Where have all the swing voters gone?
Here’s an article that attempts to answer that question:
The notion that the 2020 campaign is a referendum on Donald Trump’s presidency has been a persistent storyline of this year’s campaign coverage. And properly so. A strong correlation exists between Americans’ approval of Trump’s presidency and whether they plan to vote for him.
But there’s a second-level storyline that’s often missing in the analysis, and it extends back two decades, the time at which wide swings in voter support disappeared during presidential general elections. It’s the story of party polarization, which began in the 1980s and was firmly in place by the early 2000s. It was marked by a widening of the partisan gap but also a strengthening of partisanship and antipathy toward the opposing party.
The hostility that many partisans have for the other party is a larger driver of the vote than might be assumed. Party identification was once the best predictor of how people would vote on election day — Democrats lining up behind their party’s candidate and Republicans backing their party’s nominee. But party identification no longer has that distinction. When Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster examined post-1990s elections, they found that “ratings of the opposing party were by far the strongest predictor” of vote choice. “The greatest concern of party supporters,” they write, “is preventing the opposing party from gaining power.”
Nothing surprising there.
But I get annoyed when people write in generalities such as “party polarization” and “partisanship.” It’s not that such words are incorrect, but I think they are screen words that smooth over what actually has happened.
It’s actually pretty simple, I think. One driver of this “polarization” is the fact that the press has become more transparent and nasty in its bias, which revs up those who tend to be on the left and further infuriates and frustrates those who tend to be on the right. That drives people who might otherwise be “undecided” into one camp or another. The same is true – and perhaps even more true – of the effect of social media, an amplifying echo chamber.
In addition, years ago there really were not all that many differences between the parties, except in certain years – Goldwater vs. LBJ, for example (and recall that Goldwater was considered to offer the stark contrast of “a choice, not an echo” back in the days when candidates mostly were echoes of one another). Now the differences are intense and obvious. It is far more difficult to remain undecided in that sort of situation, when so much appears to be riding on the choice the voter makes.
I think those who are still undecided at this point fall into two categories. The first is composed of people who have mostly tuned out politics – the LIVs – and who ordinarily vote not at all or on a last-minute whim. The second is made of people who might pay a lot of attention but who have an “a pox on both your houses” attitude towards both parties. Ordinarily, that carries over into antipathy to both nominees, as well, but Trump has attracted some of them because Trump is definitely something different in that regard.
I don’t know anyone who’s undecided at this point. Do you?
All the people I have contact with were decided 2 years ago. My BIL is the only one I’ve seen switch because he’s spent his Covid days watching CNN and has been brainwashed. The only events I can see moving the needle is possibly the debates, or the usual October surprise.
I agree with your point that the bias of the media is a central cause.
On the one hand, we Deplorables feel like we’re getting an unfair shake.
On the other hand, there is a set of virtue-signaling Dems who are convinced that the agreement of the elites, media, gov’t workers, celebs, professoriate and on and on PROVES they’re in the right and all-hands need to pitch in and get rid of the troglodytes.
This explains why having “Joe-mentia” as candidate is not a deal-breaker. The other side will hold their breath and vote for a senile man.
And it explains #WalkAway. Many people who come into contact with Deplorables realize they are humans just-like-them. They begin to recoil from the hate and the mindless discrimination needed to be a Dem in good standing. As the saying goes: Repubs think Dems are mistaken, Dems think Repubs are evil.
I read an article a while ago where some researcher found that it wasn’t a matter of undecided as to who to vote for, but whether to vote.
IOW, voter turnout.
Partisanship (loyalty to party) is often confused with loyalty to cause.
I would have called myself undecided until fairly recently, but it was between voting for Trump and voting third party, which, as I’ve mentioned here before, is a luxury I thought I could afford in a very red state. The Democrats are completely off the table for me. But their schemes for subverting the electoral college made me decide to vote for Trump. If he wins, I want it to be by a lot.
But to answer the question: I can’t think of anyone I know who seems to be undecided.
I think the driver is (1) the country is subculturally fissured and (2) bourgeois liberals are unwilling to leave any one alone or to refrain from insisting that each and every social venue be subject to their gleichschaltung and (3) a subset of working class voters tend to cast ballots as identity affirmations. The weignt of their ballots is in accordance with alliances made by ethnic vote brokers, who, in turn, are often motivated by antipathies themselves and (4) you’ve had reactive counter-mobilization to these phenomena, especially number (2). I think if would be helpful if ethnic bloc voters quit being motivated by abstract hostility and started voting their material interests. Of course, it would also be agreeable if bourgeois liberals weren’t self-centered jack-wagons, but that’s an eschatological expectation.
I know one potential undecided. She is a staunch Democrat LIV. Party of the people, and all that. She owns several properties and lives with her daughter, who votes Republican. Her son is changing from Republican to Democrat in disgust with recent city council “woke” decisions. I pointed out to her that the rioting cities are run by Democrats. That will be my one and only time to talk politics to her. She gets her news from TV- probably morning or afternoon talk shows more than TV news. She fell for the Atlantic hoax piece on Trump and the military, but apparently not completely, as she said, “May the best man win.” That implies some neutrality at this point, I believe. I still predict she will vote Demo, as that is her choice for a lifetime.
I think at least in California (not that it will make a difference) but I think some people who kind of shrug and say they don’t care or won’t admit it out loud are Trump people. I realize this is nothing new, as you read this every week in one column or another. But it is true. Since 2015 many folks I know are very careful how loud they speak in public (as in a coffee shop or restaurant–or FB page) as there are many crazies out there and frankly, they are afraid how others will react to their preferences. Or which “friends” will hate on them.
“bourgeois liberals are unwilling to leave any one alone”, esp. the ones with graduate degrees, who then become part of the Clerisy.
My daughter has been recently become part of that crowd, but also has come into enough contact with Deplorables, to realize they are humans.
As she has above-average sense, realizing this wasn’t hard for her.
So, yeah, she’s rather undecided, and likely to vote Green.
My wife and I are, thank God, comfortably retired. I do not go around promoting my Trump vote intentions. But if asked, I will answer clearly. If necessary, the implied “Do you gots a problem with that?” might escape. That’s when the other party clearly has a problem with it and begins to be….leftish.
