“The Right Drink for the Conservative Taste”
During the 1960s, campaign advertising appeared on some unusual consumer products. This can of “Gold Water” was made in support of Republican Candidate Barry Goldwater.
The Democrats also had cans of “Johnson Juice” for Lyndon B. Johnson.
-from the Truman Library
"Mmmm…tastes like freedom!"
For anyone else who was subject to bajillions of emails from the Obama campaign. It looks like guilt-tripping us worked:
- No. 1: “I will be outspent” brought in $2,540,866.
- No. 2: “Some scary numbers” got $1,941,379 in donations.
- No. 3: “If you believe in what we’re doing…” pulled in $911,806.
Another revelation? People love cussing. “Hell yeah, I like Obamacare” performed well.
RECLAIMING Their VOICE: The Native American Vote in New Mexico & Beyond (42 min.) Narrated by PETER COYOTE, this film is OSCAR-nominated, EMMY-winning, filmmaker Dorothy Fadiman’s latest documentary. “RECLAIMING Their VOICE” follows Native Americans in New Mexico taking a stand against injustice in the political process. Personal stories demonstrate how minority communities are using their voting rights as they participate more fully in elections. These stories capture a microcosm of growing awareness and activism which is taking root across the United States. In addition to documenting the Native American suffrage movement historically, the film follows a groundbreaking project led by the Laguna, NM Native community. Their efforts lead to significant positive changes in New Mexico state election law. This story serves as a model for how other minority populations throughout the U.S. can work together to make sure they can cast their votes and that their votes will be counted. This film documents: * The Pueblo Revolt (1680) * Wounded Knee (1890) * The Sacred Alliance for Grassroots Equality’s fight to protect the sacred art of the Petroglyph National Monument * The Pueblo of Laguna’s 500 Voter Project * The passage of legislation to ensure greater election security for Native Americans * The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
Reblogging to make sure I view this later
Also, the “I have a black friend” defense? When has that everworked?
Lest you get the idea that overly suspicious Maine GOP chairman Charlie Webster has something against black people, think again. “I know black people,” Webster tells TPM. “I play basketball every Sunday with a black guy.” Besides, Webster wasn’t trying to single out black voters. There was also that one Chinese guy who apparently voted without being cleared first by the White Man:
“If you live in a town of a few hundred people and you go to the post office every day, if there’s someone who doesn’t look like you, you usually know that,” Webster said. “And that’s why when folks called me and said, ‘Where did this Chinese man come from? We don’t have any Chinese people here. Where did they come from?” Well, I don’t know! It’s a good point.”
I don’t think there’s ever been a case in which the racist white person managed to successfully explain away their racist remarks. They pretty invariably dig themselves a deeper hole. Lesson: if you get called out for saying something racist, do yourself and everyone else a favor and shut up.
The fact that the Israeli elections are just around the corner (January) isn’t something that’s been emphasized enough in mainstream media coverage of the Gaza strikes. As this Daily Beast piece points out, there are internal political reasons why Israeli leadership could’ve been inclined to break the ceasefire:
Israel has tried assassinating Palestinian leaders for decades but the resistance persists. Israel launched a devastating and brutal war on Gaza from 2008 to 2009 killing 1,400 people, mostly civilians, but the resistance persists.
Why, then, would Israel choose to revert to a failed strategy that will undoubtedly only escalate the situation? Because it is far easier for politicians to lie to voters, vilify their adversaries, and tell them ‘we will hit them hard’ than to come clean and say instead, ‘we’ve failed and there is no military solution to this problem.’
With Israeli elections around the corner, the right-wing Israeli government chose the counter-productive path of escalation even though civilians would pay the price and their domestic opposition rallied behind them.
Trading bodies for ballots is an equation Israeli leaders are happy to be engaged in, especially since all the ballots are Israeli and the bodies are almost always Palestinian.
This is an assessment echoed by The New Statesman, which points out that a similar flareup of violence happened prior to an Israeli election in 2008:
The parallels with Israel’s deadly assault on Gaza in late 2008 are clear. Then, around 1,400 Gazans, mostly civilians, were killed in a bloody, 22-day offensive that Israel launched just after Obama was sworn-in as president and just before an Israeli election. Yesterday, Zehava Galon, who chairs Israel’s left-wing Meretz party, described the Israeli government as: “A team of pyromaniacs that want to cause war on the eve of elections.” The assessment is that prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his defence minister Ehud Barak are showing some of the forceful leadership that Israelis seem to love at the ballot box. War, or course, removes other issues – such as rising social discontent – from the campaign agenda for elections taking place in late January 2013. Now Israeli politicians of all the main parties are backing Netanyahu’s strikes on Gaza – to do otherwise, when the war drums are beating, would be tantamount to treason and an electoral turn-off…
Unfortunately, western media outlets almost uniformly focus on Israeli casualties, ignoring the fact that when violence erupts in the occupied territories, many more Palestinians are injured and killed. This skewed coverage plays into the ability of Israeli leadership to portray Israel as the victim rather than the instigator of clashes. And as anyone who was paying attention in the weeks after 9/11 can attest, nothing can rally a population around a president or prime minister faster than the feeling that the country is under attack.
