What If Cruz Is Worse At the Electoral Math Than Trump?

Well, the thing is Ted Cruz isn't bad at campaigning for the Presidency. He has an effective organization that just happens to be doing all the heavy-lifting of getting control of the state delegations, playing the long game of a possible contested convention where whomever REALLY controls the delegates wins the second ballot.

Where Trump - and everyone else - is or was playing for the whole ballgame of winning primary delegate counts outright, Cruz saw the landscape shifting towards the convention and got his ground teams to win the behind-the-scenes un-glamorous jobs of actually serving on committees and the delegations. He's putting into play the actual people who serve as delegates: not people in the abstract but those who will be free to vote how they choose if the first ballot fails to select the winner. For all the talk about a White Knight candidate showing up from behind the curtain, the reality is that Cruz could win despite being second-best.

All of a sudden, Trump is realizing that if he can't secure the first ballot he's screwed. While he's still yelling and screaming at the RNC for rigging the contests against him, he's now yelling and screaming at them for letting Cruz out-cheat him where it really matters: the actual nuts-and-bolts management of the party itself.

And even though Cruz could win out, the whole game for the GOP could still be tossed into the dumpster fire. As Infidel753 points out at his blog:

If Cruz takes the nomination on the second ballot, thwarting both Trump and the bosses who had planned to impose a hand-picked nominee like Ryan or Romney, the party will be left even more divided and confused than if the bosses had won.  The Trumpanzees Trumpshirts (sorry, Infidel) (and Trump himself) will be just as outraged at the nomination being "stolen", while the leaders may well balk at uniting behind a man whom they loathe and who cannot win in November.  They could end up split into three hostile factions instead of two.

Cruz, in his way, is just as dangerous as Trump, and just as doomed in November.  He's simply this cycle's Christian Right candidate, the avatar of the Bible-thumping, snake-handling, tongue-speaking element which has been growing in influence within the party for years.  He doesn't play well outside of that constituency; much of the support he's attracting now is really anyone-but-Trump sentiment...

I've posted before about Cruz's weaknesses as a candidate, and I've suggested earlier how bad a Cruz win would look in November. How factual are those warning signs? Can Cruz be as bad or worse to the general electorate the way Trump could be?

Don't forget that Cruz's favorability numbers are almost as bad as Trump: it's hard for a candidate to be over 50 percent Unlikes to do well in a general election. Thing is, it's not as bad, which gives Cruz in theory even odds in a campaign against Hillary (whose Unlikes are also over 50 percent).

It all depends on how the non-party ideologues voting in November are gonna lean.

Will the independent voters - will the moderate voters in both (still) parties - be won over by a Ted Cruz whose overt Christianity - a form called Dominionism - is on the far end of the extremist scale?

Will those independent / moderate voters - the ones who prefer political competency and effectiveness - be won over by a Cruz whose been the major obstructionist player in Congress the last three years?

There's signs there are enough Republicans who won't support Cruz as the nominee because of what he represents: the most extreme Far Right conservative candidate the party would yet have for the White House. Even Goldwater wasn't as documented as extreme.

And Goldwater got his ass kicked back when being a Far Right Conservative meant something.

Cruz will only appeal to certain types of voters: the Anti-Establishment Republican base, which is currently older white males with little education; and the Protestant Evangelical religious voters who are keyed to the belief of End Times and the Rapture. In most other categories - immigration, tax cuts, bombing foreign nations - he's playing to the GOP base same as Trump, but will find it hard to convince the general electorate to believe him if he switches gears and pretends to play nice.

'Cause Cruz already has a reputation for not playing well with others. And the general voters want to see that in their potential leaders: this was Obama's winning grace over Hillary in 2008, that he positioned himself better as a conduit for Change able to work with others. That was McCain's main appeal in 2008 (which almost worked in an election cycle where the Republican brand was mud) as well, as was Dubya's in 2000 and so on.

To be fair, I doubt Cruz will lose as many voters the way Trump will in November: there are entire states that are horrified by Trump the man as much as Trump the Candidate, which will skew the normal voting for the GOP downward.

But I don't see any signs Cruz will improve performance for Republicans over Romney's failings in 2012. Cruz's overt ignorance and smarmy lack of charm denies Republicans the hope of using a congenial figure to win voters back to them. Cruz's hard Right campaign would be a more difficult sell to a nation that wouldn't buy what Mitt was selling.

I have seen a post or three about how the liberal progressive bloggers and pundits are actively hopeful that Cruz wins the nomination and faces it alone against Hillary/Bernie in November. There's the belief that the Republican faithful have kept telling themselves that they would win the Presidency if only their candidate was a TRUE Conservative (McCain and Romney and Dubya all labeled as frauds).

If it's Trump in November and he loses, then those Republicans will keep telling themselves that. But if it's Cruz - he who is MORE Wingnut than the OG (Original Goldwater) - and he loses badly, those Republicans can't lie to themselves anymore.

Well, actually, they will keep lying to themselves, 'cause they've got nothing else to cling to. But they'll definitely be screwed as a national power, because how further Right can the Republicans go if even Cruz fails them?

Just think of the Red states Trump won as a Primary candidate: those will likely NOT go for Cruz, even if the party response is supposed to line up and be good soldiers. If Trump doesn't run as a Third-Party candidate, those states become toss-ups and Hillary could grab three or four or nine of them while Cruz holds only the Red states who sided with him. The states to flip Blue are likely Georgia and North Carolina, maybe Arizona and Tennessee and Mississippi and Missouri.

It won't be a deep electoral defeat the way Trump's will be - I've got Trump winning at BEST eight states - but it'll be serious, and a possible sign of cracking up the solid Deep South votes that have been reliable conservative counts for the last four decades.

The only question would be how badly Cruz might affect the down-ballot votes: it is possible Cruz would adversely affect the Senate races - he'll have a tough time campaigning alongside colleagues who will be fighting the urge to punch him in the face - to where the Republicans lose control, but in a Cruz campaign the GOP may well hold onto the House.

This will explain why the RNC is likely going to hold its nose and embrace Cruz at the same time. It gives them some kind of hope to stave off a possible Democratic landslide.

Which is why it's still so very imperative for Democrats and moderates to get the damn vote out this November!

Another Sign How the Republicans Are Going to Suffer This Election Cycle

(Update: hello again, Crooks and Liars readers linking in from Mike's Blog Round-Up. And as always, thank you Batocchio for the link!)

It's not just the unpopularity of the two leading candidates - Donald Trump or Ted Cruz - among the general electorate. The Republicans are about to lose on the issues as well.

Via Daniel Drezner's twitter, I saw this:

He links to a Pew Research poll on immigration as a topic, and the results were mind-blowing.

The numbers who view immigrants positively have gone up the last four years to 59 percent, with those viewing immigrants as a burden and job-takers sinking to 33 percent.

Along party lines, Democrats are clearly in favor of immigration while Republicans still only show over a third of their membership in favor (that means two-thirds of Republicans do not view it in a positive light).

In terms of generational views, the article shows how Millenials and Generation Xers now show overwhelming support for immigrants and immigration reform. But the real key here is this first poll: we're around 60 percent who see immigrants and immigration as a strength and would likely support reforms to keep it going.

That means whichever party is OPPOSED to immigration reform is going to have a rough go of it winning over 60 percent of the electorate.

62 percent oppose a border wall,
just saying...

HI, REPUBLICANS.

