Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

And it is sure to make everyday Americans (whom Hillary hates anyway) detest her even more. It stinks of sour grapes, and prolongs an election when most people (even a bunch of her voters) wanted nothing more than for it to be over.

ETA But Trump's claims he won the popular vote are also likely bullcrap. While I would be quite confident in most elections making the assertion that by far most fraudulent votes are Dem votes, Trump in particular brings out the crazies. (No need to rehash the felons whose illegal votes likely elected Al Franken).

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

The fundamental lesson of the last year and a half is that terms like "sensible", "thoughtful", and "intelligent" are not helpful in the same sentence as a politician's name.

Sure, somebody calls a recount, you show up. But she probably should have said that millions of illegal votes were cast but Trump won anyways....

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

See, where I grew up, in real rural America, we can spot bullcrap before we're knee-deep in it.

Re: well said
 

On target, except not really dealing with the extent to which advocates for austerity were breaking from economic analysis to advance pre-existing political objectives. And to the extent that it asserts that Trumpism is "new."

This is the same old 20th century unrest that gave rise to the modern social welfare state as a means to stave it off.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Again, both of these things disproportionately advantage the relatively well off. The poor - and certainly not the uneducated working class - don't have student debt and can't get big credit card balances.

You're advocating forgiveness for your neighborhood.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I agree it's all detrimental, but I'm not sure Hillary's team can stay out if it's happening anyway.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Why did you include the word "likely" here?

You have no basis for that belief. I do have a basis for saying in most elections there are almost no fraudulent votes.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/us/ohi...ter/index.html

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Someone didn't read the article.

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

On the contrary, the poor often have surprisingly high balances. In a past life, I purchased debt portfolios. I was shocked at how loose cc lending was prior to 2008, and though it did become more disciplined afterward, it's still quite liberal. It wasn't at all unusual to see people with $50k income demographics holding $20k in cc debt. Lenders do so well based on the enormous interest that the default risk is minimized. And that risk has been tamped post-crisis as credit cards are often the last line of liquidity for the poor.

I'm generally adverse to regulation, but you don't hear me arguing much about the CFPB. Predatory lending is up there with private prison lobbying. Of the many sins I've accrued, that portfolio work is probably what'd land me in hell were there an afterlife (right behind certain of the plaintiff's work, for which I claimed the Nuremberg Defense).

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I'll defend SEC here. This was clearly a typo.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Throwing hypocrisy flags in politics?

What's that old quote from HST about "passing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500"?

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Most election fraud is in the counting not the voting. And it is done by the people in charge. In Massachusetts, it will be mostly Dems. In Texas, mostly Republicans. I'm betting that Wisconsin, under Scott Walker, is more likely to be R, but it will obviously be much closer.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I don't see it as detrimental. People have a right to do it, and it'll add a patina of credibility to a very dysfunctional election cycle.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when HRC's folks talk to JS's. "Hi. Yeah, we'll cooperate. Oh, and thanks for playing Nader this time around. Highly appreciated."

Re: well said
 

I think Churchill said taxing yourself to prosperity is like standing in a bucket and attempting to lift yourself. I see no reason this saying shouldn't be expanded to include austerity.

Once you have a crisis, you have a choice. Spend to restart the engines, or allow the thing to go full apocalypse and hope creative destruction works as well in reality, on a massive scale, as it does in theory. We decided to bail out asset holders and hope trickle down economics somehow delivered - the one economic theory we'd already proved Does Not Work.

That's the GOP's fault. They forced Obama to run out a quick and half-assed stimulus where we should have had a real one, with serious infrastructure spending.

Huh. I just agreed with you that the GOP is the problem on austerity. I have to go now -- shoot a pig out of the sky for dinner.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

This argument about the recount being detrimental is pure bullshit. And Less' comparison to Trump's constant flow of bullshit with regard to voter fraud is (typically) ridiculous.

I think a recount will prove fruitless. But asking for one under our current system doesn't undermine the political process. Implying that the whole system is rigged (in advance of the actual vote) if you don't win, does. Implying that even though you won, millions of votes of fraudulent votes kept you from winning the popular vote does. If a recount is performed it will either confirm the initial outcome or there will be serious evidence that we have a huge issue that needs to be addressed. In neither case does it amount to undermining our democracy or the faith in the voting process.

If Trump lost and had asked for a recount through the processes in each state in which he thought he got screwed, I would think it would be similarly fruitless. (I also don't think he'd do that. He would just yell and scream and tweet about fraud.) But one thing is clear, at least to me. Less would be pointing out the hypocrisy in the opposite direction when someone from the left posted an article about what a waste of time a recount would be. SEC would say "Voter fraud only is a thing when Democrats lose." And Hank would probably ask what the harm is in recounting the ballots.

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Of course Hillary can't stay out.