Even in a conservative area, I hear more anti-Trump talk–not speaking of yard signs–which leads me to believe that there are shy Trump voters.
My wife and I are normal retirees, which is to say we can use our resources including good health to do the usual. We drive Meals on Wheels and help our neighbors. I’m on the church security team. An assistant pastor–quite liberal–asked me to talk to a younger congregant about an issue. My wife does meals for people having a rough time–see the Meal Train app.
So it’s hard to make us out to be some kind of fascist.
Not that that changes anybody’s vote because we favor Trump. But it puts a stick in the spokes of the Trump/Trumper haters. Well, you get your laughs where you can.
The difference between “then” and “now” is that the government has grown in power. As the government seeps into every aspect of our lives, the elections gain in importance. The stakes are higher. Many years ago when George Will was still sane, he said that the health of a nation can be judged by how FEW people voted. Low voting was a sign that the populace held power over their own lives and were relatively satisfied with how the government conducted itself in the small corner of activity that it had control over. The more power we cede to government the angrier our election process will be.
Up north over the weekend, judging by the signs, Biden will come in third.
after Trump, and “Firewood for Sale”.
Trump supporters stay outraged at the patent unfairness of the situation, which is unprecedented in its seamlessness. The key is the #Walk-Away people. Anyone who begins to apply critical thinking to the campaign coverage starts to red pill very quickly when they catch on. It does require one to begin paying attention, and of course most people who don’t follow politics just get turned off by the shrieking.
The Trump shrieking is edited to portray him at his bombastic worst. The Leftist shrieking is edited to make it seem as harmless as possible, which means there probably ought to be an Oscar category for successful examples.
For someone not issues-oriented, it all sounds like disagreeable noise, but Trump is worse because he’s shown more frequently. I guess this is an attempt to sway undecided voters of this type.
But the media – they are the ones that are truly diabolical in this regard with the environment they have carefully created, and their standards of behavior over the past 5 years plumb new depths. When I think of what they deserve, for this disservice to the country…..
I have a question; All the rioters are considered the Dems base. How many of them do you really think will vote? I will guess under 20%.
Remember METoo where a number of the female candidates attached their hopes too? Now it’s Me What?
The cause of most of this societal fracturing is from the previous gen not dealing with communism as the enemy is was in a competent and complete manner.
Now, the disease has spread so far and so deep that anyone opposing communism is “divisive”.
And the idiot cattle of the pop just moo right along without a single, solitary critical thought on the issues.
I too think there are very few truly undecideds, I certainly know of none. I also think that the riots have made up the minds of those who, previous to the riots were merely leaning toward voting for Trump. I strongly suspect that there’s a ground swell of disgust with the democrats building and much of it is with minority voters.
Here in Albuquerque I’ve seen almost no yard signs or bumperstickers about the campaign, though I do run into “Black Lives Matter” and “No Human is Illegal” yard signs.
Going by bumperstickers, Obama/Biden is the winning ticket…
I think the debates will embarrass Biden so much that Trump will have a clearly imminent win. The Democratic elders will be hysterical and exert extreme pressure on Biden to withdraw…for health reasons. Each party has rules as to what happens next, but essentially they could pick Kamala Harris or someone else. I have a hunch they would be so desperate that they would select Bernie Saunders and leave Kamala in-situ. A guess is that this would make it even easier for Trump to win despite the cataclysm of the large mail-in vote. This experience will teach us never to have another mail-in vote.
In the 1980s we were in the final years of a half-century of unified control* of Congress by a single party, with three news networks to shape the narrative benefiting that party. So yes there was a golden age of “bipartisanism” which was really monopartisan. But there was not a golden age of bipartisanism in reality, not even the “Era of Good Feelings” when you really look at it.
The fights are getting nastier because it’s no longer one side always getting its way and occasionally throwing bones to the minority to keep it that way…
*Only slightly exaggerated. 1931 to 1981 had two two-year periods where unified control briefly shifted to the Republicans. The House was controlled by Democrats from 1957 to 1997, after which it started flipping regularly; the Senate had started flipping in 1983.
I’m casting my lot with the people who are saying there won’t be any debates. Biden is answering reporters q’s with a teleprompter, the debates would be scheduled in the evening when Biden’s mental acuity would be the lowest. It’s a no go. We’ll see.
I live in northern NV, in a valley that has been historically Republican. This valley is filling up with people self-exiling from CA, and they will say they are fleeing liberal craziness, but many of them end up voting D because old habits die hard. So our valley is beginning to see increased blue voting.
Yet still Trump signs outnumber Biden signs about 1000 to zero. IOW, I haven’t seen a Biden sign in anyone’s front yard, although I know there are Biden supporters around somewhere. Trump is coming to our valley Saturday, so I suppose Neo’s readers will get some TV footage from around me. Pity, the valley is so filled with smoke from CA fires you won’t be able to see our mountains.
But the interesting thing is that we have a lot of Hispanics living here, and it appears they are gradually leaning more and more Republican. I find it hard to believe NV will vote red this year, but it has been moved from “solid D” to “leans D” in the great rating game.
We can only hope. We need a major October surprise.
Do I know any people who are still undecided? I don’t know Ann Althouse personally, but she does appear to be still undecided. Maybe she’s grasping for a reason, a shred of a scrap of any reason at all, to hold her anosmic nose and vote for the Democratic scarecrow. Or maybe she’s being uncharacteristically . . . shy.
I have been surprised by so many reports, here and elsewhere, on the lack of Biden signs, as the Democrats have no fear that they will be doxxed, harassed, accosted on the street, thrown out of restaurants, or suffer from stolen or mutilated signage & wearing apparel.
Is Fly-over-country where most of the Trump signs are, so that Team Biden really does feel afraid?
Are they so sure of winning that they don’t feel the need to express overt support?
Are there really no Democrats left in the country?
Yes, even here in NorCal there are few Biden signs.
But they’ll vote for him … it’s central to their self-image. How could they stand by and let Hitler (literally!!!!!!!!) win?