While Trump's made the most splash promoting that damn wall of his - which the Pew Research notes is massively unpopular - the key thing to note about this Presidential cycle is how the whole Republican Party platform had been and remains fervently anti-immigrant. There's been other issues at the debates - which foreign nation to bomb, which tax cut to favor, which schools to close, which social safety nets to slash - but nearly every GOP candidate had come out hard against immigration. Even the ones expected to "play nice" on the topic - Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Cruz just on personal connections to Hispanics (a key ethnic group affected by this) - had to avoid the questions or come out opposed to any kind of reform solution for our current immigration issues.

Look at this poll regarding that Trump Wall: Both Cruz and Trump supports favor building up border defenses (costly and won't work), numbers which go against that top Overall Voter number showing two-thirds of the nation oppose such a plan. Kasich's supporters are currently showing as the most pro-immigration of the remaining GOP candidates, but even HE can't shake the fact his party is adamantly against reforms on this (also, he's in no position to win the nomination right now: he's merely in it to keep Trump from winning delegates outright).

Trump's made so much noise pushing that Wall of his, it won't matter if it's either Trump or Cruz winning this July at the Cleveland convention. The entire GOP is in trouble if they campaign at a national level against immigration reform (among other issues that will turn the general electorate against them). The problem will be one of degrees: if it's Trump they'll lose everybody, if it's Cruz they'll lose MOSTLY everybody.

The Republicans have been so vocal against immigrants that any attempt to shift back to the center on this issue would be greeted with disbelief and disdain.

What other issue can the Republicans honestly run on that would counter the votes they'll lose over immigration reform? Their "tax cuts for the rich" plan will not find a safe haven this year of anti-Establishment anger. If they think running against gays and transgender will win over voters, they're wrong. The Republicans do not have a sane foreign policy platform - "Bomb ISIL" "Boycott China" and "Nuke Iran" are not winning stances with moderates/centrists who prefer working with allies - at the moment.

If Republicans think "repeal Obamacare" is going to impress anybody, it's only going to get their own voters nowadays. Have you noticed ANYBODY making noise about repealing Obamacare lately? That hasn't been a major topic: we've gotten to the point where the fight to repeal it has fled to the fringes.

No, let's be blunt: Immigration has been one of the top three issues of this 2016 election cycle, and the Republicans are poised to lose big because of their opposition to it. Maybe not with the House elections, but definitely with the Presidential race, and likely with the Senate races in EVERY state - even Red ones - where pro-immigration forces are in play.

A Brief Moment of Trumpian Zen: Getting Your Trump Score

I gotta hat-tip PM Carpenter for this one. Someone went and wrote up a faux credit-scoring site that instead rates your Likely Trumpian Fate in the possible Trumptopia awaiting us all.

So... What is MY Trump Score?

Well the joke's on Trump: I've never buttled. I have, however, read too many Jeeves books, so I have the snark powers to drive every rich person into jumping off the roof of that resort to their dooms.

We can, of course, avoid this fate by not voting Republican or Trump. It's that simple, America.

UPDATE: Hey, tell me YOUR Trump Score when you get the chance!

When The Best Choice is The Parachute, Dave.

One of those questions I pose for myself from time to time is "How would I behave myself in public when confronted with two loathsome options?"

Let's say I'm booked for a flight on an airplane, and it's packed except for two last seats remaining. One seat is next to Grover Norquist, the second seat is next to Ann Coulter. Which seat would I choose?

And of course the correct answer is "I would choose the parachute, Dave."

(Just don't ask who Dave is)

I'm bringing this up as an opening bon mot to get you in the mood for this latest news bit from ABC News and what not.

The Republicans are not going to like this news one bit, because ABC hosted a poll on Favorable/Unfavorable numbers again on the current Presidential candidates... and both Donald Trump AND Ted Cruz - the two likeliest nominees - are working with some of the highest UNFavorble numbers in recent memory (PDF link here):

Donald Trump ranks as the most unpopular top-tier presidential contender in more than 30 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls, trailing only former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke among presidential candidates in any election year since 1984.

At the same time, the unpopularity of Trump’s main rival, Ted Cruz, has reached its highest level yet this election cycle. John Kasich breaks even in basic popularity, with many – at this late stage of the primary season – still yet to form an opinion of the Ohio governor.

Remember what I keep saying about Machiavelli's warning, kids: it's tough to be loved, better to be feared, BUT ALWAYS AVOID BEING HATED.

(And for those crowing about how Hillary is also hated, please note the hate for her is still less than for Trump and near-even for Cruz... and there's a growing likelihood that the Republican Establishment - along with everyone else - may settle for Hillary as a better option than a man who has alienated that Republican leadership like no other)

Right now the Republicans are looking at their two remaining serious options - Kasich is mathematically eliminated from winning outright, he's merely in this race to keep both Trump and Cruz from winning outright - and realizing that their only real choice is that damn parachute.

They can't lie to themselves that either candidate - Trump or Cruz - will turn into a beautiful swan post-convention and everyone in the party ranks happily smiling as they line up to support whomever the winner will be. The numbers we're talking about involve the general voters, the moderate and independent voters who have no party loyalty that can sway them to like candidates they already loathe.

And we're talking about the type of depth to such loathing that can have a serious effect on down-ballot races. We're talking about the possibility that an anti-Trump or anti-Cruz movement could give Democrats a chance to break the gerrymander advantage the Republicans currently hold on the US House.

The buzz over the Republican Establishment running their own third-party candidate - now swirling around a retired general with little political presence - to try and salvage the Senate and House campaigns will not abate, not after news like this.

An Apostate like myself feels a little warm in the part of my soul that cherishes schadenfreude like this: watching the very real possibility of a Trump-led Republican campaign that barely cracks 30 percent of the popular vote and wins only Wyoming and Alabama. With 68 Senate seats going to the Dems and enough wins in the House to embarrass the Republicans into realizing their obstructionist sh-t no longer impresses anyone.

Ah, a crazy Florida boy like me can dream...

And as always, that dream can become a reality if the Democratic voters remember to GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT.

Reclassifying Marijuana Would Be Game-Changing

A patron at the library just let me know about a news blurb that came out a few days ago, so I went online and checked on the reports.

The federal agencies responsible for how drugs are classified for use - especially ones that can be addictive and harmful - are considering reclassifying Marijuana from Schedule I drug - listed as one of the most dangerous drugs out there - downward to Schedule II - which is harmful but not as criminally severe. Link to ABC News report on this:

Federal authorities have announced that they are reviewing the possibility of loosening the classification of marijuana, and if this happens, it could have a far-reaching impact on how the substance is used in medical settings, experts said.

Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning it is listed alongside heroin and LSD as among the "most dangerous drugs" and has "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

The Drug Enforcement Administration announced last week that it is reviewing the possibility of reclassifying it as a Schedule II drug, which would put it in the same category as Ritalin, Adderal and oxycodone.

Medical experts are welcoming the review, saying it could ease restrictions for researchers, so that they can better understand which compounds in marijuana could be used to help patients...

I'm amazed there hasn't been more talk about this in the major blogs or media outlets. This could be a major shift in not only medical research - which the article focuses too much on - but also our entire legal system and the 40-year-plus War On Drugs.

Marijuana (pot) is one of the more commonly used illegal drugs in the nation, and one of the more prosecuted by an aggressive legal system fighting that War On Drugs that shows no signs of ending. It's a drug that's listed among the worst of the worst, in a scheduled class containing drugs with a high incidence of overdoses and deaths such as heroin.

...And yet, marijuana isn't as lethal as heroin or even other lesser Schedule drugs like opoids (pain-killers). Here's a government website that's charting drug overdoses, listing even prescription drugs alongside cocaine and heroin. Notice anything? THERE'S NO CHART FOR MARIJUANA. There are no reported cases of overdose deaths (granted, there are some reports of overdosing related to pot but no-one's died from them).

