Petition Edition

In the wake of last Tuesday's debacle, a couple of petitions are making their way around the internet.  One calls on President Obama to immediately appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.  Assuming he has the power to do this, he absolutely should.  The Senate had ample time to perform its constitutional duties, and, out of pure partisan spite, chose not to.  Garland is an eminently qualified, slightly left-of-center judge, and there is no reason for him not to have received due consideration--and presumably approval--by the Senate.  President Obama should use whatever authority he has to get that man seated immediately.

The second petition, however, is far more dangerous: It calls on voters in the Electoral College who have pledged to vote for Trump to go rogue and cast their votes for Clinton.  The petition itself is purely symbolic: Electors can already vote for whomever they want.  If they are currently "bound" to Trump, they can vote for him--or Clinton or Gary Johnson or whomever.  The same holds true for those pledged to Clinton.  And this is true regardless of a state's popular vote totals--and regardless of any petition.  But here's the thing: Even if enough "faithless electors" could "do the right thing" and hand the presidency to Clinton, doing so would be an absolute disaster--a bigger disaster even than a Trump presidency, and that's saying a lot.  Bear with me.

First, the disclaimers: I am terrified about the prospect of Trump in the White House.  The man has shown himself to be a willfully ignorant, race-baiting bully with absolutely no qualifications for the office he is about to enter.  Even more frightening are the people he inspires--racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, and assorted other members of the alt-right.  In a sane world, Trump would not be elected dogcatcher, much less President of the United States.

I also agree that the Electoral College should be abolished.  It is an arcane remnant of the early days of this country, which no longer serves any purpose--assuming it ever did.  It gives vastly disproportionate power to small states and can override the will of the majority of US citizens.  Indeed, a major reason this petition has gained steam is the fact that Hillary Clinton actually "won" (yes, in quotes--I'll get to that) the popular vote, and people feel that the will of the majority must be honored.  They're not wrong, but this is not the way to do it.

Throughout much of the endgame of his campaign, Trump--no doubt seeing polls that suggested he was heading to a massive defeat--would rally his troops with cries that the election was rigged--that the powers that be were simply going to thwart the will of the people and hand the White House to Hillary Clinton.  He was wrong about that (and of course I would say that even if Hillary had prevailed).  But what happens if 40 or so faithless electors switch their votes to Hillary next month?  Of course, as mentioned above, this is their right.  And if, say, in the next month or so, some new scandal erupts that proves Trump even more unfit to be President (the man does have a couple of court dates coming up), then maybe they should switch their votes.  But imagine what will happen in the country immediately afterwards?  Every Trump supporter would cry that Trump was right, that the system WAS rigged, that there was no way they--his voters--were ever going to have their voices heard.

And. They. Would. Be. Right.

Many of us were terrified at the prospect of armed militias taking to the streets in the face of a Trump loss, spurred on by his delusional (or tactical) claims of election rigging.  Those fears were probably overblown, but NOT if the election results are "overturned" by a small handful of unelected elites (electors are chosen by state political parties).  Even if the country doesn't descend into violent revolution, how much legitimacy would President Clinton have?  You think people resisted Obama?  We would see a level of obstructionism that would make the last eight years look like the Summer of Love.

But, you say, Hillary won the popular vote!  More Americans want her than want Trump!  The will of the people SHOULD be honored!  It should--and going forward, if we get rid of the Electoral College, it will be.  But the fact remains: You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game simply because you hate the outcome--and, again, I cannot stress this enough, I HATE the outcome. 

Furthermore, this is not--I sincerely hope--the last US presidential election.  Once we validate the idea of mass defections by electors, we have effectively eliminated any kind of certainty in the political process.  Best case scenario, this adds momentum to the calls for election by national popular vote; worst case scenario, this leads to anarchy.

And about that national popular vote: Yes, Hillary received more votes than Trump nationwide.  However, the last time I checked, her lead was about 200,000 votes. . .out of well over 100 million cast.  In other words, her margin is less than 0.2%.  A win is a win, you will say--and, again, you're not wrong.  But a margin of 200,000 out of a pool of 100 million-plus is not exactly a "win"--it's a statistical tie.