Check out this image, Liz and Bernie voters (supposedly) boost Joe but the support looks pretty amusingly lukewarm.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/399863/
I believe the first point is right, that voters are increasingly motivated by opposition to the other party. When I think back to my own “change”, in the early 2000s, a key driving factor was not only that I had moved to the right but that Democrats were moving leftward. It seemed to me that the “Michael Moore” wing was ascendant while centrists, really just more moderate New Deal Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, were no longer welcome in the party. In 2016 I had a lot of doubts about Trump (as you did if not even more so) but had little hesitation in voting for him because I simply did not want Hillary nor any other Democrat to become President especially after eight years of Obama. Even this year though I am far more appreciative of Trump, keeping Democrats out is still very high if not even still the highest on the list of my reasons for supporting him.
As to the other point, was this caused by the media, I’m not sure. I don’t think it was the only reason. The parties used to be more mixed ideologically, with a significant number of conservative Democrats, mostly Southern, and liberal “Rockefeller” Republicans in northern and coastal states. After the 1964 election they gradually swapped and the parties became more ideologically aligned.
But I do agree the media has had a lot to do with making it worse because their leftist bias has tremendously enabled the furthest left elements in the Democrats while at the same time they have often cowed more moderate Republicans even if they still leaned to the right. I don’t think I have to tell many people here that one of Trump’s key attributes is his determination to break this cycle by not bending to the media as so many “GOPe” types have in the past.
“The second is made of people who might pay a lot of attention but who have an “a pox on both your houses” attitude towards both parties. ” – Neo
Supported by another excerpt from the linked article:
SMH over the lack of writing skills at a supposedly premier think tank.
Nobody ever seems to either proofread their own work or enlist a friend to help.
Or maybe they just could not care less. (*winks*)
I think that the split depends a lot on WHY the swingers are still undecided. If they are now-disaffected former Democrats (#WalkAway and others), they might not vote for either candidate, but if the Left’s violence gets bad enough — personal and in their face — that might be enough to tip them Right.
October surprises do have an effect, but with the Democrats throwing so many of them at us so early, will there be anything left that can count as a “surprise” big enough to sway last minute voters? The extended mail-in election window also means that October now starts in early September, apparently.
I was also surprised to see so little propaganda (aka Trump-hate) in the piece, despite the source, although Bradlee does accept uncritically the left-wing dogma that Hillary would surely have won if only it hadn’t been for that rat Comey at the last minute — despite previously letting her off the hook for blatantly illegal conduct connived at by the FBI & DOJ — and ignoring the many negatives that factored into the reluctant-Trump voters’ calculations.
This is the link “covered” by his phrase “cost her the election.”
Understatement of the decade, by Silver:
“Clinton’s lead was considerably more fragile than it appeared from national polls.”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-invisible-undecided-voter/
And we DO argue the point, because it is fundamentally unanswerable without a detailed survey of those late-breaking voters, but Vox attempted an explanation based on polling data, which Silver linked.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign
The data and analysis appear to be sound, so far as they go, but ultimately Vox misses the elephant in the room: Comey’s email did nothing more than confirm the impropriety of his earlier transparently partisan exculpation of Clinton, and cement the view that she was a lying manipulator. Arguably, without it, the late-breakers might have voted for her anyway, but they might not have because of existing unease about her — there is really no way to know, and they might not know themselves.
What was interesting to me is that the Democrats did learn one thing from their loss: not to run negative pieces about their preferred candidates.
(The media referred to here, in a linked post, include The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post – not exactly bastions of Right Wing support.)
Obviously, IMO, they were trying to give the appearance of neutrality and even-handedness — and generate clicks — because they thought Clinton had the election in the bag, but they gave that up the day Trump won: see any number of stories about the massive imbalance of negative to positive Trump stories, despite his achievements which — had they been Obama’s — would have had reporters swooning in the aisles (as opposed to clutching their pearls and fainting).
FOAF
I believe the first point is right, that voters are increasingly motivated by opposition to the other party.
Decades ago I changed from Democrat to Third Party. My gradual change from Third Party to occasional Republican to always Republican was punctuated by disgust for various stances taken by Democrat politicians.
Which may be why someone once called me “the un-Democrat.”
“All the rioters are considered the Dems base. How many of them do you really think will vote? I will guess under 20%.” – J H Corcoran
They don’t need to vote: they just need to hand their ballots over to someone who will do it for them.
Unquestionably a lot of us are “un-Democrats”, Gringo. And getting more “un” all the time.
Eva Marie at 6:59 pm: very good point.
Ed at 7:09 pm: LOL!
I can’t find it now but something I read earlier today at NRO reminded me that:
1) since this is a decade election year with a census, whoever takes the state houses will control redistricting and impact the House for the next 10 years.
2) if Dems take the Senate, those positions are held for 6 years, so they could even influence things beyond the 2024 election cycle. This assumes we still have a republic of any real sort by then. Some of you believe we will be building barricades with used ammo boxes by then. I hope you are wrong.
My level of “undecidedness” is just how real are those kind of projections.
I don’t see any end to this but for (1) civil war, or (2) subjugation.
Subjugation is what he Left has done decades ago to Europe. Win elections and the culture and just make right-wing thought illegal and un-discussable.
The Democrats are not going to let Trump win. He will win election night. Then over the next month the Left will manufacture mail -in votes to win.
If they get away with it, we will never be allowed to elect another Republican. And subjugation will have won.
I wonder if there will be any new swing voters in these “cowboy” crews?
The reason I ask is in the bolded paragraph: it’s standard-issue boilerplate disclaimer from the fire fighting agency, but indicative of a mindset in California politics that the Napa saviors may possibly start to question, since the consequences have gotten up-close and personal.
It’s also mind-numbingly tone-deaf.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/wine/article/Napa-locals-go-cowboy-bulldozing-fire-15520327.php
I had to look twice to make sure it wasn’t a post from the Babylon Bee.
Twelve years ago my election-year yard signs were torn apart by partisans who took umbrage at my choice of candidate. Afterwards I learned that anyone can access an online database to discover who donated what to political candidates. They still haven’t taken away my right to vote, not yet. I am the silent majority as are many other people I know.