In terms of the effects marijuana has on the human body, it's less harmful than alcohol. And yet we treat marijuana as a criminal offense while alcoholism - outside of DUI, which is a major public safety risk and deserves criminal treatment - is handled as a health care medical issue.

The reasons for marijuana being treated as a Schedule I has less to do with the facts and more to do with politics. It's even come out recently that the War On Drugs that began under the Nixon administration was purely political:

The April cover story of Harper’s magazine explains not just how counterproductive the drug war has been but also, and perhaps more importantly, its racist roots. Written by Dan Baum, the article lays out the case for legalization, which is worth absorbing on its own. But it begins with a startling revelation from John Ehrlichman, one of Richard Nixon’s close aides and a Watergate co-conspirator.

This quote is from 1994, when Baum was writing a book about drug prohibition. Baum tracked Ehrlichman down, hoping to get some insight into the drug war, which began in earnest during Nixon’s administration. Ehrlichman’s explanation was surprisingly blunt:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black people, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

What happened since the War started was a round of mass incarcerations, focused primarily on Blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics and Asians, justified by the criminalization of certain drugs -marijuana - that those communities enjoyed over others. But marijuana had been vilified decades before - say hello to Anslinger - much to the extent that badly ill-informed movies about pot like Reefer Madness were made in the 1930s (if viewed objectively, the drugs the actors in that movie seem to be on is Meth or speed, not pot). By 1968, with the wave of civil unrest tied into a youth culture getting high, it was easy to exploit again.

The result has been long jail sentences for possession of pot for a large number of otherwise non-violent offenders that had led to overcrowded prisons and the downward spiral of the imprisoned into a life of crime (either to survive, or because their felony histories block them from meaningful jobs and livelihoods). The impact on entire communities - loss of employment, loss of income, loss of social aid, loss of voting rights - cannot be understated.

A lot of that is excused by having marijuana listed so high - erroneously, intentionally - as a lethal drug. So what happens if/when pot drops to the less-lethal Schedule II?

Actually, not a lot. The Federal government treats Schedule II drugs at about the same level of penalties as a Schedule I.

But this is where the medical aspect of the lesser Schedule comes into play: Making marijuana a Schedule II drug makes it EASIER for corporations and medical research facilities to access the drug for testing and pharma development. Most of what we know about marijuana's benefits are mostly anecdotal or on just-recent testing by other nations also loosening their penalties on pot. A more rigorous and thorough scientific research into the chemicals related to marijuana can quickly identify the medical/health aspects of cannabis consumption, and give cause to reduce the Schedule status for pot even further.

We'd have better scientific evidence that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol, which we DO regulate with age restrictions, DUI laws, and other legal prohibitions. We'd have better evidence to drop marijuana even further into lesser Schedules that won't lead to automatic jail-time. And where we deal with alcoholism by treating it as a medical issue - and by creating social norms of alcohol consumption with moderation and common sense - we would treat any marijuana addiction as a health issue as well. And we wouldn't have a War On Drugs wasting everyone's time and money with needlessly excessive prison sentences.

Granted, this won't end the larger War On Drugs - there's still cocaine and meth and heroin and painkiller abuse to worry about - but dropping this one overwhelming part of that War could free up a lot of our resources, and bring some relief to our communities wrecked by an unjust pursuit against a mild substance.

Summer Movie 2016 Mayhem

Odd to note, but with one or two March films being released already as the package of BLOCKBUSTER Awesomeness for this coming summer, this isn't ENTIRELY correct. But hey we want blockbusters and we're gonna get blockbusters!

I am so keen for seeing Captain America: Civil War for my birthday weekend.

I may write about Batman v Superman when I find the time. I may write about Black Panther the comic book (yay Coates), so we'll how it goes.

There's Only So Much You Can Do With a Map: It's All About Voter Turnout

So you know I like messing with Presidential Electoral map generators.

270towin.com is kind of fun, but it's limited in that you make your own guesses as to which states are going to go for your candidate over the other one. It may be satisfying to have Hillary stomp the hell out of Trump in 47 out of 50 states (plus DC), but there's little actual evidence - unless you're Nate Silver and you have all the true numbers - to back you up.

I like how RealClearPolitics went and created their own generator based on the 2012 voter turnout. As you mess with the number variables on two columns - one for voter turnout favoring Republicans, the second for overall voter turnout - you get a better sense of how certain states are demographically aligned Red or Blue by four established blocs (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian), and a better idea of how voter turnout and support will actually create possible results.

Granted, it's still not accurate to predict for 2016 - demographic have changed over the last four years, and there are new variables each election cycle - but it's better than just your own guessing.

So it all comes down to how the numbers actually play out this election cycle.

One thing I've learned messing with the demographic calculator to that map is that while having Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all solidly line up in favor of Democrats is a good thing, any discernible changes in BOTH their support for Republicans and overall turnout doesn't swing any states. It's a combination of two factors: most minority voters are either residing in heavily Blue states or else are so alienated against the Republicans that there's little chance they can flip states one way or another.

Bumping up Black voters alone to favor Republicans doesn't really flip any states until getting to 12 percent for the GOP, and that's with Florida. And there's little sign the Republicans are going to do THAT well with Blacks considering the GOP's voter suppression efforts and other policy beliefs openly affect Blacks.

Florida flips to Republican if the Hispanic vote favoring Republicans go up to 32 percent nationwide support. Considering the anti-immigration stance of the GOP - Trump's horrifying stances are bad enough, but Cruz will be just as oppressive as a candidate - there's no way Hispanic support goes that high (most polling is showing Hispanic support dropping).

Asian voting population numbers are the smallest of the four blocs, as such any noticeable shift in Republican approval AND disapproval is meager at best. All that happens if they favor the GOP is that Blue states turn lighter and Red states stay almost the same color (I think Texas darkened Red a bit) up until the support gets to 50 percent, at which point Florida flips Red (damn, Florida, you're on the razor's edge here).

Things may flip quicker if all three minority groups do start favoring Republicans more, along with growing overall turnout, but neither factor is realistic to contemplate. We're facing an election cycle in which Republicans have pretty much alienated every voting bloc - Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Muslims, Women, Youth/College - outside of the Uneducated White Male category.

What I'm finding going by RCP's Map Generator is that the real difference-maker is the White voting bloc. Where shifting the minority blocs gives you plus or minus half-percentages, shifting the White voter approval for the Republicans can get you a full percent shift, and states change their colors real quick.

If all other things remain as they were in 2012, if Republicans bump up White voter support from 60 percent to 64 percent, they flip the Electoral College to their favor (this is 4 percent to flipping Black voters up 6 percent to 12). That may sound simple enough... except the current polling is showing White voter support for Republicans dropping, likely due to the fact that White WOMEN voters are turning against the GOP.

And that's IF you keep voter turnout as they were in 2012. The odds of that - due to depressed voter turnout thanks to unpopular candidates AND that aggressive GOP voter suppression effort - for 2016 are unlikely: Overall voter turnout is expected to drop this year. The question is by how much.

Ironically enough, the voter suppression effort against minority voters can become meaningless. I can drop the voter turnouts for all Non-White blocs down to 40 percent and STILL the Republicans will lose the Electoral count. That is if White voting numbers stay static: if turnout goes up or GOP support goes up, then the Electoral shift happens differently. But THAT requires White turnout going up around 70 percent while dropping Black voters to 42 percent and Hispanics/Asians both to 40 percent. The impossible factor there is getting the White vote count up: there is no way they can get to 70 percent turnout like that, and still retain 60 percent Republican support...

