The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

That's the common denominator - Ivy law school. What happened to Michigan?

Self-proclaimed, public ivies don't count.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Michigan lost to Minnesota.

GD it. You beat me to it

[Jimjamesak]

Mostly incorrect. It is clear you don't live in a swing state, because Super PAC ads out number official campaign ads by probably a 3-1 margin, and they all mention candidates by name. The only thing they're explicitly forbidden from saying is "vote for/against x." Nothing prohibits them from saying "candidate x is good/bad for state" or "x receives billionaire money. He's got Washington values, not state values" or any other of the multitude of ways to say "vote for x" without saying "vote for x."

He definitely doesn't live in a swing state. I know because I see and hear Super PAC ads mentioning candidates all *ing day.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

He definitely doesn't live in a swing state. I know because I see and hear Super PAC ads mentioning candidates all *ing day.

We have two or three congressional districts that are up for grabs and it's almost all we get during commercial breaks these days.

Add to that, I was watching Bill Maher's show the other night, and they started talking about MN Cong. District #2, which is my district. I think the guest (Something Pelosi - not Nancy) talked to every single minority she could find while out filming that segment, and then every farmer she could find, too. The district is much paler than the people she interviewed and not nearly as country-fied as the two or three white people she put on there would make us seem.

[Jimjamesak]

We have two or three congressional districts that are up for grabs and it's almost all we get during commercial breaks these days.

The R Senate candidate has *ing YouTube ads. Every video I watch is :15 seconds of unskippable "he's not Alaskan, he's pure Washington!" madness.

[LynahFan]

Yeesh. I suppose they all graduated from those schools before nepotism took hold.

There was never a time without nepotism in the Ivy league. If anything, it has gone down over time, not up.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

There was never a time without nepotism in the Ivy league. If anything, it has gone down over time, not up.

Exactly. Dubya getting into Yale these days costs two wings, not one.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Self-proclaimed, public ivies don't count.

I hear BC was offered but they turned it down.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Exactly. Dubya getting into Yale these days costs two wings, not one.

Is that like a two-piece and a biscuit WITH gravy now?

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

We have two or three congressional districts that are up for grabs and it's almost all we get during commercial breaks these days.

Add to that, I was watching Bill Maher's show the other night, and they started talking about MN Cong. District #2, which is my district. I think the guest (Something Pelosi - not Nancy) talked to every single minority she could find while out filming that segment, and then every farmer she could find, too. The district is much paler than the people she interviewed and not nearly as country-fied as the two or three white people she put on there would make us seem.

Alexandra Pelosi is Nancy's daughter and you are greatly exaggerating the spot they showed. She talked to one black guy (who was high as HELL!) two white men and one white lady iirc in the clip. The one white man was voting R despite not caring about Gays or Equal Pay for women (the other white guy was just an idiot) and the white lady had no clue what was going on. In making the peace she talked to more which backed up her thesis.

The point was to show why Congress never changes, the majority of the electorate isnt voting on issues, they are voting on names and party, and that never changes. Plus, as she mentions, it backs up the "What the Hell is the Matter With Kansas" idea that people vote against their own interests. Finally, she is talking about the apathy of the average voter.

Here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbdAfoZbVjU

(I like Alexandra Pelosi, her clips for Real Time about Welfare amongst others are brilliant)

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Alexandra Pelosi is Nancy's daughter and you are greatly exaggerating the spot they showed. She talked to one black guy (who was high as HELL!) two white men and one white lady iirc in the clip. The one white man was voting R despite not caring about Gays or Equal Pay for women (the other white guy was just an idiot) and the white lady had no clue what was going on. In making the peace she talked to more which backed up her thesis.

The point was to show why Congress never changes, the majority of the electorate isnt voting on issues, they are voting on names and party, and that never changes. Plus, as she mentions, it backs up the "What the Hell is the Matter With Kansas" idea that people vote against their own interests. Finally, she is talking about the apathy of the average voter.

Here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbdAfoZbVjU

(I like Alexandra Pelosi, her clips for Real Time about Welfare amongst others are brilliant)

Right. She talked to four people, one of them was black. The district is MUCH paler than that.

[Slap Shot]

The point was to show why Congress never changes, the majority of the electorate isnt voting on issues, they are voting on names and party, and that never changes. Plus, as she mentions, it backs up the "What the Hell is the Matter With Kansas" idea that people vote against their own interests. Finally, she is talking about the apathy of the average voter.

