing, so many people will just put their less favored candidates in an essentially arbitrary order, which could be pivotal later on, or just leave them off the ballot, which risks throwing away your vote. An actual runoff election helps clear away a lot of noise and gives voters a chance to make a definitive choice, rather than having to consider all possible scenarios where their vote might be decisive, with the added advantage that people can get in their protest votes in the first round and still make a meaningful choice in the second.

Another thing I'd be in favor of is outlawing partisan primary elections entirely, and forcing all candidates to enter a jungle primary followed by a runoff if nobody gets a majority in the first round, just like in the Mississippi special election. Though I suppose that kind of system will just end up with some kind of informal primary that anoints the leading contenders, with cash flowing to those campaigns and funds cut off from marginal contenders and potential spoilers. Blah.

One guy's take...

Fine? I can completely see Americans casting a "Bite Me" vote based on that they are facing a fine. That happens? You don't need a significant percentage to throw elections into something like chaos.

Something not enforced? It will be ignored.

You can't have a functional democracy if you can't at least depend on voters to act like mature adults rather than petulant children who can't be entrusted to take voting seriously.

[numberthirty]

You can't have a functional democracy if you can't at least depend on voters to act like mature adults rather than petulant children who can't be entrusted to take voting seriously.

If you want voters who actually take it seriously, forget trying to compel them to vote.

That simple.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

As for Trump's gopher rodeo, why are news outfits still falling for that nonsense?

If a President want's to take an unearned victory lap, why are you even asking questions? Better question, why are you even showing up to cover it?

Way to throw Trump some free air time while you try to keep a lady from taking a mic from you. Brilliant strategy.

C'mon, thirty, you damn well KNOW why news outfits continue covering this nonsense----BECAUSE TRUMP GETS RATINGS! It's been that way since he announced his candidacy, he never had to spend so much as a dime during the campaign because the outlets gave him tons of free press anytime, anywhere, and nothing's changed since he won. Trump could announce a presser and tell everyone beforehand that he would pull down his pants and take a ****, and outlets would break into programming to cover his bowel movement.

====================

Trump’s Dismissal Of Jeff Sessions Sets Up Ugly Battle Over Mueller Probe

Democrats are not fans of the 84th attorney general but see his ouster as another presidential attempt to interfere with the special counsel’s Russia investigation. It's refreshing that Mueller and his team have stayed above the fray, shunned the media and concentrated on getting the job done. Meanwhile....

**********

Matt Whitaker’s Appointment May Be Illegal, Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano Says

“Under the law, the person running the Department of Justice must have been approved by the United States Senate for some previous position.” Well now, isn't THAT interesting?

**********

CNN Reporter Jim Acosta’s White House Press Pass Suspended After Argument With Trump

Sarah Huckabee Sanders made the announcement soon after the president called Acosta a “rude, terrible person” at a press conference earlier in the day. Followed by this....

**********

Press Corps Backs CNN’s Jim Acosta, Calling Out Sarah Huckabee Sanders For ‘Complete Lie’

“If he really thought [Jim] was unfair, then why did he call on him? Because he wants the confrontation,” The New York Times’ Peter Baker wrote. BINGO! Lastly....

**********

John Legend Slams Trump’s Behavior At Press Conference: ‘F**king Embarrassment’

The president got in a fight with CNN reporter Jim Acosta Wednesday. Yep, pretty much, John.

[numberthirty]

C'mon, thirty, you damn well KNOW why news outfits continue covering this nonsense----BECAUSE TRUMP GETS RATINGS! It's been that way since he announced his candidacy, he never had to spend so much as a dime during the campaign because the outlets gave him tons of free press anytime, anywhere, and nothing's changed since he won. Trump could announce a presser and tell everyone beforehand that he would pull down his pants and take a ****, and outlets would break into programming to cover his bowel movement.

====================

Sure.

We are just at the point where I don't get what the press think they are going to get. If you take a perfectly valid question about something like racism/white supremacy, do you really think you will ever get anything except a "Clown Shoes" answer out of Trump?

Ask it a million times and turn blue in the face, Trump will still be telling you that you are the racist just for bringing it up.

Never mind the whole "Acosta" angle. You don't react to "Clown Shoes" with "Clown Shoes".

Anything that's actually serious reporting needs to happen with the guy largely out of the picture. Otherwise, you are just a part of the problem.

[Iron Maiden]

Sure.

We are just at the point where I don't get what the press think they are going to get. If you take a perfectly valid question about something like racism/white supremacy, do you really think you will ever get anything except a "Clown Shoes" answer out of Trump?

Ask it a million times and turn blue in the face, Trump will still be telling you that you are the racist just for bringing it up.

Never mind the whole "Acosta" angle. You don't react to "Clown Shoes" with "Clown Shoes".

Anything that's actually serious reporting needs to happen with the guy largely out of the picture. Otherwise, you are just a part of the problem.

You could blame the press for giving Trump wall to wall coverage during 2016, esp after he became the nominee. I remember that summer that his rallies were covered not just by Fox but frequently by CNN and MSNBC too. Now he has the most important pulpit in the world. It's a no win situation. If he gave a press conference and no one showed up, they'd call them biased for not allowing the President to get his message out to the people, etc.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Sure.

We are just at the point where I don't get what the press think they are going to get. If you take a perfectly valid question about something like racism/white supremacy, do you really think you will ever get anything except a "Clown Shoes" answer out of Trump?

Ask it a million times and turn blue in the face, Trump will still be telling you that you are the racist just for bringing it up.

Never mind the whole "Acosta" angle. You don't react to "Clown Shoes" with "Clown Shoes".

Anything that's actually serious reporting needs to happen with the guy largely out of the picture. Otherwise, you are just a part of the problem.

The thing is, the suits in the boardroom and the bean counters don't see it that way. They see a short tempered, thin-skinned demagogue who can be pushed into a confrontation at the drop of a hat, and confrontations filmed live gets---wait for it---RATINGS! And you can't tell me Trump doesn't love those public slap fights just as much as the outlets, maybe more. Bottom line: news outlets will continue pushing that angle until it no longer gets ratings, and that ain't happening anytime soon.

[numberthirty]

You could blame the press for giving Trump wall to wall coverage during 2016, esp after he became the nominee. I remember that summer that his rallies were covered not just by Fox but frequently by CNN and MSNBC too. Now he has the most important pulpit in the world. It's a no win situation. If he gave a press conference and no one showed up, they'd call them biased for not allowing the President to get his message out to the people, etc.

Honestly, you could just send reporters with very little name recognition to do "Just The Facts, Ma'am..." coverage. When he opens up the floor to questions, just say "Nope. We're good." and call it.

Do a little bit of a recap on the news, and move on.

There's no reason for them to beat there heads against the wall on questions that the guy will never give a reasonable answer to. No reason to jump into one of the rings of his circus just because you showed up.

As for "It's about ratings!!!!!!!!!!!!!"...

Yeah, I know. There's just a point where it had better be worth the money because you are doing the public a disservice.

Edit: Something they could move on to...

Take that Vice news piece about if O'Rourke's campaign dropped the ball on Latino outreach. There is exactly no reason that you couldn't do a perfectly polite hard news interview about what happened there. It seems like that sort of reporting gets the people way more than that Acosta bit or having Avenatti on one more time.

[numberthirty]

It also looks like there was another mass shooting in California.