The Republicans are going to have to deny the Black voters down like crazy to flip the Electoral College in any way. Considering Black voters turned out at 66 percent (best among the four groups), forcing that huge a drop into the low 40s is unlikely: Republicans can't suppress the Black voters in Blue states for one thing, and they can't deny that many insistent voters when the time comes in November. If Black voter turnout drops under 50 percent, it's a clear sign of voter suppression, and no-one outside of the hater groups will ever accept that result.

It'd have to be a combination of both voter suppression efforts AND getting minority to show up in favor of Republicans. But that's a paradox: if Republicans - and they're the ones doing this, so none of that Both Sides crap - suppress the vote, there's no way they are appealing to minority voters to turn against their own interests.

What will hurt is the White voter turnout for Republicans: having built an entire Presidential electoral campaign around courting just that voting bloc is now due to blow up in the GOP's collective face.

There's been the gradual demographic loss of White voters as a percentage of the national population for one thing: there's the fact that Whites are not a uniform voting bloc the way Blacks are (and how Hispanic voters can become a solid bloc in the face of a massive anti-Hispanic outburst by the Far Right). There's a surprising number of White voters who are Democratic at heart and Liberal by belief: there is a ceiling where the Republicans cannot appeal strongly enough to get the White votes they need.

And making their appeals more Far Right than ever - trying to keep their base happy and eager to vote - ensures more moderate/centrist voters among Whites turn away as well. It's a Lose-Lose situation for the GOP: Republicans can't gain enough minority voters to overcome the Electoral numbers, and they can't afford to lose White voters the way they are this election cycle.

And when that is all said and done, the RCP generator still proves one point:

It all comes down to voter turnout, as always.

The only REAL way Republicans can win the Presidency - any election for that matter - is if Democrats and Left-leaning voters refuse to show up. Even the act of showing up fights the voter suppression effort because there's only so many voters the Far Right can try to stop.

Get the damn vote out, America.

I Feel Like Bragging That I Got To This First (w/ Update)

So there's a kerfuffle over this past weekend when the Boston Globe decided to take Donald Trump at his word and projected what it would like if Trump became President:

It is an exercise in taking a man at his word. And his vision of America promises to be as appalling in real life as it is in black and white on the page. It is a vision that demands an active and engaged opposition. It requires an opposition as focused on denying Trump the White House as the candidate is flippant and reckless about securing it...

If you can't read the print or can't enlarge the image, click for the PDF version here.

And lemme just note how they have Trump's administration falling apart by April 2017:

• The headline points out Trump's deportation of illegal immigrants has gotten to the point of placing multiple cities under curfew with riots everywhere.
• Markets are tanking as Trump's tariff war with Chinese trade has panicked investors and has set the stage for a deep global recession. It did not help that Trump named a new pet dog after the Chinese President's wife.
• Trump's planned border wall hits a snag because the banks are balking at his short-term loans to pay for it.
• Soldiers are balking at orders to kill the families of ISIL members (as that sort of thing is an honest-to-God war crime).
• Trump's promise to hit back at the media for their "hit pieces" on him is leading to an aggressive libel law that would violate everything we know about First Amendment free speech rights.
• Trump is on a short list for the Nobel Peace Prize because he achieved the impossible of uniting the entire Arab world against him for his anti-Muslim trash talk.

And those are just the major articles. There's sillier side notes about how Trump's influence on everything else in government is making things bizarre/weird/self-destructive, but you get the idea.

Thing is, I dunno why everyone's making a big deal out of the Boston Globe writing up this satirical take on Trump's own outlandish campaign promises and how such promises would be actively implemented in the Real World.

'Cause I've already been here and done that, months ago:

...Okay, deep breaths. Try to remember this is just a game, we're just trying to figure out how this could play out. It hasn't really happened. We're just thinking it. Just in case. Don't Panic. Settle. Breathe... breathe... Okay, you good? Okay.

So, what exactly would we expect to get on Day One of a Trump administration?

Election Night is November 8.

We'll get an immediate response by November 9th before Trump even gets into the Oval Office. Because I get the feeling Mexico is going to recall their ambassador and kick ours out of their country as soon as humanly possible...

...Day One itself is probably going to look like this: Trump issues an Executive Order suspending ObamaCare until Congress acts on "repealing and replacing" it. Given that Congress under Republicans - who likely will remain in power in this scenario - so far has a repeal in mind but nothing to replace it, that will likely mean millions on Medicaid coverage and hundreds of thousands on federal-level exchanges are sh-t out of health care luck.

Day One will also include Trump introducing a Republican Cabinet made of up of some of the nastier remnants of the Bush the Lesser administration - neocons in foreign policy, tax-cutters and deregulators in domestic policy - still eager to re-establish the bad habits and disasters of 2001-2009 they never answered for...

Granted, I never delved into the economic catastrophe that will take place when Trump tries a trade war against China, but otherwise I was predicting a lot of the same disasters that the Globe is predicting.

Man, I'm feeling like I'm five steps ahead of everyone here. I'd been wondering about the possibility of a contested GOP convention - and how screwed the Republicans were no matter what - well before anyone else had. I'd been thinking about the importance of the women's vote years before it's turning into a serious problem for the Republicans now. I'd been right about Rubio tanking in spite of all the Beltway cheerleading, and how the Establishment can't see how they've lost their own voting base to outrage and fear.

To quote the Bard: I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!

You all are playing checkers while I'm breaking out the chessboard.

Peace out.

And for the Love of God DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN.

Update 8/21/16: Well, hell. Someone did beat me to this. Jon Lovett in the Atlantic posted this a year ago well before I did a What If? proposal. He wins.

Let This Moderate Tell You, Republicans: There Are NO Moderates Left In Your Party

Driftglass is one of those bloggers who enjoys himself - as much as schadenfreude allows - bashing some of the more ill-informed and ill-guided media "uber-experts" who have a knack for deluding themselves as much as their targeted audiences.

And he's had a serious deep case of bashing David Brooks for some time now.

Brooks' latest attempt at convincing himself - and unlikely anybody else - of a miracle Rescue-By-Savior at the upcoming Republican convention is that the "hidden moderates" will rise up before Trump or Cruz can demolish the GOP by driving said party over the cliff. As Driftglass gloats:

Today, Mr. Brooks imagineers out of thin air an entire army of public-spirited Reasonable Republicans who will infiltrate the Republican convention in July cleverly disguised as party hacks but then -- surprise! -- cast off their fake George Wallace noses and Pat Buchanan wigs just in time to rise as one! A veritable League of Extraordinary Whig Gentlemen!

Okay, for starters, Brooks' article assumes there are that many Reasonable - which I would infer as Moderate - Republicans capable of getting tabbed to serve as delegates in the first place, and that they are able to enter the convention halls of Cleveland this summer undetected, and make their own coordinated effort to place on the general election ballot a "sane" alternative to the two fiascoes awaiting the GOP.

Never mind the open warfare that will erupt in the streets of Cleveland if Trump goes in with a confirmed delegate majority, or if Cruz gets his state-level agents - already getting placed as we speak - to rally to him on the second ballot of a contested delegate vote. The idea that a Savior candidate - who just happens to fill the need of the Establishment faction of the GOP - can just glide in despite the overwhelming primary voter anger against the Establishment is pure fantasy.

Brooks' article seems to operate on the belief that these "Lincoln" voters have all been lying in wait, biding their time to bring their own candidate to the podium... as though the last three months of these so-called voters failing to show up to vote when it mattered is all just shade getting cast to lull the Far Right conservatives into a false sense of security.

