Slashdot Mirror
Mayday PAC Goes 2 For 8
An anonymous reader writes: Lawrence Lessig's Mayday.us project had a bold goal: create a super PAC to end all super PACs. It generated significant support and raised over $10 million, which it spent endorsing a group of candidates for the recent mid-term elections and the primaries beforehand. The results weren't kind. Only two of the eight candidates backed by Mayday won their elections, and both of those candidates were quite likely to win anyway. Lessig was understandably displeased with the results. In a post on the Mayday site, he said, "What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections. Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win."
Kenneth Vogel, author of Big Money, a recent book on the rise of super PACs, was critical of of Mayday's efforts, saying, "While voters do express high levels of disgust about the state of campaign finance and the level of corruption in Washington, they tend to actually cast votes more on bread-and-butter economic issues." Still, Lessig is hopeful for the future: "We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
Kenneth Vogel, author of Big Money, a recent book on the rise of super PACs, was critical of of Mayday's efforts, saying, "While voters do express high levels of disgust about the state of campaign finance and the level of corruption in Washington, they tend to actually cast votes more on bread-and-butter economic issues." Still, Lessig is hopeful for the future: "We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
The results weren't kind. Only two of the eight candidates backed by Mayday won their elections, and both of those candidates were quite likely to win anyway. "Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win."
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
"We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
Not really ...
Until you get proportional representation (which actually gives 3rd parties a chance) it's going to be "Partisanship For The Win!"
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"While voters do express high levels of disgust about the state of campaign finance and the level of corruption in Washington, they tend to actually cast votes more on bread-and-butter economic issues."
But voters are easily convinced that if their freedom to form a corporate monopoly is central to their own economic future. I know a guy who drives a school bus and is worried sick about the estate tax.
The government is just another business, and people will want to buy pieces of it.
You can't put a band-aid over an asshole to stop the spread of shit. It's a problem inherent to the system.
There were plenty of SuperPACs that raised more than that for individual races this election cycle, and these were midterm elections. In 2016 $10M will be chump change for election fundraising.
If Citizens United sought to disenfranchise voters as much as possible from the election process, they will accomplish it once that election is over and voters feel that their money can no longer help out in any meaningful way.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
For now, at least. Too many votes in the same geographic region are required to win one paltry seat. This is why reform must target state legislative positions more than federal positions. If a third party won enough seats in a state to block a majority from the Democrats or Republicans, it would open the door to forcing the hands of the establishment in unprecedented ways. If they could hold onto that, it'd probably be a matter of time before they send either their own candidate to the governorship or attorney general or get a Democrat or Republican who meets their approval. And why does that matter? Because the states have tremendous law enforcement power and may of the more serious problems facing this country are matters of putting the right people in prison, not passing new laws.
Create a super PAC to end all super PACS?
How stupid have we become?
Yes, let's use the existing lobby institution to create a new lobby. Let's make a coal plant to end all coal plants. Let's build a nuclear bomb to end all nuclear bombs. Let's make a fettuccine Alfredo to end all fettuccines Alfredo. Let's do something more stupid in order to end things less stupid.
This is not how you change government. This is throwing highly flammable shit on the fire. You are NOT helping.
Rather than deal with what is clearly bribery and corruption - that's what corporate donations are, they expect a return on any investment - corporations have been given the status of people, albeit people who can't be jailed, and their donations declared 'free speech'.
In the past, they paid lip-service to democracy, and had the decency to be embarrassed by this sort of malfeasance. Even that illusion is gone. I can't wait to hear how this 'isn't how true capitalism is supposed to work'.
I think the biggest thing Mayday PAC did wrong is that they were, in the end, massive hypocrites.
Their "competition" for the best video about the effect of big money was such an enormous debacle and a clear showing that their true goal was not to get money out of politics, but to get Conservative (and even libertarian) money out of politics. Their embracing and providing cover for Tom Steyer, who openly talked about influencing elections with large amounts of his money, makes Mayday PAC a bunch of liars.
http://freebeacon.com/politics...
If Mayday were true to its stated vision, they would have condemned Steyer's actions. That they did not condemn him like they constantly did the Koch brothers proves that they don't really want what they say they want.
On top of this, their support for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to restrict speech, makes them a contemptable organization.
I really respect Lessig's views on copyrights and patents. His efforts with his Mayday PAC have made me lose great amounts of respect for him.