If the popular vote did decide the winner, we would right now have a massive recount going on: People across the country looking for the 2016 equivalent of dangling chads--Florida 2000 writ large.  This is, of course, not a reason NOT to choose the president by popular vote--but it is a caution: A relative handful of votes recounted differently could very easily hand Trump the presidency that way, too.

Those of us who loathe the thought of a Trump presidency should do everything we can to temper its worst effects.  We should also advocate for changes to our voting systems before the next election.  But like it or not, under the system we have now, Trump won the election.  We don't have to like it--but we do have to accept its reality.

Election Night Analysis

Election Day came and went while I was without power for my computer (aka, Solipsist Central).  As a result, I was unable to offer my trenchant analysis on any number of important races.  I am, however, disgusted with all the subsequent chatter from pundits of all political persuasions about what the various results portend for 2014 and beyond.  What does Terry McAuliffe's election mean for Obamacare?  Was Bill DeBlasio's landslide in the New York City mayoral race a sign of a resurgent progressive spirit in the electorate?  Or does Chris Christie's similarly lopsided victory across the Hudson River show that conservatism, wrapped in a mantle of apparent common-sense, can carry the day?  And, seriously, can we just give a rest to any talk of what the election results mean for the presidential race in 2016?

We can't?

Well, in that case, let me offer my own, definitive judgment on the 2016 presidential race: Hillary Clinton will win!  And this prognostication has nothing to do with the outcomes of ANY of the high--or even low-profile races decided last Tuesday.  No, Hillary's eventual ascension was guaranteed on Election Night 2008.  Because if "Star Trek" has taught us anything--and it has!--it's that the menopausal woman

naturally follows the black guy

who follows the old white guy.

Congratulations, Madame President!

Vallejo: A Spot Exciting, Mystic, and Exotic

This year's ballot for Vallejo City Council features one "Pippin Dew."  I know nothing about this person's political affiliation or stands on the issues; for all I know he (she?) is a card-carrying member of the Kitten Electrocution Brigade.  Nevertheless, I feel I must vote for him (her?) because, well, you know, "Pippin Dew"!  How can I resist the opportunity to vote for that name?  Indeed, when given the choice, I will always vote for the stupid name.  You can imagine how conflicted I was over last year's race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  Indeed, my one and only regret is that I was not alive in 1956 to cast a vote for the Adlai Stevenson-Estes Kefauver ticket!

Seriously, my ONLY regret!

Post-Mortem

I doubt I can add much to the commentary about the quite satisfying results of yesterday's voting, but I've been harping about the election for so long, as so many of us have, that I can't be expected to leave the day behind without at least offering my own post-election thoughts.

The ever-shrinking part of me that clings to optimism (currently occupying the space between tip of left big toe and first toe-knuckle) wants to think Republican leaders will learn the right lesson from yesterday's drubbing: that the country as a whole has little tolerance for. . .well, for intolerance.  Certainly GOP dead-enders will claim Romney lost because of insufficient conservativism, but, while Mittens was undoubtedly a flawed candidate, no lack of ideological purity caused his downfall.  Does anyone truly believe ultraconservatives DIDN'T vote for Mitt in large numbers?  If the argument is that an uninspiring candidate depressed conservative turnout, then that means a substantial number of Tea-Party true-believers felt more comfortable with the a second Obama term than with an imperfect but at least SOMEWHAT more ideologically copacetic Romney administration.  I don't buy it.  I personally suspect Tea Partiers turned out in droves for the chance to turn out Obama.  I suspect, indeed, that this is the ONLY reason Romney racked up about 50% of the popular vote.

Republicans keep trying to convince themselves and us that there is this tremendous demand on the part of the majority of Americans for some return to mythical conservative values when the facts--the observable if much maligned material of the reality-based community--are so clearly opposite.  Are Republicans blind to the fact that, in five of the last six presidential elections, a majority of voters expressed a preference for the other guy?  Or they could just look at yesterday's Senate results!  If there is such overwhelming preference for red-blooded conservatives, why did Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin in Republican-leaning Missouri and Richard "Rape Babies Are Just God's Way of Making Lemonade Out of Lemons" Mourdock in reliable Red State Indiana, both lose?  Why was Allen "Obama's a Communist" West tossed out in Florida?  Among a certain Republican subset, Romney may conjure the image of a Rebublican-in-name-only, but no one could accuse Akin, Mourdock, and West of holding anything but the purest of conservative credentials.  As Edward G. Robinson might snarl, "Where's yer groundswell, now, eh?"