I mean, where were these voters when the Establishment's Chosen Offerings - Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Jeb! Bush, Marco Rubio - were sitting there on the primary ballots just waiting to rally these "Lincoln" voters of rational sanity and moderation to each of their banners? Unless Brooks is willing to admit that NONE of these candidates were all that "pure" for these voters to accept in the first place. But then that would imply that Brooks and his fellow media pundits pushing such candidates were horribly wrong about them anyway, which doesn't generate any confidence in Brooks' ability to predict matters here.

Here's how Brooks sees it:

The first thing the Lincoln Caucus would do is plant a flag for a different style of Republicanism. Members of the caucus would remind the country that there still are Republicans who believe in prudent globalism, reform conservative ideas to lift up the working class. There are still Republicans who believe in certain standards of polite behavior in public and pragmatic compromise...

You'll notice how Brooks doesn't really give any details what "prudent globalism" or "reform conservative ideas" are. For all we know, it's just code-talk for "Cheney-esque Foreign Policy debacles" and "Keep Cutting Taxes and Hope for the Magic Beans to Sprout Positive Growth with No Deficits".

And where the hell have these Republicans been who believe in "polite behavior" and "pragmatic compromise" in the last eight years of "You Lie!" and "let's make Obama a failed One-Termer at all costs"?

Brooks seems to think these Republicans still exist, that they are still in sufficient numbers and in places of power at the state and national level to exert enough influence to save the GOP from its' Far Right madness.

Sorry, Mr. Brooks. Let this former Moderate Republican - disgusted by the party's failures since 1992 and driven out by the madness that consumed it by 2003 - be the one to break your heart here:

THERE ARE NO MODERATE REPUBLICANS LEFT.

Blame it all on Pat Buchanan, and Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Grover Norquist and Dick Armey and Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck and Andrew "My Legacy of Stupid Hate Endures" Breitbart and a Far Right Noise Machine orbiting around Fox Not-News and the Drudge Report and Newsmax. Blame it on 20 years of RINO hunting, where once-proud advocates of the practices of Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller were exiled into the wastelands by the heirs of Goldwater and Reagan.

Blame it on an open Southern Strategy of bringing into the fold all the social conservatism of the Deep South, riven from the Democrats during the Civil Rights era. Blame it on the merging of the major conservative beliefs - religious, racial, financial - into one Republican Party that eagerly turned conservative belief into rigid Party-wide dogma.

What Brooks may think of as "moderate" or sane factions within the modern Republican Party are merely levels of the same Conservative bent. Peeking into the souls of the more centrist elements of the GOP is merely finding the few members of the party - the pro-Business "deregulate all and cut taxes on the uber-rich" - willing to at least remain non-committal to the extremist stuff. They'll still stand there and applaud the madness because they'll still have something to gain for their hard-core conservative ideology of "F-ck You Pay Me."

The Republican Party has no Moderates left because the voter base's obsession with turning against RINOs makes it impossible for any sitting politician to "man up" and fight for moderate principles. Every campaign race is now an attempt to convince those voters their commitment to the ever-shifting-Right core values. Even suggesting the mere possibility of a hint that our current tax rates are fine as is can become cause for a more extremist primary challenger to rise up against you. And win that primary, because poor voter turnout guarantees only the hard-core extremist voters show up anymore.

So NO, Mr. Brooks, there is no Lincoln Caucus waiting for you in Cleveland to save your precious Republican Party from itself. The Republican Party as you want it to be is dead. Has been for years. You needed to start composing the eulogy back in 2006, and it's ten years gone.

Anniversary: Appomattox Surrender Day

April 9th.

We need to keep remembering this day as Appomattox Surrender Day until the rest of the Dixiecrat/Far Right/Confederate Dead-Enders realize they LOST, THEY GOT THEIR ASSES KICKED...

Bruce Springsteen Defends The Tunnel of Love (w/ Update)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

We Gotta Go To the Crappy Town Where I'M A Hero

Remember that bit where Florida Governor Rick "Medicare Fraud" Scott showed up at a Gainesville FL Starbucks and got his ass chewed out by an angry woman?

Apparently, the confrontation so rattled Scott and/or his handlers, and got so much national attention, that Scott and/or his handlers thought it was a good idea to issue an ATTACK AD against that woman - Cara Jennings, who is currently standing atop the leader's position in the Floridian Of The Year contest - who had the effrontery to bitch-slap him five ways to Friday. Per the Jezebel:

The ad was released by Scott’s official political action committee, Let’s Get to Work, which backs him and funded his reelection. The the ad is titled—really—“Latte Liberal Gets an Earful.” (For accuracy’s sake, of course, let’s be clear about the fact that it was Scott who got an earful—beating a retreat so hasty he didn’t even get any coffee, while Jennings scolded him like a Voldemort-looking, dick-resembling disobedient puppy.)

FEELING A LITTLE TOUCHY THERE, ARE WE RICK?

Of course, the ad accuses Jennings of being "terribly rude" for dropping the 'asshole' bomb in public. WELCOME TO FLORIDA, B-TCHES.

Granted, Jennings did serve a term in local office as a Lake Worth City Commissioner and she is working free-lance - hence her being at a laptop in a work-friendly eatery - for the SEIU (making her pro-union). But it's not like she's going to be Scott's primary adversary for his planned run for the 2018 US Senate seat (unless Senator Nelson retires and picks Jennings to be his heir).

The Jezebel article links to a public statement Jennings gave to the Sun-Sentinel, so let's link it here:

Jennings said she was at the coffee shop working on a freelance job for the Service Employees International Union. She said she doesn't receive public assistance right now, but even if she did, it shouldn't matter.

 "Gov. Scott and his PAC are bullies," she said. "Instead of addressing the issues I brought up he's using the power of his PAC to try to intimidate someone who spoke out against his policies."

Jennings said the viral video of her tirade doesn't capture the beginning of the conversation, which she said was civil.

In a letter to Scott's office, Jennings invited the governor to meet her for coffee on April 20 in Tallahassee at the café of his choice.

She wants to discuss Planned Parenthood, voting disenfranchisement, increasing the minimum wage, climate change and deaths in Florida's prison system. (Note: Damn, I hope she DOES run for Governor now)

"A lot of people in their life fall into a gap of work," Jennings said. "They need to be on public assistance, and they shouldn't be admonished for that."

She said she fell into the Medicaid gap and was unable to get coverage when she took a year off to care for her infant son...

If this is how Scott handles a single person shouting at him in public, just how easy is it going to be for everyone else in the state of Florida who HATES HIS UGLY THIEVING SELF to get under his skin and make him flake out?

Meanwhile, I'm upset because I've been yelling and insulting this Medicare Fraud for YEARS - lemme reach back into the archives for this, ah here we go from August 2010 - and yet *I* don't rate a fookin' attack ad. My ego's in the gutter over this one.

The Down-Ballot Races Matter As Much As the Presidency

It matters who we as a nation have serving in the White House.

It also matters to give that President the tools and abilities to get the work done, which means giving that President a Congress willing to work with that White House administration to pass meaningful laws, effective budgets, and improved regulations.

That means the voters NEED to get the damn vote out across the damn board: President, Senate, House, even state legislatures and governors need to have elected into office those who will work within the system to do their jobs.

That's why it's important to keep an eye on the US Senate races.

The recent obstruction of Obama's SCOTUS nomination of Garland is a perfect example of a Republican Party that refuses to work with a White House held by an opposing party. That behavior cannot and should not stand.

So it's good news that as of now, more Senate races are up for grabs (per Talking Points Memo):

According to a newly released analysis by the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, senate races in Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Missouri and North Carolina are looking to be more favorable for Democrats than previously predicted as moderate and independent voters grow disillusioned with the GOP.