There are ideas that, no matter how much you try to dress them up, are still toxic to the electorate. No amount of money can change that; in fact, the more money spent on the advertising, the LESS appealing it gets.
Lessig's idea ignores this. Basically he seems to think that money buys elections. It helps, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
Giving people bags of money for their campaign isn't enough to make them win.
Just like in real business, some people can do great things on shoestring budgets - and truly amazing things with sizable ones. While others, who probably shouldn't have been funded in the first place, consistently make poor decisions and have no chance of winning regardless of the depth of their coffers.
Even if the very first thing you do is hire an amazing campaign manager, if the candidate insists to be at the helm, and is an idiot, well... you get what you pay for?
Most people - about 80% by some estimates - have a fairly clear idea of what they believe, and that belief corresponds roughly to either the Democrat or Republican party. They vote according to their belief, not "Yay my team". Lessig's view is far too shallow, and in all likelihood he's blind to his own bias.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
so I guess its empty ballots from here out.
Feels like a waste of time.. but fuck em. I'm done voting for assholes that want to destroy me.
What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections. Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win.
Maybe they showed that. Or maybe they showed that the voters don't want to put Lawrence Lessig in charge of determining who gets free speech and who does not. Maybe the voters think that individuals shouldn't lose their right to express their support for a candidate financially just because they're acting in a group. Maybe the voters think that the voters should be exposed to more information on a candidate than just what the news shows them, because the news goes out of its way to favor certain candidates and certain policies. Maybe the voters think that campaign finance laws invariably turn into incumbent protection schemes, and they think there's a lot of crappy incumbents. In short, maybe the voters rejected Lessig's idea because they think it's a bad idea.
Also, this was a wave election for Republicans. I wouldn't expect anyone using Communist imagery (and who launched on a Communist holiday*) to do well in this environment.
*If a leftist wants to convince me that his organization, which is named after a website URL and so can't contain a space, should be interpreted as "Mayday" rather than "May Day," there are 364 better days to launch the organization on than May 1st. You'll note Wolf PAC doesn't have this problem.
Yeah, partisanship has some to do with it. But the biggest problem that Mayday.us faces is apathy and the fact that nationally 62 percent of those legally eligible to vote did not do so.
If you are American and you voted Tuesday, regardless of who you voted for, good for you! But if you did not vote and you were legally entitled to do so, go look in the mirror and you'll see why American government is as fucked up as it is. When 62 percent of eligible voters do not do so, America gets the government it deserves. And don't give me that "My not voting is a protest!" bullshit. All you do by not voting is magnify the voting power of the far right, which is the group most likely to go vote in American elections, and is the very group that is most likely to support the leaders you do not like.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Nice straw man argument. Sadly you are even wrong on your premise. In the last six years which party has taken away more of our personal freedom's? The answer is obvious and makes your whole one party is evil argument quite invalid.
Tom Steyer gave a whole ton of money to get politicians to give speeches in support of his cause. (And they did it on the floor of the Senate in lieu of, you know, running the country. Talk about gridlock.) If you're against money in politics, regardless of who the money is going to, like Lessig claims to be, you should be against Steyer.
Perhaps, particularly in this last election cycle, the money would be better spent in the primaries. Clearly, the American voters wanted the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and to retain control of the House. For a number of reasons, that was the overriding issue, across the board.
If Lessig's PAC had worked to get more favorable candidates into position in the primaries, they might have had a bigger return on their dollar.
I think your "evil" and "stupid" is all in the eye of the beholder.
Proved that their hypothesis about the effect of big money on voting was wrong.
He's complaining that the money he spent to defeat the influence of money in politics didn't have any influence.
The proper lesson is that his basic thesis is wrong, that money doesn't always win elections. Meg Whitman was another example (if you have to ask who she? and what election? then you prove my point -- google "meg whitman election").
But being a statist fuck, that won't be the lesson he sees. Lessig's done a lot of nice work otherwise, but he's off the rails on this.
Infuriate left and right
> "What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections.
Duh. That is why NOTHING is going to change until we have preferential voting, such as instant runoff. Then people can vote their conscience and get new blood into power (independents, libertarians, other parties, etc) without fear of a party opposite of their view being unopposed. Otherwise it is just business as usual.
http://www.fairvote.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
What they want to do is choke out conservative money, because that's the primary way Republicans get heard when leftists control the culture.
