We joined the door-buster group at 7 minutes before 7, with 7 voters ahead of us in line. Meade went to the M-Z line and got signed in as #4 and I had the A-L line and signed in as #12.
So no point advising me what to do anymore. I did what I had to and voted in a way I'd never had to do before.
April 5, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
144 comments:
I hope you are happy now. Your previous pots seems to have kept some commenters up all night.
in a way I'd never had to do before.
there never was a businessman running before.
And?
Althouse wrote in Bucky Badger.
Dentists will have plenty of business after all this gnashing of teeth.
Could we have moderation back on please.
Thank you.
Just think about how some of the votes you were happy to make turned out, and that may comfort you about this new thing.
"And?"
And she's embarrassed to tell as she voted in a way I'd never had to do before.
Again, What difference does it make ...
She had never voted for a socialist before, neither had I.
I interpret that as a vote for Cruz, while you don't think much of Cruz as a candidate.
It's fine--this is a strange year.
Here in our Texas primary I decided when I saw the names listed on the machine. I really didn't know before then, which was a first for me. I went with Cruz.
It was fun to walk hand in hand into the neighborhood elementary school with my new husband and vote together. I liked seeing our names, mine and then his, in the registration book.
It was Bernie, wasn't it.
It's hardly a matter of life and death.
...and voted in a way I'd never had to do before.
I'm voting in a way I've never felt the need to before. I'm voting for comment moderation.
Write-in vote for Walker?
The Koch brothers thank you. But what happens when Von Ryan's Fresh Face Express is derailed?
The best is the #nevertrump people complain that Cruz does better in closed primary states where only real Republicans can vote for the nominee.
I think the sentiment is full of shit because I no longer can identify a real Republican.
Paraphrasing Mr. Spock: "I'm behaving disgracefully. I have voted for Ted Cruz and I've enjoyed it. What is wrong with me?"
Truz or Crump?
Did Mr. pTb's talk radio blitz have any influence? Not on you, but those you relate to? Is your area one of those bubbles where "I'm afraid I don't know anyone who voted for him or her")? Lesser half excluded :-)
I'm surprised he didn't congratulate them for their excellent and successful efforts in support of Mr. Walker. though perhaps he did.
A vote for Ted Cruz is a vote for the Kevin Williamson wing of the Republican party. It is hard to imagine anything more disgraceful.
I'm curious as to the nature of Professor Althouse's conflict when it came to her vote, was it primarily tactical, moral/ethical, emotional? How does she feel about it now that she has done the deed?
So, Althouse voted and won't say for who?
Welcome to the cruel half of cruel neutrality.
@Shawn, for whom. ;)
"I'm curious as to the nature of Professor Althouse's conflict when it came to her vote, was it primarily tactical, moral/ethical, emotional? How does she feel about it now that she has done the deed?"
It was not moral/ethical or emotional.
It's about the outcome in November in relation to what can be effected by voting in a primary today. I'm not going to just vote for the "best person" because this isn't the last step in determining who becomes President. It's a push toward a set of later events and you have to make a series of predictions.
You tell us who you have voted for in past general elections. Why the distinction?
You tell us who you have voted for in past general election. Why the distinction?
My theory is that, despite the internal anguish on display here, Althouse is a typical, well-to-do boomer. She will vote bien pensant, aka the Hildebeast.
A vote for Ted Cruz is a vote for the Kevin Williamson wing of the Republican party. It is hard to imagine anything more disgraceful.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Hillary wing of the Democratic party. It is hard to imagine anything more disgraceful.
A vote for Bernie is a vote for the Bernie wing of the Democratic party. It is hard to imagine anything more disgraceful, except maybe a vote for Hillary.
"Ann Althouse said...
It's about the outcome in November in relation to what can be effected by voting in a primary today. I'm not going to just vote for the "best person" because this isn't the last step in determining who becomes President. It's a push toward a set of later events and you have to make a series of predictions."
But it was the last step for Wisco Supreme Court...
It's about the outcome in November in relation to what can be effected by voting in a primary today.
Ah. A third party vote? That's what my plan is. Maybe the L party won't ever be the new GOP but if the GOP loses enough votes to the Libertarians, that could encourage them to return to the Constitution. Not much of a plan but with Cruz/Trump/Bernie/Hillary staring me in the face, it's the best I have.
Ann Althouse said...
It's about the outcome in November in relation to what can be effected by voting in a primary today. I'm not going to just vote for the "best person" because this isn't the last step in determining who becomes President. It's a push toward a set of later events and you have to make a series of predictions.