This discussion confirms my general impression that we don’t know what the heck is going on. I noticed there was one YouTube in my feed that was titled ‘Why I couldn’t walk away”. I thought that it was about time for the Dem establishment to fight back in that arena – they have left it rather late. I also have no idea how significant or real Walk Away is, much less any counter astroturfing. The other thing I pick up is that things are moving so fast right now that even with a month and a half to go things might change drastically more than once by election day. Covid and the riots might be off centre stage. Dumping Biden for another candidate would sure do that. Conversely, I’m not sure a Comey indictment would move the needle significantly despite it being hoped for by many on the right. But I expect convulsions from the left which seems to be realizing that #Bidenriots might be setting them up for big loss. I also think the Trump peace deals, which appear to be unmistakably real, may be a better winning move for Trump than indicting the coup bureaucrats – which might increase Democrat voters motivation because it is indicting their heros. (I had a Democrat friend describe them as such.) So – given the stakes – October is likely to be full of surprises and don’t forget the ‘Unknown Unknowns either!
There is a voter type that’s focused on feel-good results and almost deaf to arguments about what policies lead to what results. These are the “for the children” and “visualize world peace” folks.
Almost by definition, they’re LIVs. They’d like to mark a box for a candidate who feels comfortable, the archetypal “cares about people like me” candidate. They’re in a tough spot this year. I’m hoping that means they’ll stay home. Some will vote anti-riot, perhaps. I like President Trump’s line in Michigan last night: “If you elect Biden, leftist nuts won’t just be in charge of the Democrat cities, they’ll be in charge of the DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court.”
Repeating my comment from another thread: The left keep thinking it’s a good tactic to publicize and prop up any tired old puppet to the right of Mao who’s willing to repeat the same recycled pablum about how “TRUMP IS NOT A *REAL* CONSERVATIVE”. As if it matters one iota. But they think if someone on “your side” says not to trust the Bad Orange Man because he’s not really “one of you”, we stupid conservatives will lap that up like a dog returning to vomit. Well, I’m not conservative. I’m not Republican. I’m right wing, and the left and the neocons can take their false equivalencies and hypocrisies and double standards and cram it up themselves until they choke on it. I’m done playing the childish libertarian game of pretending “both sides are just as bad”. At this point, a vote for Trump isn’t just a vote for Western civilization, it’s a vote for civilization period. Do you like flush toilets and clean running water? Then don’t vote Democrat.
Biden is going to get much higher voter turnout than he would have in years past because of mail-in voting. People that blame the virus and lockdown on Trump but who wouldn’t be motivated otherwise to go out and stand in line to vote for Biden will mail in their ballot. States that had mail-in primaries have reported record-high “turnouts”.
The high turnout and the fraudulent ballots streaming in after the election should be enough to cement a Biden landslide.
Texan99: “visualize world peace”
Me: “visualize whirled peas”
I cannot take credit for that but it always puts a smile on my face.
“Twelve years ago my election-year yard signs were torn apart by partisans who took umbrage at my choice of candidate”
I’ve had a Trump bumper sticker on my car all year. Here in Silicon Valley which went Hillary 4 to 1. (It’s on our cheapest car). Labor Day night someone peeled it off and took it. Didn’t hurt the car though, for which I’m grateful.
Loved the cowboy tractor story above, thanks!
JimNorCal, where I live is a strange place. People adorn their cars but it is rare to see yard signs. There are public areas along the roadside where candidates post their signs.
However if I travel 5 miles north (farther away from NYC) then people are freer to express themselves. As an interesting contrast, I used to commute 40 miles to the east in Connecticut. I used to love taking the neighborhood back streets. Such grand displays! House after house; it was so good to see. Not where I live. You need to watch your (political) backside in New York. It’s a shame how intolerant and evil people have become.
momo says it well.
huxley,
NM is an electorally insignificant though strange and beautiful place. It has gone Dem in many recent elections thanks to ABQ and Santa Fe.
On another note, the raging, vast wildfires in NorCal and Oregon may be a warning sign from God.
Who, by this point would not know that the issue is a choice between freedom and our traditional liberties on the one hand, versus a life dominated by a no-limits government run by mentally ill and morally alien post-modern, even post human in some respects and insofar as they can manage it, fantasists and nihilists?
It’s obvious to anyone willing to “trust their own lying eyes”, and judgment, rather than the narratives spun by the anal-receptives, emotionalists, and hysterics at CNN or MSNBC.
But of course, in a society wherein much of the working age population has zero idea about or a dirrect connection with the processes or economics of production, little matters of manufacturing output or capacity and their restoration, the acheivement of record employment numbers, or even where their own tax purchased feed bags come from, such concerns will stand for nothing with many when weighed against the big screen trauma of micro aggressions, or a lack of socially expressed appreciation directed their way, 24/7.
What these unlovely, unlovable and unloving types demand then, is not good government, nor economic prosperity, nor traditional political and civil rights, but rather your self-sacrificial love and affirmation; aka your unconditional submission to their whims and aims: and by Gaia, they will have it or else they will burn your depraved indifference to their pain -or anyone else’s pain if they are not experiencing any – to the ground.
Afer all, were they not born? Did they not, some of them, go to college? Have not some of these found institutional niches which serve to prove their fitness to rule and command? And have they not recited those slogans of tolerance and equality, which demonstrate their purity of heart, and their rightful place in the vanguard of an evolving humanity?
Does not all this then prove that you owe them, and that to resist – whether you be neighbor, relative, or even mother, father, sister or brother – expose you as a fascist worthy of an extrajudicially administered (until such time as they can establish complete control there too) death?
‘Sorry Grandpa. Thanks for that graduation gift and all back when. But you be the old and I be the new … and if you only experienced how wonderful it is to be on the inside, to feel socially important, you would then understand why I have to report you, or maybe even pull the trigger myself. It’s for the sake of a more equal, and therefore more just, world. And to get there, some must do the killing, and some must do the dying, and some, like me, the directing. Hope you understand. In any event, you are now unfriended and blocked. However my wedding registration website is still up and gifts can still be selected, and sent to the address indicated”
So, on the one hand freedom; and the ability to breathe, and to do, without asking permission of demented schoolmarmish commisars.