Mayday PAC is transparent in this regard- they ran a video contest accepting amateur-made ads supporting their cause. A video attacking Tom Steyer, the left's Koch, won the popular vote by a large margin. They picked another video based on the 'judgement of their panel of experts.'
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Fuck this shit site.
It's a one-issue campaign, and as far as most people are concerned, a rather esoteric one. And why "Mayday"? To a significant amount of the voting public, May Day = Communist. I'm not sure what they were going for, but names matter.
I was sympathetic to Lessig's stated goal but I was MUCH more interested in strategically crippling the standing Criminal in Chief -- who just so happens to be, and should have been, public enemy #1 on Lessig's posterboard...not JUST for his "big and corrupt money is welcome" approach to politics but also to his utter disdain for Rule of Law in pretty much all regards. The past election achieved that. I am currently aware of only ONE VIABLE candidate for the Presidency next year who happens to advocate Constitutional government, ESPECIALLY privacy rights but also Constitutionally mandated war and adherence to the Bill of Rights in general. Yeah: Rand Paul. Only if Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination for President am I likely to support a Republican candidate for President next year -- even IF the Republican candidate takes Lessig's pledge. Stopping unconstitutional government is really the goal - and I think Lessig would agree with that. Trying to gradually tilt the US toward politically LAWFUL health while the patient it dying on the operating table and clearly is going zombie is admirable but not wise. We needed a tactical strike and, thankfully, we got one. ALL Americans who oppose tyranny and "big money in poltics" should appreciate the outcome we got. Our Criminal in Chief has been effectively quarantined for the duration of his lawful term. In general I hate the Republican party as much as I hate the Democratic Party. But GAME THEORY and keeping ones' eye on the REAL prize - the Constitution - dictated that tactics trump strategy at this time. Just to be clear, in the days of George Bush - our previous Criminal in Chief - I opposed HIM and I supported gridlock. I supported Obama in that pivotal election ONLY because I thought he meant what he said and, in particular, because I thought he would bring the banksters and other felons involved with government to trial. In retrospect, Obama had, obviously, had been purchased beforehand. So I made a mistake. As I recall Lessig made the same mistake. We are united in long term goal, I think, Lessig and I. But Lessig's strategy needed to be preempted by a tactical strike in this case. He should have known that, and perhaps he did, but he may have been afraid that would put off a lot of his donor base. BTW, Lessig USED to consider himself "libertarian"...we appear to have both moved on from that label. Me, I only seek lawful government: a government UTTERLY BOUND by its own law...which happens to be the Constitution together with legal Amendments. And Article 10 is especially important ... which is why it is the Amendment neither Party ossified Democrats nor Republicans like to mention, much less uphold. Amendment 10 is the last of Bill of Rights but it is first in terms of keeping government legal and decent.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
How is the evil actively working to disable and disarm the Federal government for both the evil and the stupid a bad thing?
Why did they spend money on the campaigns of candidates who were already quite likely to win? That seems like a suboptimal way to spend the funds at their disposal. Spend it exclusively on races where it might make a difference.
See subject
I spent 20 years as a political consultant, so I have a strong understanding of what it takes to win elections. Although Lawrence Lessig is a smart guy, he makes the mistake that's common to many other smart people. He assumes his intelligence and knowledge about one field should make conquering another field simple and easy. He's wrong in his diagnosis of the problem with U.S. politics and he's even more laughably wrong about how change happens. It's amazingly arrogant for him to believe that his tiny effort would make the slightest difference in what voters believe about the issue he cares about. He and his group are like tiny fish bumping against the side of a supertanker and wondering why they're not changing its course. He needs to stick to something he's at least somewhat qualified to deal with. He doesn't understand politics.
Pass laws at the state level that require election districts to be drawn using mathematical models that include only factors of population and physical geography, not factors of socioeconomic, race, or party affiliation. Gerrymandering is why 96%+ of incumbents get reelected - the districts are rigged to ensure those results!
For Lessig's group to be successful, they need to stay out of the general election, and away from third parties.
1. Stay out of the general. Most congressional districts lean just enough Democrat or Republican than supporting the "favored" candidate is a waste of resources and favoring the "unfavored" candidate is too. If the race really is close, then (a) it will get really expensive, and (b) that candidate isn't likely to still be in Congress 10 years from now -- it's a tough district!