I'm not conviced the Professor voted for Cruz. She has expressed a desire for a contested convention, and to make a truly "open" convention Kasich has to stay in the race. Plus he has his best chance at picking up delegates in the Madison area where the Professor and Meade reside.
I still interpret a vote for Cruz or Kasich in Wisconsin as fear that Trump could actually win the general election if nominated.
A vote for Cruz in Wisconsin also helps ensure a Democrat (Hillary) victory in the fall, and maybe by not facing Trump she is less bruised. We all know Ted Cruz can not win the Presidential election
Kasich could beat Hillary or Sanders so I see the logic in that vote.
Last night Krauthammer said Trump in the general would make the Goldwater campaign look successful. I still don't understand the Trump fear in the general from the #nevertrump crowd if he is supposed to be so broadly unelectable.
Althouse said: " I did what I had to and voted in a way I'd never had to do before."
Is she referring to voter ID finally, after what...four years, being enforced?
At my polling station, they looked at my driver license however they neither checked to see I was the person pictures on the ID or if the address on the ID matched my name and address on the voter registration roll.
So I'll just encourage the people of Wisconsin to vote. Your vote matters this year. Some years it doesn't. Hell, my vote in California may even matter in this most unusual of primary years. Today is your day Badger State. Rock it!
My AM reaction is that this is why voting shouldn't be compulsory. Aside from the very valid constitutional issue of forced political speech, there are times when it's just, at best, a puzzling trial, and it is not something that the state should force individuals to do.
"Last night Krauthammer said Trump in the general would make the Goldwater campaign look successful. I still don't understand the Trump fear in the general from the #nevertrump crowd if he is supposed to be so broadly unelectable."
It makes sense when you consider that the #nevertrump crowd loathes the idea of Hillary getting elected with a Democratic congress to approve whatever she wants and protect her from impeachment.
Conservatives opposed to Trump are lamenting that if he is nominated they will be facing a choice between a nativist with economically disastrous ideas and a leftist with economically disastrous ideas, both contemptuous of the rule of law or the concept of limited government or individual rights. They would rather not have that choice.
It's easier to just dismiss them as "establishment" rich people trying to protect their Washington insider game. Much easier to assume that tens of millions of people in the country are all just D.C. donors and pundits than to address why conservatives are mistaken about Trump, I suppose.
"At my polling station, they looked at my driver license however they neither checked to see I was the person pictures on the ID or if the address on the ID matched my name and address on the voter registration roll."
Same for us. I thought — how easy it would be to just go back a second time, wave a bogus (or even my same) driver's license and violate the statute. Then I thought, but I'd be guilty of more than one crime and decided, yeah, it's better to just play by the rules..
If Trump does get the nomination and lose, the trumpites can logically blame the anti-Trump conservatives for the election of Sanders or Clinton. They will argue that the anti-Trump conservatives should have been attacking Hillary. Their anti-Trump tirades, articles, interviews, and slogans did not keep Trump from winning the nomination, but weakened him in the presidential election. If the argument is that Trump needs to be attacked because he can't win, then why aren't they attacking Cruz? Or Kasich? Do they just want to lose by less?
Kevin Williamson, and others who have been attacking the Trump primary voters, should try to put themselves in the shoes of the fifty year old guy who reached his peak wage of $15/hour in 2010, and it's all been downhill from there, with no light at the end of the tunnel. What is Cruz or Kasich going to do for him? Hell, they aren't even talking about doing anything for him.
Now that I've had my cup of tea, I realize that my guess ("a third party vote?") was silly. This is a primary, not the general.
I left my comment up because I really do hope that people will vote third party to teach lessons to the GOP. Not that the GOP seems able to learn.
"If Trump does get the nomination and lose, the trumpites can logically blame the anti-Trump conservatives for the election of Sanders or Clinton."
With mighty twisted logic, they can. "We were trying to save the GOP by blowing up the GOP. We could have been successful if only you wanted to blow it up too. It didn't blow up. Therefore, it's ALL YOUR FAULT"
She voted for Hillary. She's never had to do that before.
Haha... Ted Cruz IS more intelligent than Marco Rubio.
Brando said...
It's easier to just dismiss them as "establishment" rich people trying to protect their Washington insider game.
Walker attended meetings, one off the coast of Georgia, where political big wigs, conservative media, and Republican donors gathered to initiate the stop Trump efforts which seem to have unified around Cruz and are at a crux here in Wisconsin today.