Part of me hopes the GOP doesn't wake up.  Let the party devour itself in internecine bickering until it goes the way of Whigs and Tories and Bull Mooses and other extinct political fauna.  At the same time, I worry that, if the Republicans DON'T come to their senses, and something bizarre were to happen, we could end up with a President Ryan--a thought that should appeal to no one.  Maybe Boehner and company will face reality and we can get something like civility out of our elected leaders--to say nothing of governance.  I won't hold my breath.

In the meantime, we can all breathe a little easier today and, perhaps, for the next four years.  And by 2016, maybe Elizaabeth Warren will be ready to take a shot at the office.  A boy can dream, no?

Sticker Shock

Forget in-person voter fraud!  There's absolutely no evidence that it's happening, and to whatever extent it IS happening, it's highly unlikely that a sufficient number of people in any one state or congressional district are engaging in such activity to make any difference whatsoever in any race's outcome.  I DID, however, personally witness a case of in-person voter-sticker fraud, and I think this poses a significant threat to the Republic!

At my polling place this morning, what I assumed to be a father and son stood on line, waiting to sign in.  The son was about six years old.  As the pair approached the sign-in table, one of the elderly volunteers asked the boy if he would like a sticker. . . .AND THEN SHE GAVE HIM ONE!!!

Now, I am mildly concerned at the thought of what a savvy Republican operative could do with optics implying that a clearly underaged young man was allowed to vote at a polling place in a heavily Democratic precinct, in flagrant violation of any number of election laws.  But I am MORE concerned by the fact that the child was given the sticker before his father voted!  After all, if faced with the prospect of standing in an hours-long line, how many people would just give up and go home if someone offered them an "I Voted" sticker: They'd get all the warm approbation for having done their civic duty without actually having to wait around to vote!!! 

Now, THIS is a job for the ACLU!

In Case You Missed It. . .

While President Obama has received effusive praise from New Jersey governor Chris Christie for the administration's prompt response to the devastation wrought by Hurrican Sandy, former Arkansas governor and current talk-show agitator Mike Huckabee has warned Christians that they will go to Hell if they vote for Obama on November 6th.  Huckabee, of course, once sought the Republican presidential nomination.  He also once weighed close to 300 pounds.  I'm thinking he's just jealous of Christie's stature as the great round hope of the GOP.  So while the Jersey governor earns plaudits for putting the needs of his state above the dictates of petty party politics, Huckabee wants to stay relevant in whatever way he can, even if--especially if?--that means engaging in the basest form of mudslinging.

Black Cups for Anarchy!

7-11 has been doing this promotion for a few weeks now: "7-Election."  When you buy coffee at a 7-11, you can choose either a blue cup or a red one.  Every blue cup sold will be "counted" as a vote for Obama, every red a vote for Romney.  I suppose the winner will be revealed sometime after the polls close on the West Coast on November 6th.

Anyway, a few weeks back, I posted the following tweet (or tweeted the following post; I still haven't figured the whole "Twitter" thing out yet):

I thought the whole #7election thing was idiotic.  Then I learned the results are binding! Who will win 7-11's 14 electoral votes?!?

At the time, I thought I was kidding.  This morning, I heard a radio commercial for 7-11, in which the announcer clarified that you could vote for Obama or Romney, or, "if you just want a delicious cup of coffee, you could choose a green cup."

Couple of things: Does this mean that the coffee you pour into an Obama or a Romney cup will lack "deliciousness"?  Frankly, I assumed mediocre taste to be an unalterable feature of 7-11 coffee, regardless of political affiliation.

More to the point: I suppose this is shrewd marketing, meant to show the convenience store's commitment to serving all segments of the American electorate: Democrat, Republican, or non-aligned/undecided.  At the same time, I couldn't help wondering if this was really an issue for 7-11's customers.  Was some significant portion of their clientele offended at having to express a political preference in order merely to buy a coffee?  Worse yet, were there people stranded at nationwide 7-11's, desperate for caffeine, but paralyzed by political doubt?

