Althouse: Jon Stewart on why he didn't vote: "I just moved. I don't know where my thing is now."

November 4, 2014

Jon Stewart on why he didn't vote: "I just moved. I don't know where my thing is now."

"Thing" = polling place.

The epitome of apathy.

And this is the man who shows the young folks how to think!

57 comments:

mccullough said...: Time for him to retire.; 11/4/14, 11:23 PM
Achilles said...: Why is he wrong?

Because the new republican majority in the senate will make things way better?

What is going to change now? Will we get a balanced budget? Will ISIS be destroyed?

The leviathan is too large. The republicans wont do anything anyways. If we are really lucky we might get medicare part C.; 11/4/14, 11:31 PM
Rob said...: He said on his program tonight he was being flip when he said that, and that he had in fact voted.; 11/4/14, 11:37 PM
RonF said...: One phone call. That someone on his staff could have made. Heck, I've seen two different websites that will tell you where your polling place is if you put your address in. This guy is a lazy piece of $h!t, and he pretends to be fit to advise everyone about politics.; 11/4/14, 11:40 PM
RecChief said...: remember that GOTV video in 2012? Of the 5 "stars" who were in it (Lena Dunham was one) none of them voted.; 11/4/14, 11:41 PM
J Lee said...: It's not apathy. It's preconceived detachment, as in an open show of supposedly not caring about the election in a year when your team is looking down the barrel of a blowout loss.

Stwart's "I don't care enough to know where my polling place is" is simply a coping mechanism that's not overtly obvious, as would, say, calling in sick to "The Daily Show" for the rest of the week. You can't ignore the election results, but you can pretend to your ideological opponents that you're so apathetic about them the results really didn't hurt you.; 11/5/14, 12:13 AM
Beldar said...: Nothing Stewart does is random.

He's not deep. But he's not random either.

Can't you see his message?; 11/5/14, 12:14 AM
Revenant said...: Convincing lots of people to vote a certain way has substantial value in an election. Your individual vote does not.

Just but promoting left-wing ideals on his show, Stewart does more to elect left-wingers than his actual vote would in a million years of voting.; 11/5/14, 12:33 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: So, if he just moved to a new state, and he voted, where did he vote, and was it legal?; 11/5/14, 1:11 AM
rcommal said...: I did vote yesterday, in person. I showed my drivers license, as requested, then signed my signature on the line indicated on the page in the loose-leaf notebook, then proceeded to the person by the voting machine, to whom I handed a piece of paper on which my name had been hand-written, who then--reading from that piece of paper--announced "XXXXXXXXXXX" is now voting, and then...

I voted.

---

At a place, a thing, which I had to find, despite moving. ETC.

---

Sweet jumpin'.; 11/5/14, 1:56 AM
rcommal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/14, 4:19 AM
rcommal said...: I must clarify a couple of things here.

First, when we walked into the voting place yesterday, the first thing we were asked is: "Where do you live?"(which, in context, meant: in what development?). The tables were organized in that fashion.

Second, I misstated something, and I do consider that misstatement to be egregious. I was not "[specifically] asked for a drivers license." I was, however, asked to present ID, which expectation I was able meet by presenting my drivers license. (This is one of the two parts of voting today that brought me right back to my voting roots.)

There was yet another separate table, in that room, labeled as the place to present alternative forms of ID. Perhaps that might shock folks. That doesn't shock me me.

Recall that I lived for many years in a different state, where--make no mistake!!--my name was connected to a specific address as well. As here, there we also got mailed to us cards confirming our voter registration (not that there, anymore than here, that *that* sort of thing was meant to...well, mean anything, in terms of voting, on election days. There, as here, that sort of thing is irrelevant.)

There, the organization modality was different. Never once was I asked, walking into the voting place, where I lived *by development [neighborhood]*. I was directed to tables organized by alphabet. My name was located in the relevant notebook, by specific address, and I did have to sign my signature. Had there ever been a question (which, in my case, there never happened to have been one), then I would have had to proceed to a different table to cast a provisional ballot, where various sorts of ID would be required, I was told.

Not only was I never asked for a photo ID at the point of voting, in Iowa, it was considered odd to have one in hand, and so after the first time or two of presenting myself as a voter (photo ID in hand, as I was used to having to do) after moving there, I came to understand that such a thing was considered weird there.; 11/5/14, 4:31 AM
rhhardin said...: Harry Reid: "The message from voters is clear. They want us to work together."; 11/5/14, 5:02 AM
sinz52 said...: How odd.

This is supposed to be the Millennial generation audience.

There are a ton of websites out there that tell you where you can vote. Just enter your address.