Walker was the first to speak of GOP unification to stop Trump when he dropped out of the race. He had foresight, and was right. I'll bet Walker was a major player at those meetings, understanding Wisconsin better than anyone in the room. I'm assuming he told them, probably accurately, that he could help break Trump's industrial Midwest streak in Wisconsin.
Now, it takes real voters to pull that off, and their votes are respected. Good for them.
But let's not pretend this is not the political elite protecting and insiders game. It is. They are doing the same to Sanders in the Democrat primaries.
"should try to put themselves in the shoes of the fifty year old guy who reached his peak wage of $15/hour in 2010, and it's all been downhill from there, with no light at the end of the tunnel. What is Cruz or Kasich going to do for him?"
Cruz or Kasich could give them directions to the Sanders campaign. Obviously, the Trumpites major question is not "What can I do for my country" but "what can the federal government give me?"
If Trump gets the nomination and loses to Hillary 55%-45%, the Trumpites will have a good argument that he could have won if the GOP leadership had gotten behind him when he took a large number of the delegates earlier this year.
Instead they stuck with Bush. Bush?! Those establishment types haven't exactly done a great job of picking presidential winners lately.
I am not a Republican. I am a conservative. But I can see that the people who run the Republican party have been neglecting a significant part of their coalition. It's not their fault that they've been neglected.
"We all know Ted Cruz can not win the Presidential election"
You go on and keep repeating this lie, even as Cruz continues to poll WAY better against Hillary in the general than Trump does.
A Trump nomination wouldn't actually blow up the GOP. The GOP would support him because it is just politics, after all. What kind of Republican would ever support Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Haha.
"They are doing the same to Sanders in the Democrat primaries."
Which party's establishment is more corrupt? Democrats.
A vote for Cruz is a vote against white working and middle class Americans.
"With mighty twisted logic, they can. "We were trying to save the GOP by blowing up the GOP. We could have been successful if only you wanted to blow it up too. It didn't blow up. Therefore, it's ALL YOUR FAULT""
Why can't you people hate yourselves as much as we hate you???
"But let's not pretend this is not the political elite protecting and insiders game. It is."
So there are no non-elite objections from the Right to Trump? Or are they (we) just easily fooled by the elites and unable to grasp Trump's greatness?
Writing off your opponents' objections is no different from assuming all Trump supporters are just insecure white people who hate the idea of a pluralistic society. Sure, it feels nice and morally superior to lump your opponents into a mush that you surely are better than, but it ignores where people are really coming from and what motivates them.
No matter what happens at the convention, if the Right (or the non-Hillary constituency) does not unite, we'll all have plenty to bitch about come 2017.
"I am not a Republican. I am a conservative."
You're not a Republican. Let me guess — you support Trump. Figures. Trump isn't a Republican either.
@Meade
Obviously, the Trumpites major question is not "What can I do for my country" but "what can the federal government give me?"
May I add, "I don't mind the federal government giving me stuff as long as minorities don't get it. Keep those hands off my medicare"
"What kind of Republican would ever support Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Haha."
I couldn't. But I would probably stay home. First time ever, in fact. And I'd probably be relieved at that point if the Dem won. At least I know that the disasters that would be at that point inevitable would more likely be blamed on the correct targets. There's nothing left but to play the long game, sad to say, and letting Hillary or Sanders preside over the collapse is probably necessary for anything positive to arise from the ashes.
Thankfully I won't have such issues voting in the primary. I favored Cruz and Walker from the start. I do note how persistently the criticisms against Cruz boil down to "he's ugly" and "I don't like his speech patterns". It's juvenile in the extreme, but what can you expect from a population educated by the Left and Hollywood?
"A vote for Cruz is a vote against white working and middle class Americans."
So stop identifying as "white." Now a vote for Cruz becomes a vote for all Americans regardless of their skin colors. Forward.
AReasonableMan said... A vote for Ted Cruz is a vote for the Kevin Williamson wing of the Republican party. It is hard to imagine anything more disgraceful.
Oh, come on. You have absolutely zero imagination.
For instance, I have it on good authority that writing in Adolf Hitler would be at least 2% more disgraceful than voting for Cruz. Perhaps even as high as 3%. I'm sure some professors at Cal-Berkeley have calculated it out to at least 5 decimal places of precision, right after they scientifically proved that voting for the Republican Party results in Hell being 32.3% hotter. It's global warming on a supernatural scale!
Of course, there is no theoretical lower limit to disgrace. For instance, you could misspell his name. It is slightly more disgraceful to use "Adolph." It is significantly more disgraceful to spell it "Ydalh." If that fails to enrage your standard pedant, break out the pig Latin! "Adolfway Itlerhay" for the win. Added shame for not really even trying on the first name.