His reaction to the ad makes your point.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The point was to show (1) why Congress never changes, the majority of the electorate isnt voting on issues, they are voting on names and party, and that never changes. Plus, as she mentions, (2) it backs up the "What the Hell is the Matter With Kansas" idea that people vote against their own interests. Finally, (3) she is talking about the apathy of the average voter.

All 3 of these points are important, and without understanding them nobody is really going to understand why Congress works the way it does.

(1) Voting is tribal. People vote (R) or (D) because of a whole matrix of cultural signals they associate with them.

(2) People typically vote culture, not pocketbook. This is suggested when wealthy and upper middle class people vote (D) and painfully obvious when lower middle class and poor people vote (R). If voting was typically pocketbook each would be rare.

(3) The more powerless people are, the more apathetic they are, and because our current politics is a battle between the rich and the super rich everybody in the middle and below is disconnected from political activity unless they have an overriding cultural concern. This is probably intentional -- a functional democracy would threaten to erode inequality so many Haves work to discredit democracy (hence: "government doesn't work," "government is a threat to liberty," etc.)

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Plus, as she mentions, it backs up the "What the Hell is the Matter With Kansas" idea that people vote against their own interests.

It's my opinion the question/criticism about people "voting against their interests" is a load of crap. I know it's frequently used by some on the left to mock voters on the right who support "corporate republicans" who allegedly are bad for these right leaning voters. But there are likely just as many voters on the left who "vote against their interests", and in my opinion, thank goodness.

First, I have yet to locate a candidate who aligns precisely with "my interests." Every candidate I've ever seen is in favor of some things that may benefit me, and others in which I have no interest, or even work against me. Since I only get to vote for a candidate, who in turn votes on hundreds of issues, I have to live with this.

Second, exactly what does it mean to "vote against your interest." Maher and Pelosi used the example of the black man who was interviewed, who Pelosi declared is on food stamps (although he didn't say that in the clip). Thus, this gentleman was supposed to do what? Choose the candidate (either Democrat or Republican) who supports increasing food stamp payments? And vote against the other candidate (either Democrat or Republican) who has a good idea for creating more jobs? Which one is "voting against your interests?"

I suppose I can be accused of "voting against" my interests numerous times. For instance, my wife and I have no kids left in the local school system, but I recently voted to approve the school referendum to raise my property taxes to benefit the school. Is that "voting against my interests?" And if so, is that so horrible? Maybe I want a better society. I may save some property tax dollars today, but lose out on having an educated work force to hire in my company. Which one is "voting against my interests?"

Only the lemmings in society, the uninformed, the greedy and the short-sighted "vote their interests" if it means voting for whoever is going to create the most immediate cash payoff (or savings) to them. Unfortunately, people seem to think that's the way to go. I'll give you "x" if you vote for me.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Only the lemmings in society, the uninformed, the greedy and the short-sighted "vote their interests" if it means voting for whoever is going to create the most immediate cash payoff (or savings) to them. Unfortunately, people seem to think that's the way to go. I'll give you "x" if you vote for me.

Strawman. It would work if people were deliberately going to the polls thinking "I am voting for delayed gratification" or "I am sacrificing my benefit for a greater social benefit," but the Whats the Matter with Kansas voters aren't doing either of those things -- simply put, they've been duped into voting for selfish economic reasons policies which in reality result in their short and long term economic harm.

You have a point when it comes to voters who deliberately say "I am intentionally voting for my religion at the expense of my pocketbook," but VERY few voters actually think that's what they're doing. There are a few -- my best friend at work is one -- but you are setting up the implication that lower middle class and poor people who vote for policies that benefit the rich at their expense (again, both short and long term) are doing so because they have an overriding altruism. This is almost never true.

And it all misses the point, anyway. The vast majority of people's politics works just like their religion -- they fervently believe whatever their parents believed and drummed into them. The only "thinking" involved is rationalizing after the fact why the way they worship or vote is actually "true." And even that "thinking" is typically the same closed context that was provided by their parents, pastors, and peers.

Far, far more than we are comfortable admitting, we believe what we were wound up to believe and make up "reasons" for it after the fact. This "inside" mental and emotional space that feels exclusively and privately "us" is actually wired by a million memetic lines to our limited world of immediate influences, the signal along those lines mostly runs "in" rather than "out," and the patterns we call "self" were mostly set long before we were even aware what was happening.