"Considering the rise of Donald Trump, the polarization in U.S. politics, and a higher rate of straight-ticket voting, this could be bad news for the GOP," a team of analysts at the UVA Center for Politics wrote.

While the analysts are not predicting that Democrats can pull off victories in all of the states they moved in the Democrats' direction, the shift reveals that many are expecting Trump and Cruz to be a drag on down-ballot races.

Granted, this article has more to do about how the top-tier Presidential ticket is killing the rest of the Republican line-up, but the article does point out there are signs people are waking up to how the entire GOP is dysfunctional. It's a party crazy and impotent enough to allow two highly unlikable, self-absorbed sociopaths to become the standard bearers for an entire party beholden to such insanity.

The voters are going to put two plus two together, and figure out the obstructionist, destructive behavior by their GOP Senators is the same type of behavior they see in Trump and Cruz.

So this is key, people.

Get everyone you know registered to vote and aware of which Party - Democrats - is the one that actually wants government to work the way it ought to.

Get the damn vote out, people. And make sure there are people worth voting for running for office.

One Reason Why a GOP Senate Won't Even Allow Garland In the Room

There was once not so long ago a strong, unified stand by the Republican Senators to obstruct Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court vacancy.

And like all Republican efforts against Obama, it's falling apart.

The calls by individual GOP Senators - each of them facing hard questions from their states back home - to at least give Garland a hearing in committee are picking up. It's not a wave of defecting Senators - so far it's just a quarter of them - but they're starting to be heard by the mainstream media because some of them like Maine's Susan Collins is a favorite guest to the green rooms:

Since former Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February, McConnell has pledged to block any Obama-nominated justice by not holding hearings, meetings, or a floor vote.

But Collins is pushing back. In an interview with Newsradio WGAN in Maine on Tuesday, she explained why she disagrees with McConnell’s strategy to fill the empty Supreme Court seat...

At one point, Collins said she was "perplexed" by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's outright refusal to give Garland even a perfunctory hearing.

Well, there's a very good reason for that.

If the Senate actually did give Garland a hearing, they'd be screwed.

The problem becomes one of optics: the second Garland gets grilled by the Senate, even by Republicans, it will be made clear to the voting public paying attention to these things that there would be no objectionable reason for voting against Garland.

Garland is no courtroom extremist. He's not a Bork-in-waiting, where questionable judicial opinions would quickly reveal an unstable or partisan hack who would rule from the bench without proper judicial restraint. He's not another Harriet Miers, someone with more office manager experience than courtroom experience.

That's where Obama wins this: Garland has a decades-long record as an Appellate judge with a sizable case history. While the Republicans can attack him on the politics of his decisions - anything pro-choice, or pro-union, or pro-civil rights for example - they cannot hurt him on the merits of judicial experience.

Senator Collins thinks she may be able to be fair enough at her job to give Garland the chance at an up-or-down vote, as stated in that ThinkProgress article:

Shortly after Scalia’s death in February, Collins said she would give her “full attention” to whoever President Obama decided to nominate. After Garland’s official nomination earlier this month, Collins urged her fellow Republicans to “follow regular order” and go through the nomination process, even if it meant rejecting Garland in the end...

But it's harder than it looks rejecting a candidate for a position when that candidate is clearly qualified.

And the Republicans do not want to get stuck with the bad optics of voting down a respected, qualified jurist all because he happens to be nominated by a President (Obama) they openly despise.

This is a lose-lose kind of deal. The Republicans are clearly hurting themselves by denying Garland even a moment to prove himself on the public stage that he can serve as a SCOTUS Justice. But they'll still look like partisan hacks if they hold a hearing on C-SPAN and then reject Garland along party lines: Because that would prove Democrats right about how the Republicans don't care about what works, only about hurting Obama.

So they're taking the least-painful option: outright denying Garland. They can pretend they're doing so because of "tradition" of preventing lame-duck Presidents doing their job, they can pretend that Garland doesn't merit a hearing, they can plug their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la" and go onto Bill O'Reilly and accuse Obama of playing partisan games.

Because the alternative is to prove to everyone else that Obama's really not playing partisan games, he's doing his job.

And the Republicans in the Senate are not.

So This Happened In Florida, April 2016 Edition

There are days I miss living in Gainesville, FL. The place just kind of agrees with me, even though I never really took advantage of some of the sights and activities of the city.

For one thing, I never go to a Starbucks. I just don't drink coffee.

Which means I would have missed this moment when Rick "No Ethics" Scott showed up and got chewed out by an angry mom:

WHOA.

Just two things of note:

1) What the hell was Rick "No Ethics" Scott doing in a liberal enclave like Gainesville, and

2) What the hell was Rick "No Coffee For You" Scott doing in a liberal enclave like a Starbucks?!

So anyways, here's the thing when you cut off social services, Republicans: you piss off  working moms in a big way.

To Pinellas County School Board: You Must Answer For What You Done Wrong

Per the Tampa Bay Times: The federal government is investigating the Pinellas County School Board for civil rights violations.

The U.S. Department of Education on Monday opened a civil rights investigation into whether the Pinellas County School District systematically discriminates against black children, the agency said.

The review will determine if Pinellas is denying black children access to the courses and special programs they need to be successful in high school and after graduation.

This is specifically focusing on the schools within the mostly black and mostly poor communities within St. Petersburg, which have been documented as literally falling apart over eight years of neglect.

What the hell took the Feds so long?

This was me railing like a madman back in August of last year:

This has been eight years in the making.  That's almost an entire generation's worth of kids getting pushed through broken schools into middle school and high school - if they even try to stay in that long - almost five or six grades behind in key developmental skills.  We're coming up to a graduation cycle where almost none of these kids are going to graduate.  Entire years lost.  Entire communities lost.

What the hell, Pinellas County School Board?  What.  The.  Hell.  When you swore in to office to do your duty, you swore to the whole county to no exclusion of any community.  And yet you've excluded an entire city's worth of children, condemned them, and for what?  Why?

None of you deserve to sit in your comfortable offices in that fancy building in Largo.  None of you.  Every kid should matter more than your job, and you failed those kids as surely as they are failing their standardized tests.  All because you broke your promises and rigged the rules.  And for what?

This was happening in my backyard. My school system, shredding itself because the school board was failing to serve their county's families and fix those schools.

I hope to God the Department of Education finds clear evidence of not only civil rights violations but clear evidence of incompetence, financial fraud, and waste so that we as a community can convict those board members on criminal charges as well as civil. Condemn them to jail as much as those board members have condemned entire families to despair.

Okay, BernieBros, You're Starting to Piss Me Off (w/ Update)

Update: Thanks again for the link on Crooks & Liars Mike's Blog Round Up, Infidel753!

I know that primary seasons bring out the worst in the partisan splits between intraparty factions, but I had hopes the Democrats would at least behave themselves as the (mostly) sane national party out there this Presidential cycle.

But the Bernie Sanders followers are starting to get on my nerves here.

One thing bothering me is how they're discounting the states where Hillary had decisive wins - mostly in the Deep South - as "meaningless", as though those states - which tend to have large populations of registered Democrats - don't matter.

Comes across as sour grapes to these No-Party-Affiliate ears.

And having actor Tim Robbins come out in a stump speech to say:

"We've all been fed a steady stream of simplistic propaganda that furthers the establishment's narrative that Hillary's the presumptive nominee," Robbins said during a rally in Green Bay.

"And if we were sheep, if we had gotten in line, there'd be no problem now," he continued, saying "establishment figures would get elected" and figures like Sanders would be "marginalized."