On the other hand, a perpetual, ever mutating no-limits bondage to the neurotic obsessions of people who have never seen a cow or a hammer up close, and whose one aim in life has been to insulate themseves from any such terrifying and primitive prospect.
What’s to be uncertain about? How can a swing voter even exist?
DNW:
A brilliant, telling statement. Thank you.
NM is an electorally insignificant though strange and beautiful place. It has gone Dem in many recent elections thanks to ABQ and Santa Fe.
Cicero: I still feel new here and I don’t know the lay of the land politically beyond the general sense it is a blue state (and I’m part of a blue family well-connected).
However, I am gratified that the Trump campaign has not written New Mexico off:
__________________________________________
“One hundred days out I still say that President Trump is going to win New Mexico and New Mexico is going to carry him over the top. I think it’s going to be very close nationally, but we’ll carry him over the top,” Pearce told Boyle.
“State GOP Chair Predicts Trump Will Win New Mexico”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/25/state-gop-chair-predicts-trump-will-win-new-mexico/
__________________________________________
Antifa tried to get the riots going in Abq but failed to obtain traction. I’m not sure why.
“the raging, vast wildfires in NorCal and Oregon may be a warning sign from God.” – Cicero
Not a warning sign, but a farewell note to those who have uncordially invited him to vacate their premises. I take it as a reminder that entropy reigns whenever the Watchmaker is run out of town, and the natural consequence of folly is destruction.
Second the motion on DNW’s essay.
How can a swing voter even exist?
DNW: That’s how it seems to you and that’s how it seems to Democrats.
Democrats dial down all the crazy on their side and dial up all the crazy they discern from Trump and conservatives, so they see it as a slam-dunk for their side, especially since they start from the assumption they possess the moral and intellectual high ground.
Yesterday I was talking with an intelligent, ex-hippie cafe friend and trying to open his mind a tiny bit by telling him that Ann Coulter was a Deadhead. Me too, but Coulter was not a casual fan. She went to sixty-seven Grateful Dead shows, “And they were awesome,” she said.
____________________________________________
TH: It’s time to name names. Who are the other Deadheads who have infiltrated the conservative movement?
AC: As a Deadhead and a freedom-lover, I am wounded to the bone that you think the two do not naturally go hand in hand. The Deadheads I just met casually and not through conservative politics were almost always right-thinking, whatever they called themselves. Deadheads believe in freedom – not a government telling people how much water they can have in their toilets or where they can smoke or whether they should be allowed to own a gun.
https://jambands.com/features/2006/06/23/deadheads-are-what-liberals-claim-to-be-but-aren-t-an-interview-with-ann-coulter/#:~:text=You%20always%20felt%20like%20you,be%20but%20aren%27t%3A%20unique
____________________________________________
Yes, the Grateful Dead are about freedom. Dead-bang-on.
Of course, this Did Not Compute for my friend. Aren’t conservatives always against freedom, he asked? I kind of rolled my eyes and said, “That’s not the way she would frame her position.” We agreed to disagree and returned to our more enjoyable mode of conversation.
But I haven’t given up on him. Not that I expect to convert him, but to drive a stake in the ground that I’m a relatively decent, intelligent person and I’m conservative and maybe he could respect that.
I know at least three couples who are undecided. They fit the category of apolitical LIVs. They find both sides distasteful and consider politics to be a dirty game. Whenever I have tried to converse about politics they avoid the conversation by saying it’s all BS and they don’t like to talk about it. They have never really considered in any detail how government policies affect their lives. They also don’t have a core philosophy except to try to be fair and nice. I don’t know if they are regular voters or just skip the process as being too much of a bother to figure out who to vote for. Could any of them suddenly change their minds? It would take something earth-shattering. Like some high profile indictments by John Durham or BLM riots in our small town.
When you consider that we only get about a 60% turnout in this state during national election years, it seems that there are many people in the category of apolitical non-voters. It’s a shame, but that’s the way people are.
huxley:
I understand why you changed the subject. But I kind of wish you hadn’t. I’d be curious how he would define “freedom.” It also would be interesting to hear if he distinguishes between “freedom” and “liberty,” and is at all aware of the differing attitudes of the parties towards the latter in particular.
Cicero, thanks for the overly generous remark. I happened to have spent the last few days using a hammer in an area with lots of cows. Not my own cows. They are just kept in the area. But the hammer was mine.
As for the complacent or apathetic political ‘free rider” – to redeploy one of Haidt`s terms – they seem to me to be lacking in something more than information. Whether it is a lack of self respect, or a sense of the duties of citizenship and the responsibilities of a free man, or not, there is definitely something missing.
One might try to excuse it by saying that they are overwhelmed by life and can’t be bothered to hand out flyers or canvass neighbors. But at a base level, at a minimum, all they are being asked to do is to THINK. But for the heads down peasantry, full of appetites but no feelings of pride in, or responsibility for, their heritage of liberty, even that is too much.
But, but, but, they pay their taxes, they protest. Maybe, but so does a serf. But, but, but, they help the old neighbor lady, and even go to church once in a while. So does the serf. But they served in the armed forces! Again, maybe. But Fredrick the Great had an army too, as did the Romanovs, and Stalin. Did that demonstrate anything about the soldier being a free and responsible citizen?
When you talk to someone who says, “fie on both their houses” (As if there are only two) or ” you can’t fight city hall” , or “they are all corrupt” you are talking to a resentful shirker covering its tracks. And frankly, they are only free as a result of an unappreciated, and in their cases undeserved, gift made to them by other, better men.
Now, maybe some people are just plain too stupid, or too much the inherent slackers to be informed or to have well thought out ideas on freedom and constitutionalism, or even moral obligation – much less be able to state well reasoned opinions.
Perhaps, they are not in fact fitted by their own natures to be free and self-governing ( in senses both big and small) men and women. Maybe they are best described as implicit, as opposed to explicit under law, wards of the state.