These maps show what would’ve happened last week if only people in particular income brackets were allowed to vote. As you can see, poor and working-class people are pretty solidly Democratic. But there’s more of a party split among upper middle-class and wealthy folks:
Political scientist and statistician Andrew Gelman and stat grad student Avi Feller explain the results this way:
Remarkably, this same pattern has occurred in every presidential contest over the past twenty years. Lower-income voters consistently support the Democratic candidate in nearly every state. Upper-income voters, on the other hand, are more mixed in their political views…this relationship holds even when controlling for age, race, sex and education.
In other words, contrary to what you have heard, there’s only a strong red America-blue America split toward the top of the income distribution. Toward the bottom, the electoral map is a sea of blue.
Why does this happen? Our research on opinion poll data from earlier elections finds that lower-income Americans tend to vote based on economic issues, while richer voters consider social issues as well as economics in their voting decisions. This is sometimes called post-materialism: the idea that, as individuals or groups become more comfortable, they can afford to think beyond their immediate needs.
The so-called culture war between red and blue America is concentrated in the upper half of the income distribution, and voting patterns reflect this.
If you’re interested, there are similar maps here that show how the election results break down by education level, gender, race, and age.
(Source: The New York Times)
Like all other racists, he only regrets his statements because he got in trouble for them.
BTW: what a weak reason for suspecting voter fraud—the election workers apparently know everybody who lives in the district, huh? Even all the black people?
The US Electoral map resized to represent the population of each state.
I like this map because I imagine smashing the republican party and that’s a glorious feeling.
This is a great rebuttal to those people who look at all the vast, empty acres of red on the map and conclude that most of the country’s voices are being ignored if President Obama won.
This is interesting to think about, though these hypothetical scenarios don’t take into account the fact that a black man probably wouldn’t have been the Democratic candidate in a world where black voters were legally or de facto disenfranchised. Still, this a nice little lesson in how expansions or contractions of the electorate can significantly impact electoral outcomes.
Here are the actual results of the 2012 election, which Barack Obama decisively won:
Here is what would’ve happened if the election were held prior to the passage of the 15th Amendment, which granted suffrage to black men. If it were left solely up to white men, Mitt Romney would overwhelmingly be elected:
Here’s what would’ve happened without the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the vote. If only men (of any race) were able to vote, then Mitt Romney would still won:
Finally, here’s what would’ve happened without the passage of the 24th Amendment, which banned poll taxes. Poll taxes de facto deprived black men and women the right to vote. If only white people were allowed to vote, Mitt Romney would’ve received a huge number of electoral votes:
The revelations about the Romney campaign that have been trickling out lately have been fascinating to me. We found out the other day that the Romney people honestly were expecting to win due to faulty internal polls and wishful thinking. Today, it came out that their election night was something of a mess, according to this volunteer:
…I headed back home to see if I could get my [poll watcher] certificate. I called their official help line. It went unanswered. I tried their legal line. Same thing. I emailed them. No response. I continued to do this for six straight hours and never got a response. I even tried to call three local victory centers. All went straight to voicemail.
What’s interesting is how Romney’s background as a CEO factors into all of this. The volunteer mentions that the Romney campaign had gutted local field operations in favor of a top-down campaign based primarily in Boston (insert outsourcing joke here). This Politico piece from June states that Romney structured his campaign like one of his companies. It gives the impression that the campaign was well-run and that Mitt was definitely at the center of all decisions. It wasn’t just Politico—the efficiency and efficacy of the Romney campaign was taken for granted in coverage of the GOP primaries (e.g. this, this, this).
It’s odd how that supposedly well-oiled machine became a “bumbling, bureaucratic campaign" that placed way too much confidence in an untested piece of software. Maybe Mitt’s desire to be directly in charge of everything was the problem here. Orca “was supposed to…allow the campaign to streamline, from its War Room at the Garden in Boston, the efforts to maximize turnout of Romney backers”, but it ended up crashing and leaving HQ in the dark.
The campaign’s hubris was also an issue here. Despite never having tested Orca, they were so confident about it that they apparently didn’t have a backup plan in place if it crashed. (Romney not being prepared for the worst? That sounds familiar.)
When evaluated as a business case, the community organizer from Chicago did a demonstrably better job of leading and managing a complex campaign organization than the private-equity veteran running as a business leader who knew how to lead and manage.