Honestly, if 7-11 wanted to represent the undecided's, they should have gone with purple cups.  "Green" has certain Eurocentric or Naderite associations. 

Naming Candidate Ryan

Mitt Romney has concluded that the only way to win the election is to prevent as many people as possible from voting for Barack Obama--not by convincing these people that he, Romney, would make a better President but by preventing them from voting at all.  His GOP supporters have facilitated this goal in a several swing states by passing voter-suppression--er, sorry, "Voter Fraud Prevention" laws, which will have the curious effect of keeping large numbers of people who, statistically speaking, are more likely to vote for President Obama out of the voting booth.  Well played, GOP.

In his latest masterful move of electoral jiujitsu, Romney has selected House-Elf Paul Ryan (R-Azkaban) as his running mate.  Sure, many observers feel that Romney has all but handed the election to President Obama: Rather than picking a safe, non-controversial running mate, Romney has selected the one man in all of Washington who cannot realistically distance himself from the Medicare-slashing, Social-Security destroying budget devised by. . . Rep. Paul Ryan.  (Then again, Mitt Romney has distanced himself as much as possible from the Massachusetts universal healthcare plan devised by none other than Governor Mitt Romney, so I guess anything's possible.)  But Ryan's unelectability may just be the point!

Romney and his supporters have already done a great deal to make sure that people who want to go to the polls and vote for Obama can't do so.  But what about the rest of the electorate who aren't minorities or poor or college students?  How can Romney dissuade the solid middle-class liberal from voting?  Simple!  Make the likelihood of his election seem SO unlikely that we don't bother to go out and vote.  Lest you think this far-fetched, as soon as I heard of Ryan's nomination, I chuckled, shook my head, and made plans to get an all-day massage on November 6th.  Thankfully, I realized in time, that's just what they WANT me to do!

Be alert, people.  Complacency is dangerous.

Monday Miscellany

On this second day of election year, I must take a moment to express my joy at the fact that I do not live in Iowa.  Not just for the obvious reason--corn--but because I cannot imagine what it must be like to have to deal constantly with the phone calls, mailings, door-to-door canvassing, and for all I know smoke signals of the various candidates vying to make a good showing in tomorrow's caucuses.

Mind you, this is not a partisan commentary.  While I'm sure it is easier being a registered Democrat in Iowa this year, when there is no contested primary, I would have found it just as unbearable being beseeched by supporters of Hilary or Barack (or John or whoever else was hanging around) in 2008 as I imagine it is for the folks now being bombarded by representatives of Mitt or Newt or Ron (well, OK, it might be amusing to try keeping a straight face while talking to volunteers of EITHER of the Ricks).

Be strong, Iowans!  This will all be over after tomorrow, and you can go back to your accustomed irrelevance.

A Solution in Search of a Problem

You've got to love the Republican Party--and by "love," I mean "roll your eyes at the cynical political machinations of."  Unwilling to propose policy addressing the actual problems of our society--foreclosures, mass unemployment, obscene levels of income inequality--the GOP instead goes out of its way to propound solutions to the non-existent problem of "rampant" voter fraud.  Since the 2010 elections, "more than a dozen states have passed laws requiring voters to show photo identification at polls, cutting back early voting periods or imposing new restrictions on voter registration drives" ("New State Rules Raising Hurdles at Voting Booth").  Yesterday, the Justice Department announced that it would challenge one such rule in South Carolina.

In theory, voter-identification laws sound reasonable: In order to safeguard our democracy, we should embrace legislation that seeks to ensure that only those eligible to vote are allowed to vote.  Voter ID laws, therefore, make sure that fraudulent voters cannot sway an election.  But, as many have pointed out, there is no evidence that this has happened.  Indeed, we could frame the issue differently and say that, in order to safeguard democracy, we should embrace legislation that seeks to ensure that anyone eligible to vote CAN vote.  Such legislation would give voters the benefit of the doubt and allow them to cast a ballot at least provisionally.  Either type of legislation has merits.