As for Stewart's phrasing:

This morning, there are a lot of Democtats wondering where their thing is now.; 11/5/14, 5:14 AM
Brando said...: I'd rather him not vote if he doesn't care enough to figure out where to vote.; 11/5/14, 5:24 AM
Jaq said...: I didn't vote for the first time in the 40 or so years I have been eligible. It felt really weird, maybe I will move to Chicago so I can vote after I die.; 11/5/14, 5:41 AM
Strick said...: "One phone call."

My polling place seems to move every election. Googling "polling place" gave you got a field to enter your address that responded with the complete details of where you needed to go to vote.; 11/5/14, 6:04 AM
Anonymous said...: The Motor Voter Act has failed this man and his clown car. We must remain strong in this time of crisis.; 11/5/14, 6:22 AM
tim maguire said...: Rob said...He said on his program tonight he was being flip when he said that, and that he had in fact voted.

I'll believe he voted when the Democratic voter watchers tell me he voted.; 11/5/14, 6:35 AM
Robert Cook said...: I guess all the later posters on this thread missed Rob's comment that Stewart admitted he had actually voted.

I didn't vote...something I did feel weird about. But, honestly, I know it wouldn't have made a bit of difference if I had voted. Given the catastrophic failure of the Democrats to serve as an opposition party, to present an actual alternative to the Republicans, what difference, at this point, does it make?

I'll vote in the next Presidential election, but I won't be voting for a Democrat or a Republican. There's not a one likely to be nominated in either party who will turn our ship of state away from the iceberg in the middle of a whirlpool that we're heading straight for.; 11/5/14, 6:37 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Real reason he didn't vote? He's one of those who now have so much money that nothing can adversely affect them.

He (and those similar others) are immune from most of the things government can do to make our lives more miserable.

So voting means nothing to him, existentially. So why bother. Politics is just a game, a side show.; 11/5/14, 6:39 AM
Phil 314 said...: It comedy folks, don't you get it!; 11/5/14, 6:45 AM
Sabinal said...: I don't believe he voted; he's simply lying to protect himself. But SomeoneHasToSayIt is right: he's so rich he will be isolated from the decisions he supports.

I never understood Stewart-worship. He's an actor, and I can guarantee everything he says is written by someone else.; 11/5/14, 7:05 AM
CStanley said...: Clown nose on!; 11/5/14, 7:06 AM
john said...: Cookie -

Don't assume, yet, that both the 2016 candidates will be war criminals. Keep hope.

As far as heading straight for an iceberg in a whirlpool, there is no hope for fixing that mashup of metaphors.; 11/5/14, 7:17 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Robert Cook said...
I didn't vote...something I did feel weird about.

I wouldn't feel weird about it, I almost never vote. It is a rational response to the fact that no party proposes viable solutions to address the problems facing the country.; 11/5/14, 7:40 AM
Larry J said...: It's kind of amusing how so many of the TV talking heads are showing their bias by asking what the Republicans will do to work with Obama. I've yet to hear the first one ask what Obama will do to work with the Republicans. If he tries his "I won" line again, Republicans can answer "So did we."; 11/5/14, 7:42 AM
pm317 said...: And this is the man who shows the young folks how to think!

Shhhh.. it is all good -- the young folks who watch his show don't seem all that smart -- this is the Obama crowd, remember.; 11/5/14, 7:52 AM
phantommut said...: The lame duck session should be interesting. Reid et. al. have control of the senate for the rest of this year, and logically you'd expect them to try to get as much pro-Democrat work done as possible. Confirmation hearings on contentious appointees, at the least.

However, Reid is big-time pissed with Obama.

We hear about Obama and the "Chicago Way" all the time, but Reid comes out of Nevada, and Las Vegas, and that crowd and their forebears basically invented cement shoes.

Time to go long in Popcorn futures.; 11/5/14, 7:57 AM
phantommut said...: I don't ask that mainstream Republicans respect Libertarians. I simply hope they fear Libertarians mobilizing against them.; 11/5/14, 7:59 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Not how to think. How to react, maybe; how to mock, certainly; how to "other" while decrying othering and divide & deride while calling for unity, absolutely. But no, not how to think.; 11/5/14, 8:09 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: AReasonableMan said...

I wouldn't feel weird about it, I almost never vote. It is a rational response to the fact that no party proposes viable solutions to address the problems facing the country.