Here's what happens in a recount.

A couple of people check tallies from machines that don't preserve a record of individual votes and re-add them. Nothing changes unless there was a problem adding in the first place. There are a surprising number of problems adding.

A bunch of people check machines that have preserved paper ballots, and particularly look at the ballots that didn't get counted because the machine had trouble reading them. They also may try to disqualify ballots that were counted but have stray marks or other irregularities.

A bunch of people check paper ballots that were hand counted, which often includes a lot of absentees. Here's where the most action is. Lots of chances to disqualify ballots, and a few to defend ballots that have been counted.

If you don't participate, the people who do participate have a field day disqualifying your ballots.

And you may say, who cares, if it doesn't affect the outcome. But the level of vote will affect things like delegate allocations for the state in the next national convention, so the state party at the least had damn well better show up, though for standing purposes they may want to do it in the candidate's name.

Yeah, Stein has always been a crackpot and remains a crackpot.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I noticed it, but forgot to go back and edit. I misspoke. It is most definitely bullcrap.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I agree with you here. Neither of these things has any chance of happening. And the fact that people actually want electors to flip and place Hillary in office is absolutely insane. I've asked numerous people if that's where we want to go from here on out--to a place where the only fight worth having is putting the "right" people in place as electors so that they can ignore the actual fucking outcome. No answer.

I think that the electoral college needs fixing, though. As it stands, smaller states get disproportionate representation. I think the second fix in this article is best (i.e., apportion electors in each state by congressional districts instead of a winner-take-all system). Sadly, I also think there is no way this ever gets changed.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/02/r...te-523585.html

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I don't see how. Honestly, the side that likes Trump will see any movement away from his win as illegitimate and the side that like Hillary or Stein will see anything that doesn't swing things to Hillary as the same.

The end result is less trust in the system and stronger pushes for vote suppression.

Which is why Team Hillary wasn't pushing this (Along with it being super unlikely to change anything)

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Rational people will understand that small shifts one way or the other would be a result of a closer look at the actual ballots. Irrational people will think that any shift is evidence of voter fraud. Those people are already fucking convinced of voter fraud because they want what they want.

If there is a huge shift in either direction, shouldn't we know this and why?

We are already here. Voter suppression is going to explode over the next four years. Republicans will pack the courts with assholes who will uphold voter suppression laws. The DOJ will not investigate anything. Voter fraud is, effectively, now truth. Holding a recount will not affect this significantly in either direction.

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

That may be true.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Totally agree, but we shouldn't be looking to Hillary's campaign for that. First step, I think, is to fix the DNC.

Re: well said
 

And Obama is only going to look better and better.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Sessions is going to hire GOP hacks who will enlist DOJ in suppressing voting and prosecuting "fraud".

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Right. Or that.

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Nate Silver's good for something. I like his take.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...e-the-outcome/

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I saw the news earlier. THIS proves my point in a perverse way: The guy didn't have a gun. He had a knife. And he is the only one dead.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Exactly.

TM

Re: well said
 

I don't think anyone after Bill Clinton is going to look good. Obama will look better than Bush II, no doubt about that at all. But these last 36 years have been:

- Reagan borrows and spends way to temporary "prosperity."
- Bush I presides over hangover following economic sugar high of Reagan Presidency.
- Clinton lucks out with tech boom and balances budget
- Bush II walks into collapse of tech bubble and "cures" it with residential r/e bubble (historically, the bubble of last resort in decaying societies)
- Bush II puts $3 trillion war on govt credit card, off-balance-sheet (totally fucking up the middle east and goodwill accrued by the US post 9/11, permanently damaging our credibility on the world stage)
- Bush II/Greenspan housing bubble predictably blows up in everyone's faces, causing Great Recession (really, more of a depression for some, recession for others)
- Bush II presides over bank bailout, throwing moral hazard out the window and clearing up any confusion over whether we live in a "socialism for the rich and powerful, austerity for the rest" society
- Obama inherits worst conditions of any President since FDR, keeps steady hand on economy and avoids catastrophe
- Obama decides to implement national health care reform, but is forced to compromise on ACA, which is deeply flawed but serves as foot-in-the-door for eventual single payer system (if a D succeeds him)
- Obama tries to undo damage in the middle east, but it's beyond cure, and worsens, with emergence of Daesh, etc.
- Obama's following of "conventional economists" in using monetary policy and trickle down economics to fix economy not only fails but exacerbates untenable wealth disparity occurring as a result of tech and offshoring
- Brexit ushers in period of Balkanization
- Trump runs on nationalist platform which appears likely to initiate trade wars
- Frexit? Italexit? New cold war with Putin?

Obama, Clinton, and Bush I look like steady hands. I think they'll be recalled fondly. But none did anything truly impressive to change an otherwise ragged and declining trajectory of the nation. In some circles, this is quiet heroism. I happen to reside in those circles, and think Obama did a far more important job than history will ever acknowledge.