"Times have changed," Robbins said. "We are done with compromising our ideals."

He can argue against the Narrative that Hillary is the presumptive nominee, except he'd be flying in the face of numbers that have her ahead in delegates and total voter turnout so far. Fine, he's stumping for his guy.

But using the word "sheep" to describe the other side of his argument is a huge turnoff for me.

That's the language of the Internet Troll, the contrarian naysayer with the conspiratorial mindset. Whenever that Troll is confronted by a majority of people who argue against the insanity that Troll defends, said Troll tends to call everyone else "sheep"... "sheeple"... and then a slew of obscenities that shows how that Troll lost that argument. It's a sign of how that Troll is dismissing the value those other people have.

Granted, my calling a Troll that derogatory term is dismissive as well, but I'd like to think when I do so it's because that Troll's actions deserve such scorn. Getting called "sheep" or "sheeple" usually happens just because the person accusing others of being that is no longer capable of defending his/her argument, and is reduced to condemning the other side without proof of it out of spite/hate/fear.

Here's the deal, Bernie followers: Hillary's supporters are NOT sheep nor sheeple. A majority of Hillary's followers have solid reasons to side with her this 2016 election, and they have reasons not to share the worldview you've got that make you side with Bernie with such fervor.

In your pursuit of defending your candidate, you're going out of your way to insult fellow Democrats and Left-leaning centrists who are still a vital part of the Democratic party's chances to win big this 2016.

As much as you feel alienated from having a Far Left / progressive agenda get shot down for 40-plus years since the rise of Nixon and the Republican Southern Strategy, you're not helping by alienating the more moderate, pragmatic party members who aren't going to be in the mood for your denunciations and scorn.

You've got bigger fish to fry than worrying about the Judean People's Front (splitters). You've still got Trump and Cruz sitting there a election cycle away from getting into the Oval Office and pretty much undoing not only Obama's legacy but also pretty much every positive step our nation's made since 1933. You've got votes for down-ballot Senate and House seats to try and break the GOP obstructionists destroying Congress. You've got a chance here and there to switch Red States away from bad Republican Governors and state legislatures passing anti-people laws.

Look, you can argue for Bernie Sanders. Argue on the merits, argue about the need to fight income inequality. Get ahead on the issue about the growing crisis in rental and homeowning costs for a majority of Americans. Go loud and strong on dealing with the massive personal debt crisis that got ignored by the Big Banks and Wall Street.

But stop with the insults and dismissal of your fellow Democrats. THEY ARE YOU AND YOU ARE THEY both on the same side of social justice and economic fairness, despite all the stuff about Hillary being in bed with Wall Street. At the end of the day, Hillary is still talking about making things work the way Democrats want things to work.

Okay? Just play nice with others, please. For the sake of the nation and our future.

And to all you Hillary followers: same deal. Congeniality among your ranks goes a long way towards being in a state of grace.

Just remember, both of you lot can crack all the "Republicans are batsh-t insane" jokes you want. It's cathartic and a great way to bond over crafted brews at the beatnik bars.

So When We Map Out Districts For Voting, It Means We Count EVERYONE

The Supreme Court is not always divided by the partisan makeup of the Justices. Decisions do occasionally come down with a united vote bridging both the ones seated by Republicans and those seated by Democrats.

Such as today's ruling - Evenwel v Abbott - about how voting districts must adhere to the principle of "one person one vote". As described by Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSBlog:

While virtually every argument used by the Ginsburg opinion in favor of basing representation on total population (because elected officials supposedly represent everybody and not just the voters) points toward a constitutional mandate, it turns out that the states actually are not bound by the Constitution to craft new election districts by starting with total population.   The only thing settled constitutionally now is that the states also are not required to divide up districts by using the voting population to be assigned to each, making them equal.  Should a state do it that way, the opinion seems to say, the Court will then face that issue.

Essentially the Court is telling us that they'll decide this matter again if a state DOES try to rewrite how they draw up districts by just the registered voters. Thing is, the way Ginsburg wrote this, the Court is dropping a huge hint that they'll side on having total population as the deciding factor.

Today's ruling makes it harder for states to, as the Washington Post's preliminary article about this case described it, redraw districts in more skewed gerrymanders that devastate major city populations: "A court ruling changing 'one person, one vote' to eligible voters (or some other metric) could flip many district sizes on their head. It would end up giving rural and more homogeneous districts more power than diverse urban areas, where there tend to be fewer eligible voters."

Say for example here in Florida: there may be 1.7 million people in Broward County/Ft. Lauderdale but only 1.1 million registered to vote. That's 600,000 people no longer counted towards carving out a district for the State Senate that has to draw out districts to fill 470,000 or so. Take away that 600,000 and Broward loses one full State Senate district to represent them. One less senator to represent a large county full of minority populations, young residents, and city residents relying on constant infrastructure repairs and upgrades. That would be a district that shifts outward to areas where there would be more registered voters - older and more rural - but fewer actual people.

The thing is, our elected officials are supposed to represent not just the ones who vote but everyone who resides within their scope of responsibility: everyone who lives in a State Representative's district, for example, even the ones who didn't vote for him/her. They're supposed to think of the children who are too young to vote, they're supposed to think of the poor who tend not to register to vote, they're supposed to think of everyone period when it comes time to pass legislation. In practice of course the Representatives heed their lobbyist buddies more, but the duty to the public remains...

Ginsburg spells that out specifically in her ruling (p.18):

As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote... By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation...

It's this passage that drops the hint to states that messing with "total population apportionment" isn't going to impress her or most of her fellow Justices.

Oddly enough, this decision had both sides losing in some way: the plaintiffs were denied the chance to have districts drawn up in a way that favored conservatives across many states, but the defendants - Texas and the Obama administration - were also denied having a confirmed Constitutional requirement to use total population as the redistricting metric.

Granted, the decision wasn't really unanimous - Alito wrote a concurrence that still questioned the final decision, and Thomas argued that the whole matter of "one person one vote" should still be left up to the states. But Ginsburg's ruling is as near a united decision that we'll ever see from a 5-4 bench split (well, 4-4 since the US Senate won't even speak to Garland right now, but I digress).

What matters here is that this ruling, relying on previous court decisions, is creating the framework to argue for stronger "one person one vote" requirements to voting rights overall. I'd like to think this can be the framework to argue for universal voter registration, to ensure that all possible residents of age (27th Amendment, sorry 5-year-olds...) have this right and the ability to employ it. Or to argue against gerrymanders that defy that "one person one vote" by pointing out how gerrymanders waste votes rather than ensure them.

Here's hoping.

On A Personal Note: My Writing Side

While I posted this on my writer's blog, I want to pass a couple of notes along over here as well:

I will attend a Local Authors book sale/signing event at the Barnes & Noble store in Wesley Chapel FL this coming Saturday May 21st from 2-4 PM. I'll have print copies of various works on display for sale and autographs, sitting alongside fellow local authors who are published across a variety of genres. I may also be sitting with fellow writers/publishers Sarah Glenn and Gwen Mayo because as the next note will state...

Any day/month now the third volume of the Strangely Funny anthology series will be published. Sarah and Gwen are the publishers and editors with Mystery & Horror LLC imprint, and they'll likely bring copies of this latest anthology to the authors' event, which we can sign as a group.