Instead, fight in the primaries. Go to districts where the Dem or Repub candidate is sure to win the general, whomever he or she is. Then, find like-minded candidates of that party willing to run in a primary. A primary race is cheaper and easier to influence -- and if you win it, you'll coast through the general and coast through reelections. Invest in both Democratic and Republican primaries, getting candidates who want the kind of campaign finance reform Lessig's group wants, and to hell with the rest of it. Bonus if the primary is "open" -- that is, there is no incumbent.
2. Stay away from third party candidates. First of all, they almost never win. There are what, two in the Senate (VT and ME senators Sanders and King, respectively), and zero in the House if memory serves. That's 2 out of 535. Terrible odds. Secondly, even if they do win -- they're independents! Their opinions change rather easily! They're unpredictable, and they take pride on being "mavericky." Look at the independents who gave good runs in 2014 -- very hard to predict where they would come down on the details of any campaign finance reform.
Lessig mistakenly got behind independents, foolishly believing that they had a shot in hell at winning. He also spent too much money in November, when the real action is between June and September.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
prepare to get your ass wuped by the real americans! We don't want your communistic politics round here. Ki-yi-yippie-i-ay!
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
Either that or money doesn't buy votes as much as some believe it does.
Absolutely correct. The true currency of politics is votes not money. Its still a one person one vote system, not a one dollar one vote system. The 99% actually have the power, they just fail to use it.
Money is just a tool to persuade the indifferent voters and money's influence is magnified by party loyalty. If you are loyal to your party you are irrelevant. Your party can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.
There is a simple way for the 99% to regain power. Punitive Voting. If a candidate misbehaves or egregiously fails to act in the best interests of the citizenry then vote against that candidate. Period. No exception. It is only through punitive voting that voters can teach politicians to fear the voters wrath.
Want example of punitive voting, look at the most powerful lobbies in the country. The NRA and the AARP. They do not control politicians through money, they control them with their literally millions of members who *will* show up on election day and vote punitively if the politician have voted against the lobby. This is why Democrats who never accept a single dollar from the NRA will vote the NRA's way. They fear the NRA membership (and like minded folks). This punitive voting scheme needs to be used on a larger scale by the public at large.
If a sufficient number of voters have decided to remove a candidate from office no amount of campaign contributions can save the candidate.
Note that this is a long term strategy. It relies on a darwinian process. Politicians need to be seen as losing office due to large scale punitive voting. Only them will they adapt and the 99% regain control.
If you think there is a quick solution, an easy fix, you have been deluded by the status quo. Its going to take time and the longer we delay the farther off regaining control is.
And that's what American "elections" are turning into. The tools of the moneyed class aren't going to be what breaks the moneyed class's grip on political power.
In the last six years which party has taken away more of our personal freedom's? The answer is obvious and makes your whole one party is evil argument quite invalid.
That is a sad tale of blindness in you, and has nothing to do with the post you are responding to.
Plese, share with us:
Which party thinks the public should not be allowed to encrypt their data? BOTH
Which party thinks the federal government should control education (and hence the economy) and pre-plan our economy for us? BOTH
Which party thinks we are always at war with ever-changing enemies, and government power must constantly be extended for "these trying times" that never end? BOTH
Which party thinks the U.S. should control the world (never mind "no entangling alliances'...such as "Five Eyes")? BOTH
Which party thinks the NSA should form partnerships with private corporations (after having already been warned last time they tried this with phone taps) and that retroactively legalizing things makes everything ok? BOTH
Which party thinks that once they get in office, all the prior crimes committed by the prior administration can be dismissed and ignored? BOTH
They behave the same. There is only one party. That party stands for:
-- interdependence instead of independence, ruining our economy and our schools by pre-planning a "global" economy with fixed wages instead of letting the free market run its course, ripping our nation's True Aims to shreds, requiring we give up more and more freedoms to protect us from international threats that never would've been problems had we not overextended ourselves all around the world, abandoning our "independence" in the name of more profits and unnecessary alliances
-- continual dismissal of the public's right to know how their government is run, while at the same time demanding the public be tracked and monitored more and more
-- massive hypocrisy, where "public servants" get more benefits and make more than most people get from their full-time jobs
What exactly is different between the two "parties" again?
You are "dumb" if you think "your" party is any different than the previous administration.
They don't allow any "party" that holds the prior office accountable for their crimes.
It is just a merry-go-round, you look the other way upon entering, and they look the other way once you leave.