The fact, though, is that Republicans largely support the first type of legislation, which suggests that they feel confident that the vast majority of those who would be found ineligible under such legislation would be unlikely to support Republican candidates or causes.  Indeed, one of the more. . .amusing provisions, from Texas, would allow concealed-handgun licenses to be used for identification but not student ID cards.  Seriously, why not just say that a Republican Party membership card meets the ID requirements, while a Democratic one will not only prevent one from voting but lead to temporary detention?

"Republicans, who have passed almost all of the new election laws, say they are necessary to prevent voter fraud, and question why photo identification should be routinely required at airports but not at polling sites."  Well, probably because the threat of hijacking an airplane is literal, while the hijacking of our democracy is at most a metaphorical--and most likely an illusory--threat.

If Republicans are so concerned about threats to democracy, why are they not more incensed at the disproportionate electoral clout wielded by the wealthy and corporations?  Or are logos considered an acceptable form of voter identification?

You Say ""Governor Moonbeam" Like It's a Bad Thing. . .

. . .or, "Election Reflections."


--At least locally we did OK. Senator Boxer goes back to Washington; Jerry Brown goes back to Sacramento; and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom moves up in the California political hierarchy. As to Brown's lunar nickname, we frankly don't see it as a denigration. We like the thought of voting for "Governor Moonbeam": It's like voting for Luke Skywalker. We overcame any misgiving we might have had about voting for someone who sounds like a character from "Star Trek" awhile back (cf., "Barack Obama").

--Speaking of which, we'd rather vote for the guy whose (nick)name sounds like it belongs to a "Star Trek" character than for the lady whose major contribution to modern society was giving people the ability to buy "Star Trek" bobble-heads online from disreputable merchants.


--And, of course, better a "Governor Moonbeam" than a "Senator Wacko Opthalmologist Who Wants to Repeal Civil Rights Legislation." (We're looking at you, Kentucky.)


--At any rate, we take solace in the fact that, if nothing else, we don't have to worry about our mailboxes imploding under the weight of campaign mailings for another two years or so. And we got through the voting itself, which is no mean feat.

If you've never voted in California, we suggest you move here just to have the experience at least once. We don't know how it is in your state, but, compared to voting in New York--a breezy two minutes in a booth, flipping a few switches and pulling a lever--voting in the Golden State is a veritable Bataan Death March of civic participation. In addition to the "top of the ticket" items (governor, senator), you have the mid-level folks (lieutenant governor, attorney general), the "Enough Already!" offices (supreme court judges running unopposed, school board), and the "Really?" brigade (Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Sanitation Transportation). Then come several pages of propositions, referenda, measures, and jirgas--the pros and cons of all of which a conscientious voter must deliberate on. Or you do what we did and just alternate "Yeses" and "Nos." We noted that at least one of these measures was to repeal a measure that had been voted on in the LAST election. (Tough noogies, losers! You wanted it? You got it!) We think the strategy is to wear down the electorate so that, by the time they get to the end of the ballot, they're so groggy that they approve things like free lapdances for city-councilmembers.

--And now, we head into the next two years, looking forward to a Congress that gets nothing done; an increasingly angry electorate ever-more divided by partisan rancor; and our nation's slow, sad decline into malaise. . . .

So, yeah, nothing's changed. Kind of a relief, really.

(Image from eBay, obviously.)

Any Way You Look at It, You Lose

This morning, shortly after leaving for work, we looked down in horror and realized we had insufficiently stickered ourselves! Talk about feeling naked! (No, really, talk about feeling naked, Sloppists--especially you hot ones!) Utterly disoriented, we spun out of control, crashing the Slopmobile into a fence; the impact flung us from the car. Dazed but unhurt, we staggered through the first open door we came to. Turns out, we had serendipitously wrecked ourselves right in front of sticker distributorship! We didn't even have to pay! We just had to fill in some bubbles (we made a neat turkey-shaped pattern) on a sheet we received from an extremely old lady, give the sheet to an to an even-extremelier old lady, and receive our free sticker!

Sure, we would have preferred something with a duck on it (it being Tuesday and all), but still, stickerless beggars can't be choosers.

**********************************************

Seen on the Yahoo! News feed: In new book, Bush says he considered replacing Cheney. He was going to do it, too, but Cheney decided it wasn't a good idea.

(Image from willisms.com)