And it's also a convenient rationalization for not being willing to go on record as to what policies one is FOR. Anyone can throw rocks at those who do commit themselves.; 11/5/14, 8:17 AM
William said...: I also live in NYC. In fairness to Stewart, Election Day here is actually the day that they hold the Democratic Party. I voted but there were no contested elections on the ballot. It was just a formality. I hope it doesn't increase my chances of getting picked for jury duty.......It does seem that a lot of righteous celebrities have trouble finding their way to the polling station. Perhaps as part of the Undocumented Immigrant Voting Rights Act that Obama is going to institute, there should be a codicil that allows celebrities to delegate personal assistants as their authorized vote casters. Such a reform would allow for celebrities to not only nake their voice heard but to have their vote counted.; 11/5/14, 8:19 AM
Carol said...: he didn't send in a change of address, and he can't just walk in to his new polling place and vote if he's registered somewhere else. but he can get a provisional ballot. he doesn't care. being above it all and stuff.; 11/5/14, 8:29 AM
Trashhauler said...: My town has four voting locations. Uncertain which was mine. I should have simply called, but instead, went to the polling place closest to my home. Nope, but my son's name was on that list. Went to the next nearest. Nope again, but my daughter and ex-wife were listed there. Finally went to City Hall and found my name. Friendly people at all three locations, no lines, easy peasy. Used my retired military ID with picture.; 11/5/14, 8:32 AM
William said...: Oops. Meant to say that the primaries are the real elections in NYC.; 11/5/14, 8:40 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Given the catastrophic failure of the Democrats to serve as an opposition party, to present an actual alternative to the Republicans, what difference, at this point, does it make?"

-- Democrats were not the opposition party. They held the Senate and the Presidency. The opposition party is in general the minority party; you could say we didn't really have a minority party in the legislature since the sides were so close and the House was Republican, but to call the Democrats the opposition is to make it seem like Republicans are the entrenched political machine that simple crushed grass roots opposition when, in fact, that is not true.; 11/5/14, 8:45 AM
Robert Cook said...: "(Not voting is) also a convenient rationalization for not being willing to go on record as to what policies one is FOR."

If one is not FOR the policies of either party--or, more accurately, either wing of America's Wall Street Party--then a choice not to vote is an acknowledgement that there are no policies one is FOR that are available to vote for.; 11/5/14, 9:01 AM
Deep State Reformer said...: Motivation to vote for many of us depends if there is in truth an actual contest. Ann Arbor is a de facto one party-entity and the real election is the Dem primary, where you vote for the Dem you prefer. In most of the local races the Dem has no opposition listed on the ballot. So, unless there's a proposal, or a state-wide office I care about, why bother?; 11/5/14, 9:09 AM
Jaq said...: I know you will be deaf to this because you have been blinded by Democrat propaganda, but the Tea Party is more in line with what you want than the Democrat Party.

So are the libertarians.

The Tea Party has been struggling to take back the Republican Party from the corporatists (in both the classic and new sense of the term) wing, and so had to be destroyed by both the main stream Republicans and the corporatist Democrats.

The differences between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are mostly cultural. These cultural differences have been effectively used to divide real opposition to the new facism the mainstream of both parties pursue.

But Tea Party is yucky! Occupy Wall Street a rabble of nut jobs and dirty hippie wannabees!

(Forgive the somewhat mixed metaphor); 11/5/14, 9:09 AM
Robert Cook said...: Matthew,

As regards your explanation of "opposition party," my point was that the Democrats offer no policies that are different from the Republicans, they offer no government responsive to the people, and are as much in service to Wall Street and the One Percent and the Pentagon's war machine and the NSA's grand project to record every aspect of everyone's private life as the Republicans have always been.

The Democrats have become Republicans.; 11/5/14, 9:15 AM
Robert Cook said...: "The Tea Party has been struggling to take back the Republican Party from the corporatists...."

I think you've been hoodwinked. The "Tea Party" is largely an invention of corporatists hiding behind populist disguise.; 11/5/14, 9:18 AM
RonF said...: For all you folks who claim it makes no difference who you vote for and thus don't vote - you might want to take a look at your property bill and see how much of your money is spent by people on the local school board, the village/town board and other such folks that you probably run into at the grocery store. You can make some changes there and those are often decided by a few dozen votes or fewer.; 11/5/14, 9:23 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Democrats offer no policies that are different from the Republicans,"

-- People who honestly believe this are poorly read or stupid.; 11/5/14, 9:23 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Robert Cook said...
the Democrats offer no policies that are different from the Republicans

This is a modest exaggeration. They favor an expansion of health insurance and partially delivered. They are less war-like than most Republicans. But, they are even more beholden to Wall Street. Despite all the whining, the constraints they placed on Wall Street after the crash were largely to save it from itself, not to make it more accountable to the rest of the country. It was an enormous missed opportunity.; 11/5/14, 9:45 AM
Jaq said...: Robert Cook,

Only somebody with no personal experience with the Tea Party could believe that. Academia, especially the social 'sciences' wing, has become so one sided politically that their results are no longer subject to critical scrutiny and can no longer be trusted.