Please share with us the difference, there really is none.
You get corporate fascism (merging of private and public sectors, time and time again public money disappears into private hands, for "education" or "safety" or "the economy") EITHER WAY.
You get the continual erosion of freedoms EITHER WAY.
You get global corporations who are reckless and the taxpayer bails them out again and again EITHER WAY.
You get lawbreaking with impunity, again and again, EITHER WAY.
Noone with any "prestige" goes to prison, any fine is laughable.
The "normal" person's life would be ruined for the same crime. When a corporation or person of power breaks the same law,
they get a stern talking to, to fool the gullible public, and a settlement out of court with no admission of wrongdoing. Noone goes to jail, noone is fired, no accounts are frozen.
Even when someone is impeached, they do no jail time, they are always "pardoned" because "it is best for the American people that we move on"
So how exactly are the (R)s and (D)s any different again? They both are reckless and have granted themselves powers and consider themselves far above any normal person. "Public servant" has now become "private servant" in every case.
This kind of big money in politics is clearly incompatible with any kind of functioning democracy.
Despite the problems with my own countries democracy, I'm actually totally shocked at the rampant level of corruption, and the totally undemocratic nature of the system in the United States. Something has got to change. I'm just glad I don't live there, particularly given the third rate healthcare system - clearly the worst of any developed Western state - as verified by numerous credible international assessments. I'm also glad that I'm not helping, at least involuntarily, to fund the crazy, insular, and fear driven militarism, and the ever growing and ever more authoritarian corporate/military junta that runs rampant, in its campaigns of terror across the world.
There is really something fundamentally wrong with a system where powerful interest groups are buying candidates like this. I'm sure the Americans here are horribly ashamed of what their country has become, particularly given the thoroughly laudable aims embedded in what is clearly a very good constitution in many ways. I also feel sorry for Americans, both for what their country has become, and what they are likely to have to endure in future, as the regime crumbles around them. Unfortunately, in the short term, all we have to look forward to, is ever more extreme versions of the failed neo-liberal agenda, pursued primarily to aid the activities of the sponsors of these vile and corrupt candidates. I'd hardly even describe them as having any politics any more - they are neither left or right wing - just unreliable and reactionary puppets, completely beholden to their paymasters.
How is the evil actively working to disable and disarm the Federal government for both the evil and the stupid a bad thing?
There is no such "evil" instead there is someone who desires to make MORE alliances with private interests, and people who wish to break up current partnerships in order to form MORE treasonous alliances.
The proper path at this piont is called "declaring independence" and involves dissolving and "abolishing and destroying" not "work within the current broken system and treason, dig the whole deeper, get us sucked further down the same hole."
Where is this "evil" you speak of? You act as though there is anything worth salvaging, like there is some way that you can revive a dead patient. You can't. It is already all gone.
What is need is independence, not further entrenchment. In 200-300 years we can all repeat the process again, as many times as needed.
"dumb" and "stupid" has nothing to do with "one party is evil"
Parent: "there really is just one party and one "side" that is the root of the problem."
I don't interpret that as "one party is evil" I think the parent was saying things are far worse than that, and BOTH parties are effectively subverted and irrelevant. What rules BOTH parties has no legitimacy, it is far beyond that.
What posturing and acting both parties do is just a show, they do not represent their own parties' platforms at all, let alone the people who are "dumb" and think they look out for them.
Parent was not saying "one side is evil" it was more along the lines "things are far beyond that."
You ARE dumb if you think one party is less evil than the other. People are evil. Parties are just curtains over the bed so you cannot see as easily how bad you are getting fucked.
Even if you are 100% for any particular party and against all others, that should be reason enough to doubt and question and hold that party accountable MORE. That you think one party is less evil and does not need watches as closely is simply a sign of retardation.
About as idiotic as saying the U.S. is the "land of the free and home of the brave" so there is no need for a constitution, since by definition, the U.S. is always pro-freedom. Hell, screw the elections, we are, BY DEFINITION, always going down a proper path.
That is what you sound like "my party is ALWAYS RIGHT" LALALALALA. You are an idiot whatever "party" that is if that is how you feel.
agree campaign reform is a 20-30 year project
What the hell is a PAC?
Citizens United was founded in 1988.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
This is true, but the whole reason the NRA and AARP are effective is that they have large numbers of people who will actually show up and ruin political careers over one vote in Congress. You have to have enormous unanimity in your organization to make it work. What's the single "99%" issue that you think you can make millions of people take that kind of stand?