But I doubt that they have the humility to admit it. Instead they are imposters, pretending to be what they are not, and using cynicism to shield themselves from worse crticism. You don’t have to be heroic to think and reason and explain. You just have to be dutiful enought to do it, and minimally competent intellectually. And it appears that they are neither.
But I always try to look the sunny side. We may in fact be fortunate that more of them don’t vote. Because they are probably natural born collectivists by dint of personal limitations, anyway.
huxley: Next time you are presented the opportunity when a friend tries to paint conservatives as anti-freedom, have your smartphone ready and read aloud about Tipper Gore’s Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC). Her right-wing hubby VP Al Gore (/sarc) stood by her.
DNW: Neo’s site attracts many articulate commenters like you. I used to be a regular reader of Richard Fernandez but in my opinion he doesn’t connect with his readers quite like Neo.
I’d be curious how he would define “freedom.”
neo: I’m not sure, but he briefly supported his charge of conservative anti-freedom with a flurry of images of the war against drugs, three-strikes sentencing, and putting immigrants into “concentration camps.”
I don’t believe he has ever read conservatives on their own and in context.
Brian Morgan: Not sure of your point. Perhaps you could quote or link the PMRC position you have in mind.
huxley: Regarding the “war on drugs” my BIL was busted many years ago for trafficking cocaine. He did time. He came out a changed man, and went to become a loving father and husband. IMO those who react harshly to the war on drugs see drug use as a victimless crime. It’s not. If my BIL hadn’t done time he probably would have been gunned down by rival drug gangs.
IMO those who react harshly to the war on drugs see drug use as a victimless crime. It’s not.
Brian Morgan: Ex-hippies who complain about the war on drugs usually are defending marijuana — a far less harmful drug than alcohol or nicotine, not to mention cocaine, heroin, meth etc.
As far as I am concerned, smoking marijuana is as much a victimless crime as drinking wine, and it is an issue where I agree that most conservatives, not all, have come out against freedom.
Also, I find the happy ending of your BIL unpersuasive. Surely you are aware that most people coming out of prison, innocent or guilty, are not improved by the experience. And some innocent people, have been broken or killed there.
BTW not all dealers stick around to be killed by rival gangs. I knew some Italian brothers trafficking cocaine, who lost their mafia support and when the Colombian cartel told them they were done and demanded their supply and their money, they complied. They moved to Nashville and went into the roofing business.
huxley:
Personally, I think the horse has left the barn on the criminalization of marijuana. As of course it has on the criminalization of drinking alcohol, as Prohibition proved.
And indeed, alcohol may do even more damage than marijuana. But it does plenty of damage, and marijuana does, too. It is not a victimless crime, not in the least.
See this. I’m really putting that link in here for other people, because I know that you and I have been around the mulberry bush with this many many times. Note also that the author, Alex Berenson, is the guy who’s done a lot of good stuff on the COVID response.
As Berenson says, he used to be a libertarian on drugs.
And about that comparison between alcohol and marijuana, there’s this [emphasis added]:
neo: I don’t get it. Then are you saying that drinking wine is a victimless crime, but marijuana isn’t?
We’ve been over this before. I’m not saying marijuana is a perfect, utterly harmless drug, but it is more harmless than most. And as long as you can go to the counter and buy alcohol or nicotine over the counter as an adult, I don’t see an honest argument that marijuana shouldn’t be.
Many things in life, maybe most, have their harms. Guns, for example. Do we criminalize all of those? Or do we just make exceptions when it pleases us?
I just saw this piece on Martha MacCallum with 3 “undecided voters in Michigan.
This one woman made no sense until I realized, her internal conflict is that she doesn’t want to vote for Trump, but can’t bring herself to vote for Biden, so she complains that they are talking “at” her, not “to” her, whatever that means.
One of the three has just swung to Trump and can explain it coherently.
BTW, those constantly wringing their hands over the Gramscian march that has undermined America might want to consider that a huge wedge issue for young people in the 60s/70s was the idiotic “Reefer Madness” approach to marijuana.
Many of us then felt that if conservative authorities could lie so happily, ignorantly and blatantly about something we saw in front of our eyes otherwise, there was good reason to doubt them about everything else.
that a huge wedge issue for young people in the 60s/70s was the idiotic “Reefer Madness” approach to marijuana.
I gather you got busted.
Art Deco: No. And I’d rather never to hear another personal remark from you.
Make a note.
the idiotic “Reefer Madness” approach to marijuana.
Many of us then felt that if conservative authorities could lie so happily, ignorantly and blatantly
The liberals of decades past were fully on board with the war on drugs. This wasn’t ideology. There was evidence. It may have been merely correlations that didn’t consider dependent factors, or it was a diversitist framework that indulged color judgments.
“if conservative authorities could lie so happily, ignorantly and blatantly….”
Yeah, about not only grass, but (along w/ LBJ?) on the implausible Tonkin Gulf affair, and “mainstream stance on JFK’s demise.
(Like it or not, suspicion of that one was quickly growing thruout society, esp. about the Ruby part.)
Large sections of the Right bear much responsibility, for the atmosphere in which the Gramscian march gained such steam.
huxley:
No, I am saying that drinking alcohol is NOT a crime (it only was one during Prohibition) and marijuana is fast becoming NOT a crime in most places, but that both are not the least bit “victimless.” I am also saying that, although until recently I would have said that alcohol has, per capita of drinkers, more victims than marijuana, I am beginning to think that marijuana may have the same number of victims as alcohol, per capita of users.
I also said I think the horse has left the barn on criminalization of marijuana. Was it not clear what I meant by that? So I’m not sure why you are going on about how there is risk in everything, or why you think I am talking about re-criminalizing marijuana. I believe I made it quite clear I am not talking about that.
The fact that there are other drugs – heroin, fentanyl – that cause even more harm is quite irrelevant. The fact is that marijuana causes a lot of harm to a lot of people. I have no solution to the problem, because (as I already have said) I don’t think coming down hard on it with criminal penalties has a chance of working, any more than Prohibition worked. Unfortunately, as more and more people use marijuana because it has been decriminalized, more and more people will be harmed by it. Obviously, just as with alcohol, most people who try it will be okay with it. But a very significant number are harmed.