So what happened? Why did the Romney campaign get worse as it transitioned from the primaries to the national campaign? Was it never that great to begin with? Or was Obama’s campaign simply so good that it couldn’t be matched?
An interesting article that examines national demographic and political trends by focusing on California. Some highlights:
1. Making it easier for people to register to vote seems to shrink the Republican pool of voters:
…[T]his year the Democratic legislature and Governor Brown enacted online voter registration…1.4 million Californians, disproportionately young and Latino, registered to vote, more than half of them online. By the time registration was completed…the Republicans’ share of the state’s voters, which had been declining steadily for years, fell beneath 30 percent for the first time since the state started measuring.
2. People in power (who are mostly whites) rig things so they stay in power. Taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature helps ensure that the conservative white vote isn’t being given disproportionate weight:
The new districts in which congressional representatives and legislators competed this week weren’t designed to ensure their survival. And with the Latino and Asian share of the electorate continuing to rise, they all but guaranteed that the Democrats would enlarge their delegations at Republicans’ expense.
3. Xenophobia/racism during the mid-1990s (e.g. Prop. 187) won the Republicans some elections, but it laid the building blocks for future defeat by not only causing Latin@s to abandon the GOP, but politically mobilizing them:
One week before the 1994 election, the spontaneous anti-187 demonstrations of Latino youngsters came together in a massive planned march in downtown Los Angeles, which a number of not-quite-so-young Latino labor leaders coordinated. Two of those leaders, Miguel Contreras, then the political director…of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor…and Eliseo Medina, then a local official of the Service Employees International Union…saw the potential to build an alliance between the newly Latino-ized Southern California labor movement and the politically aroused Latino immigrant community….By 1998, they had flipped the long-Republican congressional and legislative districts…into the Democratic column. The efforts of both the AFL-CIO and SEIU have continued…turning a once-purple state steadily bluer.
4. The steady movement of the Asian vote toward the Democratic Party suggests that the GOP’s failure to capture the Latin@ vote runs much deeper than their shitty stance on undocumented immigrants:
Obama won 73 percent of the Asian vote nationally…It…demonstrates that the Republicans’ problem runs deeper than mere opposition to immigration, since the number of undocumented Asian immigrants is small. It suggests that for Asians, no less than for Latinos and blacks, the Republicans are viewed as a white man’s party. It also suggests that Republican opposition to education spending, increasing Pell grants and the like, may not be the best way to win a growing voting bloc that places such a high premium on education.
I agree with this. I don’t think Latin@s are automatically going to flock to the GOP if the party suddenly reverses its stance on undocumented immigration. They can’t win back voters they so recently demonized and bullied. I also don’t think the conservative stance on welfare programs, taxes, and education are all that appealing to Latin@s or Asians. Being anti-government no matter what seems to be (mostly) a white thing.
A Hart Research study sponsored by the AFL-CIO found wait times to vote were significantly longer for Democrats and Democratic-leaning demographics (like black and Latin@ Americans) this year.
A different survey by MIT in 2008 found that wait times for black voters were more than twice as long as those for whites. This was for both early and election day voting.
Maddowblog made a similar point yesterday. Obama’s approval rating is now 51-52%, depending on the poll you look at. This is significant because “there’s no modern precedent for…defeating an incumbent president with an approval rating this high.” The last incumbent presidents who were defeated in their reelection bids were George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Bush had an approval rating < 40% before election day. Carter’s was around 37%.
If Obama isn’t reelected, “he’ll be the most popular president to lose since the dawn of modern polling.”
“In Alabama, a typical registration process for an African-American citizen went something like this:
In the rural counties where most folk lived, you had to go down to the courthouse to register. The Registrars Office was only open every other Monday for a couple of hours, usually in the morning or afternoon. You had to take off work — with or without your employer’s permission — to register. And if a white employer gave such permission, or failed to fire a Black who tried to vote, he could be driven out of business by economic retaliation from the Citizens Council.
On the occasional registration day, the county Sheriff and his deputies made it their business to hang around the courthouse to discourage “undesirables” from trying to register. This meant that Black women and men had to run a gauntlet of intimidation, insults, threats, and sometimes arrest on phony charges, just to get to the Registration Office. Once in the Registrars Office they faced hatred, harassment, and humiliation from clerks and officials.
The Alabama Application Form and oaths you had to take were four pages long. It was designed to intimidate and threaten. You had to swear that your answers to every single question were true under penalty of perjury. And you knew that the information you entered on the form would be passed on to the Citizens Council and KKK.”
There’s more, and you should read it, because this is important and scary and the reason you should be alarmed by the GOP’s desire to roll back the Voting Rights Act.