But holding the fort down in crisis as he did involved a tremendous amount of pragmatic thinking, and pragmatism won't put anyone at the top of the list of best Presidents. I think Obama will be recalled as the adult to cleaned up the absolute disaster of the Bush II Presidency, which will go down in history as the very worst of the last 100 years.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

The DNC is split in the same manner as the RNC: Establishment vs. Populists. In the RNC, it's the neoliberal economics/global trade crowd versus the protectionists. In the DNC, it's the neoliberal economics/global trade crowd versus the progressives.

Notice a pattern?

I don't see how you reconcile those groups under one tent in either party.

ETA: If you meant reforming the DNC by getting rid of the fixers who created the email trove Wikileaks exploited, good luck. The only lesson those people will learn from this episode is to avoid email, or use better encryption (either of which fits Assange's aims, btw: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-k...ld-decade-ago/).

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

A bunch of Trump supporters think it's their turn. A lot of them still recall the refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. To them, what is the difference? It's not as if the DOJ under Obama was above politics.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

This is not hyperbole. The GOP is going to game it like we've never seen before.

But in fairness, so were the Democrats. I agree with letting felons back onto the voting rolls, but that was a naked play for new votes. And immigration reform would only create more D voters.

You can say that the R's efforts are vile, as suppression is intended to keep people from exercising rights, while the D's efforts are aimed at being more inclusive. And no one can argue with that proposition. However, it does remain a fact that both parties were seeking to retain control by procedural means. It just happens that one's doing some serious cheating, while the other was just trying to pack the rolls.

I've heard the R's actions in this regard justified as avoidance of tyranny of a low information majority. This seems ironic given the typical Trump voter in Sticksville, but I can understand a bit of it. I think it was de Tocqueville who said that eventually democracy falls on its face because the sector of the population voting based on promises of transfers to it from the treasury becomes impossible to defeat. Ds need to learn they cannot keep promising things to people who cannot afford them on their own. Rs need to learn they cannot keep doing so while cutting taxes for their benefactors. Of course, neither will do so until its far too late.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Weren't the New Black Panthers limited to Philly and Baltimore? How many GOP votes did they prevent? I'd wager fewer than attendance at next week's Leif Garret show at the West Springfield Off-Track Betting Lounge (Upstairs).

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

All the more reason for recounts, which provide evidence that voter fraud is a myth.

I lived in a neighborhood in an East Coast City that had >90% election turnout with 90% D votes for many years. There was no fraud. The reality was, there were few is any Rs in that neighborhood.

People see high numbers in one direction and immediately think there must be shenanigans. No. A better explanation, at least in cities, is white and conservative flight. Conservative whites just seem to love the suburbs. They can talk about mowing the lawn, getting a new roof, their new Big Bertha driver... There's always a Talbotts nearby, every parking lot's accessible by minivan or GMC Denali, and you can grill. You can even smoke. Hell, yes -- I shit you not! You can have your own smoker next to your grill! Oh, the conversations you'll have about barbeque.

Re: well said
 

The history books are riddled with the tales of empires lost in mortgage securities bubbles...

This is a funny characterization as the beginning of Obama's term was marked by a massive battle between one group of economists who said we needed significant fiscal stimulus and one who said we needed austerity to avoid crowding-out of private investment. Which one was "conventional?"

And, of course, Obama proposed and passed a stimulus bill that he likely would have preferred be bigger, as you said the other day (yesterday?) Meanwhile the states did massive austerity, which didn't help either.

Also, Obama has almost no control over monetary policy. The Fed, in the face of not much help on the fiscal side, actually did a bunch of very unconventional things. I think the consensus, by no means unanimous, is that those things helped. I'm not sure there was more the Fed could realistically have done.

Regardless, the obstacle to doing more, either fiscally or with monetary policy, was the GOP.

That seems like the opposite of the likely outcomes re Putin.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

The difference is that the two factions in the DNC more or less agree. Their differences are tactical - how far to push and when - more than ideological.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

It was two guys in military clothing standing around outside a polling place, looking all scary and black -- in other words, enough great visuals for FOX News to run with the story for weeks. To be talking about this again after an election in which thousands and thousands of people did not vote because of GOP vote suppression -- oh, the irony. Except that it's not irony -- it's the flip side of a conscious strategy.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

You have a wonderful power to remove all moral thinking. Yeah, no one could see felon disenfranchisement - coupled with an explicitly racists war on on drugs - as a means to continue the political power of the southern whites, or even just as fundamentally unfair as perpetual punishment. Gotta just be naked politics.

I will renew my suggestion that you watch The 13th.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

This response is extremely random in that it doesn't seem to be connected to anything.

TM