Update before the Update: Volume III of Strangely Funny is NOW AVAILABLE as a Kindle ebook! Look for my story "Minette Dances with the Golem of Albany" and enjoy! (Print version and EPUB version will be available soon)

I'm finishing up one story for submission to the Florida Writers Association annual anthology (I thought I had it but something needs tweaking...) and I'm thinking a previous writing mini-lesson story I did a few months back could qualify for this year's theme of "Hide and Seek" so I'll likely submit both to test my odds. ;)

Update: I need to revise the status of a previous publication. Stories For All Seasons is currently ON HOLD as the writing group I'm with is changing the format and marketing for the book.

I've changed the Writings Tab atop my banner now, go take a look and consider if you're interested in downloading any of the titles listed, please and thank you.

I am planning on getting a poster of the Body Armor Blues ebook created as a giveaway item for the Local Authors event to entice an audience...

The Derogatory Nickname We Should Be Using To Describe Trump Voters Is...

TRUMPSHIRTS

I had 25 people vote on my Survey Monkey poll, and the winner was Trumpshirts with six responses. Ignorant Hater Bastards of an Emotionally Stunted Demographic was in second place with four votes. There were 11 Other options that ended up in the Comments, but I didn't have a common offering there. There were some inventive ones like Trumpaccia (Italian for horrid Trump) and Trumpenproletariat, but I wasn't too keen on Trumpaphiles because the use of -philia in the name is too positive a connotation, eh?

I'm sorry, Infidel, but Trumpolines just wasn't winning anybody over. :( I didn't think Gateway Pundit's Trumpkins stood much of a chance, IMHO...

I'll let Driftglass know he won. He will receive a firm handshake and friendly pat on the back for his victory.

In the demographic breakdowns, I didn't get many self-identifying Republicans to partake of the poll - funny, I'd figure the pro-Rubio people I know would want to vent a little - but I did get one Green and five NPAs to balance out the 19 Democrats who showed. I'm personally disappointed my older brother Eric didn't show up to be the lone Libertarian polled: dude, that hurts.

The chart for ethnic demographics showed very little diversity: a lot of White voters, one Asian, one Middle Eastern, and not enough Middle Earthers. How did I get two Extraterrestrials from doomed planets, I ask you...

The remaining question - "Will you vote this election cycle" - was a unanimous YES. I got good readers to this blog. THANK YOU! GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT.

Just How Low Can Trump Go This Election Cycle

In terms of his unpopularity I mean.

As the primary season is about halfway finished, the media is starting to pick up on the fact that Donald Trump isn't all that popular outside of the Far Right voting base that makes up the Republican Party.

And we're still talking about Trump as the likely nominee because he's still got a big lead on the delegate count, and because the Number Two in the race - Ted Cruz - is polling about as unpopular as Trump with the general electorate.

We're looking at a potential Presidential candidate in Donald Trump whose possible Popular vote for November is going to be around 33 percent, the way things are tracking.

Which got me to thinking: What was the worst Popular vote performance by a Presidential candidate in the whole of our nation's history?

We need to make the distinction for a 2-person race. A lot of multi-candidate (three or more) races split the Popular vote in weird ways, so the drubbing John Davis gets in 1924 has a lot to do with the Third Party guy La Follette more than Calvin Coolidge (although Coolidge did get a sizable majority 54 percent). The fights between four candidates in 1824 and 1860 and 1912 make it impossible to say the Second Place guy got drubbed. So for it to be utter humiliation, it has to be a mano-a-mano showdown.

There's been a few bad Electoral College vote performances - Mondale in 1984, McGovern in 1972, Goldwater in 1964, Alf Landon in 1936 (before Mondale, one of the most mocked under-performances of all time), with the earliest going back to Charles Pinckney in 1804.

Ah. Who?

Exactly. Pinckney in 1804 not only suffered one of the worst Electoral College results ever, he gave the singular worst Popular vote performance of all time. While there's been a few candidates who struggled in the low 30s for head-to-head matchups, Pinckney set the record for fewest Likes at 27.2 percent of the voting population.

So here we've got a measuring stick. Can Trump equal Pinckney's dismal performance?

Probably not in terms of the Electoral College (although if Nate Silver is right about the women's vote, the possibility is there for a total wipeout), as the Republican Party is still popular enough in regions to earn a few states like South Carolina, Alabama, Idaho, parts of the Midwest (everything else right now - I'm not joking - is up for grabs) just by being the Red candidate. It's doubtful he'll sink to the minimum two-state (plus DC) requirement of matching the humiliating nights that Pinckney, Landon, and Mondale endured (McGovern tends to get excused because of the Watergate scandals of Nixon's dirty tricks people messing with the primaries).

But the Popular vote for Trump can well hit the lowest levels that a candidate for a major party can sink to. Trump's unpopularity is suddenly becoming a major revelation - as the focus on the early stages of the primary season was on the state primary numbers - and the fact that he's already burned more than a few bridges to a lot of the voting blocs is starting to hurt the GOP.

Right now the polls have him bouncing between 41 to 38 percent losing to either Clinton or Sanders. Granted, there's room for Trump to bounce up especially if the Democrats stumble out of their convention mid-summer: but given the polarization between the two parties and the unlikelihood of party voters switching, it all comes down to how the Independent voters go.

And Independent voters right now don't like Trump at all.

My own personal view is that if Trump survives this very contested convention - he pretty much HAS to win the delegate count beforehand, and that's starting to look harder to do - he's going to come out of it bruised and angry and unable to change his tune to a more moderate stance. Depending on how his Veep selection plays out - if he does go with Palin begin headdesking - the poll numbers can really drop. If he's under 40 percent by August - hell, if he's under 33 percent by September - he's probably going to lose more voters who will just run away from the stench.

The way things are going, I've got Trump finishing around that 33 percent as he turns into an incoherent raging mess as October rolls around. Not enough to match Pinckney's despair, but it'll do... it'll do.

Breaking News

In breaking news this morning, the major news networks all agreed unilaterally to not cover any one damn bit of this 2016 Presidential cycle.

To quote one prime time producer from CNN, "I mean, c'mon. Look at the date. It's April First. Is there anything crazy we can report on that anybody would believe was a real news story? No. So why bother? This season has been crazier than a Florida Man on a Wednesday naked road trip to a strip club bingo night."

When reached for comment, Rachol Meddow* growled at the cameraman and pulled the bedsheets over her head, shouting "Damn you, non-stop press coverage of increasingly deranged campaigns! I JUST WANNA SLEEP AND DREAM OF HAPPY LLAMAS."

A reporter from C-Span refused to comment on-air, instead giving a statement through handwritten notes passed under the bathroom door that read "No more coverage. No more crazy from that one campaign. You know who. I'm sick of his egomania and incoherent ranting. I haven't taken a proper sh-t in days."

"Are you kidding? We need this break," emailed Olevia J. Nozzi** from an undisclosed location we later found out was a seaside rest spa. "I can't take it anymore. Especially that one campaign. I won't even say his name, we gave him so much coverage and all he does is come up with the craziest unbelievable outrage and nonsense we end up shaking our heads at. I mean, we could report him quitting the race to go raise a llama farm in Utah or something and nobody would believe us."

She added in a follow-up email "And his followers, ugh. Half the time I'm terrified they're going use me for pinata practice, the other half of the time I can't interview them because they're foaming at the mouth and ready to bite someone. So much freaking stress. So screw it, we're taking the day off."

Shap Smithee*** reportedly unplugged the camera of the team sent to interview him, and without independent verification uttered "Get away from me with that sh-t, son, I'm not in the mood for it."

In other news, the Presidential candidates were seen hastily tackling tourists wandering the streets of New York City so they could have cameras to shout at for YouTube uploads.

Also, llamas.

* Not a real name
** What, you wanna get sued?
*** I mean, seriously, I don't have a lawyer on retainer.