“mainstream stance on JFK’s demise.
Try some inductive reasoning, something with which about 90% of the people who talk this way cannot be bothered.
“something with which about 90% of the people who talk this way cannot be bothered.”
Whereas, 99.99% of the people who talk the other way are the apotheoses of intellectual rigor & honesty! (/s)
You guys crack me up. Relax it’s 9/11!
I really don’t do the social media thing. In a funny way, this blog is becoming a major social outlet for me these days. So I regard the ‘undecided’ voter in much the same way I conceive of, say, flying fish: they’re out there somewhere, I hear remarkable stories of them, would love to meet one, but have never actually done so. This is not, you’ll note, on a level with Bigfoot, which I regard as indeed mythical; flying fish are not. 🙂
I had the craziest thought yet about Biden – in fact, I woke up with the notion the other day – it seemed to follow on from a dream I was having. Here it is: what if Biden is deliberately simulating dementia/senility/whatever one wants to call it? Crazy thought, right? But the reason that I think this sort of half-seriously is that it occurred to me, because of that dream or whatever it was, that if I were in his place, and someone FAR above the Dem Nat’l Committee had sat down and made me one of those ‘offers I can’t refuse’ in order to get me to stay in the race, what if I really wanted to get the heck out and felt I had no other way?
Is it possible that Biden feels trapped and is in reality screaming for help while trying desperately to make it look as if he’s doing the opposite, in order to please someone in the shadows?
The only reason that I don’t dismiss this out of hand is frankly that, if I were in such a situation and were being blackmailed or threatened in a serious way to get this election done, faking dementia just enough to sabotage my own campaign, but in a totally deniable way so that I could shrug my shoulders and blame it on factors beyond my control when that certain someone starts asking the inevitable uncomfortable questions… I could see myself adopting such a plan.
I know it’s a totally wacky idea. But suddenly, just like that, it makes me feel a droplet of pity for Biden. As one S. Holmes said, once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I think that my nutty theory would be at least briefly entertained by him as it does seem to explain some of the facts.
Whereas, 99.99% of the people who talk the other way are the apotheoses of intellectual rigor & honesty! (/s)
They’re not confusing the issue of their imagination with observable reality. You’ve had 56 years to build a case from the ground up, and you haven’t done it. Hundreds of conspiracy books published, but no case.
Philip, I like it. But what if after all the faking he suddenly realizes that he likes the idea of being President and aces all the debates. The bar has been set very low for him.
Art Deco: No. And I’d rather never to hear another personal remark from you.
Make a note.
I don’t work for you.
Eva, I don’t think such a change of mind would make any sense in the scenario I’m thinking of, since if he were to change his mind in that way, the behind-the-scenes coercion would be made superfluous at once. There’s no need to force someone to do something he’s really keen on, after all. No, the whole premise implies that Biden would see something terrible in his future if he were to be the one in the big chair and that wouldn’t change on a whim. Now granted, that’s how I would envision the scenario; Biden’s take on it might perhaps be subject to such vagaries if my idea had any real basis.
Regarding marijuana and victimless crimes:
Had marijuana been handled differently from the beginning — say, in the same manner as tobacco — and then suddenly been criminalized in the past century (as it was, along with other narcotics), perhaps we could see it being decriminalized now and also see it enter into our lives with no problems.
But the truth is, marijuana was co-opted by criminal elements long ago as a source of large income. So now, in places where it has been legalized (I live in NV, which has had legal marijuana for a couple of years), we’re beginning to see problems associated with its legalization.
For one, an illegal market continues to exist side-by-side with the legal one, and it is difficult to stamp out and comes with its own problems.
For another, everything we suppose we know about marijuana use is based on the lower THC-level stuff that was popular in the sixties. That has been surpassed now by product with a much higher level of THC, and we don’t know how to deal with this new extra-strong marijuana. It’s a new world out there, and we don’t know the health or legal (as in marijuana DUIs, for example) ramifications of the new world.
Another problem is the “hybrid” situation we have, where state law permits marijuana possession and use but federal law does not. So banks and credit card companies won’t touch it, forcing it to be an all-cash business, with attendant problems such as what do you do with large quantities of cash you can’t put in a bank? And how do you protect your product or your cash from constant pilfering or outright theft if you can’t call the cops to protect you? (This last point exists in varying degrees in different jurisdictions.) Private armies? Paid in cash? Another problem just waiting to happen.
And there are other issues. Please take my word for it, legalizing marijuana has created problems that were not anticipated, and with those problems have come victims. It is not a victimless crime problem here in NV.
“Hundreds of *conspiracy* books published, but *no* case.”
According to who, other than shills for the Deep State?
As if we don’t know, that such shills have been inundating the MSM for at least *years* (e.g on “Trump Collusion w/ Russia’s HACK of our darling Democracy!!”), probably *generations*.
Notice, folks, how *any* doubts about the mainstream stance
(e.g. the Warren Rept.) are (in knee-jerk fashion) *caricatured* as Conspiracy theories.
Recall, this discussion started, w/ my reference to doubts about the “mainstream stance on JFK’s demise”, in the *context* of Huxley’s reference to doubts about the mainstream stance on Reefer Madness.
My reasonable claim, about widespread *doubts* about JFK/ Ruby, was greeted with a snide “90% of the people who talk this way cannot be bothered” with applying inductive reasoning, as if such reasoning could *only* lead, to contempt for those who expressed *doubts* about the mainstream stance.
Just as, more recently, doubts about the mainstream stance on Trump Collusion w/ Russia’s HACK, were dismissed with infinite contempt, this almost certainly largely at the behest of the Deep State.
Whatever your view of the specs of the JFK/ Ruby matter, the way that the mainstream sneered at *all* doubts about this mainstream stance, ought to have razed alarms about the mainstream Mentality, much like the way that the mainstream sneering, at *all* doubts about Reefer Madness, raised alarms about that Mentality.
Sadly, far less noise is made on the Right, about the baleful impact by J. Edgar upon U.S. intellectual life (via his stranglehold upon the MSM & Hollywood, e.g w/ “Reefer Madness”), than about the “Jooo” Frankfort School.