Pick a state, a small state, a crappy state (I nominate West Virginia, Sorry West Virginia). Spend your 10 million dollars there electing reasonable politicians. Then, 2-4 years later, we can see how (or if) that has worked and made things better. Progress should be pretty easy to see. Once you have a lot of statewide offices it should be much easier to elect sane people to the national offices. Then pick another smaller, crappy state and go again.
2 for 8.
Thats actually a good start, for a first election.
I don't know why people expect rapid ground moving change to happen over night. If mayday was a real grassroots movement, it'd take it a long time for its people to gain the experiance enough to compete with corporate firms with lots of experiance. The demands of organizations full of unexperianced people to compete with proffesionals overnight is the reason why activist movements fail.
For a new concept its doing well considering how young it is.
....so lets take advantage of that with a Super PAC.
Sounds legit.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Lessig formed a super PAC to fund left-wingers... just like Harry Reid's personal super PAC. They even funded the same candidates. Same ones that the left-wing teachers unions funded. Same candidates the former actual Hitler-era NAZI collaborator Soros funded. (all while howling that the libertarian Kock brothers were spending money (less than the left ended-up spending))
The truth about all this screeching by leftists over the "citizens united" case is this:
Left wing groups ranging from environmentalists to labor unions (ALL of which organized as corporations) have been flooding elections with cash and "grass roots" campaign workers manning phone banks and doing "get out the vote" work (un-accounted for hidden money) for many decades. In many states, even after citizens united, the government workers unions are STILL the biggest source of campaign cash (in California the only competition with state workers union money is indian casino money). Citizens United drove many activists on the left insane because it meant their opponents were enabled to do the same thing and this meant they would be able to fight back. The sad truth is that even post-Citizens United, Americans spend more money on dog food, or breakfast cereal ads than on political ads.... so in-context all the "out of [liberal] control" campaign spending is still so small that we clearly value nearly everything else more than our politics.
The Lessig PAC is, and always was, IMHO yet another Obama-era left-wing ploy to mislead young voters. When those who were of the age to cast their first votes for Obama reach middle-age and are bearing the brunt of the fallout of the policies that have been implemented thay are going to be truly angry. The national debt will hve been more than doubled by this one president, and they'll all be paying higher taxes plus higher interest on college loans that they paid too much for because the flood of college tuition loans enabled all those collges to massively overcharge their students. At some point, inflation will HAVE to kick-in as the $4 Trillion in printed funny money of the Obama-era Fed will have to be sphined back out of the economy. There are gonna be a LOT of fingers pointed when everybody starts fighting over the scraps.
This is true, but the whole reason the NRA and AARP are effective is that they have large numbers of people who will actually show up and ruin political careers over one vote in Congress. You have to have enormous unanimity in your organization to make it work. What's the single "99%" issue that you think you can make millions of people take that kind of stand?
An elected official egregiously voting against the interests of the people, of demonstrating a far greater loyalty to campaign contributions than to votes. The point being to punish those politicians who consider voters secondary to donors, and to tolerate politicians who consider donors secondary to voters. Ie to remind politicians where the true power lies. And "tolerate" doesn't necessarily mean voting for, it simply means returning to voting on a politician's stance on issues when neither candidate warrants punitive voting.
There is no need for a single issue, just a consensus as to how the politician ranks voters vs donors. And keep in mind we don't need agreement of 99%, just enough to remove a person from office. Hell, it might take nothing more than people stopping to vote loyally for their party. To just be perfectly willing to vote against their party's officials when those officials are obviously bought and paid for.
Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win.
As opposed to wanting the team they are most philosophically opposed to to win, which would of course make so much more sense.
Wha??
This is true in states other than Texas too, from my experience.
People with clear libertarian ideas will often vote for a Republican, simply because he (or she?) makes some libertarian-esque comments while campaigning.
Libertarians tend to try to "sell" their political beliefs on the idea that "Democrats already agree with half of what we're saying, because we're liberal like them on all the social issues .... gay marriage rights, marijuana legalization, etc.", and "Republicans already agree with half of what we're saying, because we're conservative in our economic policies and support the growth of free market business operations."