I am sure, however, that you wholeheartedly believe that the Huffington Post is in no way a "corporatist" mouth piece.

It's all just propaganda to divide the electorate, and you just won't take the slightest bit of effort to see past it.

I guess it is all about the colors of the team uniforms for you, Robert.; 11/5/14, 9:58 AM
Jaq said...: If you were moderately interested in the integrity of the "research" you post, Robert Cook, you could look into the criticisms of it even if only to reject them.

After all, one should examine one's opponents best arguments, before rejecting their point of view, or do you not believe that?; 11/5/14, 10:04 AM
Robert Cook said...: Let me amend my previous remark:

Democrats offer no policies that are sufficiently different from the Republicans that their being in majority control of Congress or being in the White House has made any improvement in conditions for the working people of this country.

There may be individual Democrats who oppose the majority tendencies of their party, and there may even be individual Republicans who oppose the majority tendencies of their party, but there is no one who has the power to turn either party away from their happy servitude to Wall Street and the big banks.; 11/5/14, 10:12 AM
Robert Cook said...: Tim,

I don't doubt that supporters of the Tea Party believe in its purported goals, and there may even be some benighted souls in Washington as representatives of Tea Party who are true believers...but they are tools of the corporate state and the money underwriting them is corporate money.; 11/5/14, 10:20 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Robert Cook said...
Let me amend my previous remark:

Democrats offer no policies that are sufficiently different from the Republicans that their being in majority control of Congress or being in the White House has made any improvement in conditions for the working people of this country.

Expansion of health insurance means you can get sick and not go bankrupt if you are poor but not destitute. I would count that as an improvement.; 11/5/14, 10:33 AM
Jaq said...: OK, first rule to winning over people to your cause is to not call them "benighted."

The Tea Party was an authentic grass roots phenomenon. Since, by definition, such a movement is leaderless, sure, one can co-opt it, that doesn't mean that the popular root is lost.

You are so hung up in your "booboisie" oikophobia that you can't recognize potential allies when you see them.

You have been played and you like it. Getting played provides you with luscious frissons of the feeling of superiority and self satisfaction that is the fuel that feeds all bigotry.

Do you think that bigotry makes the bigot feel low and mean? No, it doesn't, it gives the bigot and unearned sense of superiority.

But there is that word,"unearned," I am sure you feel that your sense of superiority to the Tea Party is "earned," you know, by your general superior tastes, refinement, and highly developed political acumen, not to mention, superior empathy for all the right people!

Do you ever question that it might be "turtles all the way down"?

Naaah! And all the finest academics back you up!; 11/5/14, 10:38 AM
Revenant said...: the Tea Party is more in line with what you want than the Democrat Party. So are the libertarians.

Few districts had a candidate from either group, though.; 11/5/14, 10:56 AM
Jaq said...: Face it Robert, you are on one side of the battle and you like it, even as you deny it.; 11/5/14, 11:03 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Expansion of health insurance means you can get sick and not go bankrupt if you are poor but not destitute. I would count that as an improvement."

It's expanded only if one can afford to buy an Obamacare-resulting insurance policy, and if what one can afford to buy covers one's medical needs.

Perhaps it is better than nothing--for some--but is not much better than anything for many.; 11/5/14, 12:00 PM
Revenant said...: Expansion of health insurance means you can get sick and not go bankrupt if you are poor but not destitute. I would count that as an improvement.

The poor qualified for Medicaid before Obamacare was ever passed.

What Obamacare *did* change is that if you are above the poverty line, you are forced to devote part of your income to buying health insurance, even you have more pressing needs for the money (car payments, rent, food, education, etc). Oh, and for bonus points health insurance is now more expensive and less diverse. Yay.; 11/5/14, 4:25 PM
Sam L. said...: Admitting his ignorance! Wonders, never ceasing.; 11/5/14, 5:58 PM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: Dead thread but--re health insurance--I was terribly dreading open enrollment and rate hikes, but got the excellent news that our family premium is going up $16 a month (to $380 monthly), copays are rising $10, and family deductible went up by $1500 a year to $4000. We never hit our deductible anyway so it doesn't really matter. This is much less than I expected. My husband's employer is continuing to absorb many of the rising costs and another year has been unfortunate but not devastating.

My boss, on the other hand----her family gets their coverage through some kind of group (he is a doctor and she is the office manager, so small business owners) and their monthly premium just went from $690 a month to $1370, with a $5000 deductible.

Yaaaaaaaaaaay Obamacare! WTG!!!!; 11/5/14, 9:01 PM