At times I suspect, that much of the noise about that “Jooo School” is Deep State- inspired, to cover for that crowd’s baleful impact.
My dream scenario is, that Barr will eventually expose the extent of this systematic D.S. corruption of U.S. intellectual life.
D.S. etc. propagandists just *love* to set up spurious dichotomies, wherein if you don’t toe the Party Line (e.f. on JFK/ Ruby), you *must* be one of those outré Conspiracy Theorists.
These D.S. types know that they can count on a number of Live Ones, ready to be taken by such ploys.
Even our “Higher Ed” system rarely teaches students to beware of such ploys.
“Is it possible that Biden feels trapped and is in reality screaming for help while trying desperately to make it look as if he’s doing the opposite, in order to please someone in the shadows?” – Philip
Even if it’s not true, it makes a heckuva good movie pitch!
Philip Sells:
It’s a nice script, but I would never accept it as reality for one simple reason: Biden has had a dream of being president for just about his entire adult life. He has repeatedly run for president and done abysmally, but it didn’t stop him from trying. He finally caught the brass ring when Obama elevated him out of his steady-state senatorial role to become VP. He may be losing some of his marbles, but I believe that what drives him now most of all is his lifelong personal ambition.
According to who, other than shills for the Deep State?
You have to demonstrate the following:
1. That someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy; or
2. That there was a 2d gunman; or
3. That he was assisted by some other party;
—
4. Then you have to demonstrate who hired these persons, if anyone.
You’re all zero for four. One of the better conspiracist researchers is Josiah Thompson; he’s a straight shooter, not a fanatic, and begins with known data. He’s spent five decades trying to build a case that there was a second gunman. As more techniques for analyzing the extant evidence come online, his case gets weaker and weaker.
My reasonable claim, about widespread *doubts* about JFK/ Ruby, was greeted with a snide “90% of the people who talk this way cannot be bothered” with applying inductive reasoning, as if such reasoning could *only* lead, to contempt for those who expressed *doubts* about the mainstream stance.
What ‘reasonable doubts’ expressed?
I’m not interested in ‘expressing contempt’ for anyone. I am irked, bored, and impatient with people who have their investments in the work of their imagination, which is more real to them than anything which actually happened. I had a discussion several years ago with one of these creatures kept insisting to me that the musings of some random person in Atlanta whose hobby was writing letters-to-the-editor was evidence of ‘prior knowledge’ of the assassination. That same man kept insisting that the autopsy on the president was a fraud and all of his wounds were from the front. No clue whether he collared that bit of fiction from David Lifton or some other conspiracy writer. (He also kept referring to me as ‘ultrasubcretin’ in the discussion, if other people’s contempt bothers you). In a different discussion, he kept insisting that the Dallas police had made an announcement in the afternoon of 22 November 1963 of an event that had yet to occur (but which he insisted to me they pre-planned). Other people like this man just skip the details (actual and imaginary) and get on with the business of gassing about the CIA.
huxley
n.n. in reply
Consider the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York State, which Governor Rockefeller signed into law on May 8, 1973. Current consensus is that they were too harsh, too draconian. Consensus is also that Governor Rockefeller was a liberal. Ask any Goldwater supporter. Right here is evidence that at least some liberals supported the war on drugs. The Wiki article points out that William F. Buckley was against the Rockefeller Drug Laws. From the NYT, we find out the Rockefeller Drug Laws passed the NY Senate by a 46-7 vote, which leads one to the conclusion that liberals were on board with the war on drugs.
NYT: Senate Passes Assembly’s Version of Antidrug Bill.
And Governor Rockefeller did sign them into law PDQ.
Having been a passenger in a fatal auto accident at age 6 that was the responsibility of a drunk, I have always approached drugs- alcoholic or not- with much caution. Yes, I have gotten drunk, and in decades past I did on occasion smoke marijuana. But having early experience of their power, I didn’t use them much.
Deco, on “You have to demonstrate the following:
1…
2…
3…
4…”
I don’t *have to* demonstrate anything, as my doubts about the mainstream spin have zip to do with the number of gunmen.
Alas, it’s all-too common, for those enthralled by DS shills, to cheery-pick the arguments, to then spin about.
I wrote above, not about what could be, or may have to be, *demonstrated*, but on what was/ could be reasonably suspected, incl. how the DS warps journalistic etc. processes (be they about JFK, Tonkin Gulf, or grass).
Whatever crap you ran into, from *one* brat years ago, has *nothing* to do with the totality of debates on this issue, about which at least hundreds of people have written.
However, I must note, that the propensity to spew straw-man venom, and thus debase debates on such matters, has been all-but the hallmark of mainstream “intellectuals”, for decades, if not generations.
For but one glimpse, at how this debasement has been “progressing”, see Wm. Pfaff, at
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-01-20/news/1994020037_1_killer-spirit-argument-television-and-press .
I don’t *have to* demonstrate anything, as my doubts about the mainstream spin have zip to do with the number of gunmen.
If you want to make a case, you have to demonstrate those things. If you have some other object….
Alas, it’s all-too common, for those enthralled by DS shills, to cheery-pick the arguments, to then spin about.
Says the person complaining about ‘contempt’ above.
Whatever crap you ran into, from *one* brat years ago, has *nothing* to do with the totality of debates on this issue, about which at least hundreds of people have written.
Just a personal example of what an avid consumer of that literature fancies.
However, I must note, that the propensity to spew straw-man venom, and thus debase debates on such matters, has been all-but the hallmark of mainstream “intellectuals”, for decades, if not generations.
In your imagination only. The prominent advocates of the straightforward view (David Belin, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, and Vincent Bugliosi) haven’t been in the venom business.
“If you want to make a case, you have to demonstrate those things.”
If only I was making *that* case (e.g. on the number of gunmen), but I wasn’t, except for “In your imagination only”.
Since this exchange continues to be laden with straw-men, etc., I’ve got better uses of my time.
If only I was making *that* case (e.g. on the number of gunmen), but I wasn’t, except for “In your imagination only”.
Except my points were not limited to that particular scenario. Embrace the power of ‘or’.