In reality though? I've noticed that when it comes down to it, it's RARE that a Democrat will talk about alignment with libertarian concepts. The party still seems to believe that while the liberal outlook on social issues is important (especially to differentiate themselves from a Republican contender), they've got to cling tightly to the idea that selectively raising taxes is key to solving problems. As soon as you advocate increased taxes and/or adding government offices/departments to accomplish some new goal? You've totally lost the libertarian-minded voters.
Republicans are in a much better position to claim adherence to some of the core values or tenants of the party, while speaking to a desire for a more libertarian system. (EG. It's not hard to stay Republican and not lose much of your support-base if you decide that you won't, for example, push any legal changes to the status-quo on abortion law. Republicans may have a traditional "pro life" stance, but it's easy to say that's a "personal belief you hold" while abstaining from trying to modify law related to it.) Heck, Ronald Reagan made MANY libertarian comments during his presidency, and he's seen by many as a Republican hero.
I'm going to call B.S. on this idea that if you opt out of voting, you're somehow doing everyone in the nation a disservice.
One of this country's big problems, IMO, is that we tend to get so many ignorant people voting, who wind up voting for all the wrong reasons anyway. (I remember back when Clinton was running for office, talking to quite a few women who said they were going to vote for Bill *only* because they thought he was the better looking individual and they'd rather see his face on the TV for the next 4 years!)
As far as I'm concerned, these people could just stay home and not vote at all, and it really wouldn't hurt a thing. Let the decisions be made by the informed and educated who have legitimate reasons to cast a vote for one candidate over another.
Although I definitely voted this this last election, and selected a lot of "very slightly and questionably the lesser of 2 big evils" types ... I also had a couple of really good candidates I wanted badly to see voted in. I've passed on a couple other elections before though, when I truly felt I couldn't give any of the people running my "stamp of approval" by casting a vote in their direction. Sometimes, I think you can really say, "None of these people are even worth my free time or energy to go vote for them." (And in those cases, I say "Screw you!" to the idiots who spout off the cliches like "Then you get the government you deserve!" Because, NO ... I actually think I deserve far better than the piss-poor options I was asked to choose from. So I'm screwed no matter which one of them gets into office, and may as well let other people take the responsibility for helping one of those morons get into office."
1st of May (May Day) is also known as the Communist International Workers Day! Communism is a far Left belief and Socialism is not far removed in ideaology. So which party does this PAC support? Can you say the Democrats? Hmm...
Food for thought? NAZI = Nationalist Socialist Party in German. They were Socialist Fascists. Started with organized thugs (brown shirts) violent intimidation then when in power gun control and healthcare were just the beginning. The weak, mentally ill, elderly, disabled, violent criminals (defectives), etc. were euthanized for the benefit of the State but the people were told they were humanely put out of their misery and were better off. Those with guns were registered and rounded up as a result. Enemies disappeared.
Let's not forget what can happen if we let the "useful idiots" have their way. Evil is real. The Democrats have moved very far to the Left. It is no longer your fathers Party. Obama is a Socialist and he has shown Fascist tendencies. Wake up! JFK would not agree with today's Democrats!
They supported a number of Republican candidates. One of their two winning campaigns was for a Republican. In other words, they helped elect as many Republicans as Democrats.
Of course, it's rather disheartening to hear people always trying to put a political spin on these sorts of things. I don't vote for Democrats (or Republicans) and I still support MAYDAY PAC and WOLF PAC.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
As in the headline "lowest voter turnout in 70 years"? As in, " Just 36.4 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2014" http:/// www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-midterm-election-turnout-lowest-in-70-years/
This is a US national disgrace. You don't like who's running, so just go play video games, and let the oldigarchs get the best government money can buy.
If you didn't vote, shut up. Better, leave, and go somewhere that you can play games, and as long as you do that, the government won't bother you. Hmmm, isn't North Korea like that?
mark
most journalists* little more than Democratic party operatives
You do know that the largest most viewed news channel in the US is Fox right? And you know that by far the vast majority of talk radio is conservative, right?
You must be referring to journalists that research lengthy pieces, study material in depth, and write long articles for organizations like the New York Times or Rolling Stone I assume? The tiny tiny percent of the modern news industry....
I'll grant you that most modern culture (Hollywood, etc..) has a progressive/liberal predominance. But whose fault is that? Assuming we aren't entering conspiracy land here, why do you think Hollywood is "left"? How did it get that way, and why does it remain that way? I'd be curious to hear your opinion.