Nope. I will never vote for Trump. I am a conservative. Trump is not. I do not like the attacks on the people who voted for Trump. Trump's big issues are immigration and trade. The current Republican position regarding the American worker is pretty close to Jimmy Carter's in 1979: you are going to get less, and you are going to have to work harder to get it.
AReasonableMan:
"A vote for Cruz is a vote against white working and middle class Americans."
LMAO. Yes, we all know the Democrat Party has the best interests of white people at heart. That's why they can't bring themselves to acknowledge that all lives matter.
"If Trump gets the nomination and loses to Hillary 55%-45%, the Trumpites will have a good argument that he could have won if the GOP leadership had gotten behind him when he took a large number of the delegates earlier this year."
Not necessarily. If her 55% is due to winning over moderates and getting solid turnout from various groups Trump has pissed off, that won't be because Republicans didn't back him. And besides, haven't conservatives constantly said that the GOP keeps losing with moderates because conservatives stay home? Why is it say Romney's job to reach out to conservatives (something he did, actually) but not Trump's job to reach out to Republicans who don't like him (conservatives and moderates)? Is this part of the Trump World rules?
And through this campaign, Trump has long polled worse than anyone else against Hillary. Don't complain to us if you lose the general election with the weakest candidate you could have picked. You were warned.
Cruz is probably the best of a bad lot. I see no love of federalism in him, though. I don't want a conservative president who will use the federal government as a hammer against the states. We've got one of them now.
"I couldn't. But I would probably stay home. First time ever, in fact. "
You could always vote third party.
"A vote for Cruz is a vote against white working and middle class Americans."
It would be nice to stop dividing Americans by race, but this is what I expect of the Left.
"Cruz is probably the best of a bad lot. I see no love of federalism in him, though."
He seems better than the alternatives on federalism. He's the only one who was a state official, and seems to have a better grasp of the Constitution than anyone else running. Trump and Hillary both see no limits to their power as chief executive. That's dangerous even if you favor what they wish to do with that power, as Obama's fans will soon find out when it's not their guy wielding it.
Meade said...
So stop identifying as "white." Now a vote for Cruz becomes a vote for all Americans regardless of their skin colors. Forward.
Qwinn said...
LMAO
Take Note:
You are responding to a fake AReasonableMan. No picture. Different Blogger Id.
Thanks, Iggy Bliss. Good eye. I hadn't noticed AFalseReasonableMan.
Brando wrote:
"He seems better than the alternatives on federalism."
Best of a bad lot. I would vote for Cruz. I would hate myself for doing it, but I would vote for Kasich or Bush. I won't vote for Trump.
Four years ago I was hanging with the engineering crew. Working class guys in tech jobs. The talk got around to the usual complaints. Hard to find work, taxes too high, house not worth what they paid for it, crazy laws against development, bureaucrats that think that they are God. During a few seconds of silence, and one of the guys smiled and said "Romney will fix it!" with fake sincerity. Howls of laughter.
Brando, Trump threatens anyone with their snout in the bowl of government. This includes spoiled college professors. That's it, that's the message. Oh, and he threatens all the illegals who want their snouts in the bowl. He appeals to anyone who works. Sometime and some places the people with snouts in the the bowl like cops and border agents realize feeding can't go on and they support Trump. If nothing else Trump has opened a conversation on several subjects.
I'm long sidewalk chalk, "#Trump2016."
"the guys smiled and said "Romney will fix it!" with fake sincerity. Howls of laughter."
And then they all voted to reelect Obama. Cry me a river, working class guys in tech jobs.
Meade,
I don't think Trump's support is about "what can the federal government give me?"
It's about "stop implementing policies deliberately designed to drive down wages to benefit your wealthy donors after you made campaign promises to do the opposite."
It's about "stop spending so much money after campaigning on fiscal responsibility".
It's about "stand up for the constitutionally delegated power of the legislative branch as a balance to the executive branch."
It's about "why are you insulting us, your loyal supporters who put you in office, with Administration talking points like 'extremist', 'racist', 'xenophobe', 'wacko' etc."
And it's about "you said you didn't want or need our votes to win in November. OK. Good luck."
There's plenty of blame to go around for the current strife in the Republican Party, but it's not constructive to further slander Trump supporters as a bunch of people with their hands out, nor is it accurate. As I pointed out before, the majority of Trump supporters are self-reliant, middle class types who make over $50K.
"This includes spoiled college professors. "
Maybe you could write the sequel to "What's the Matter With Kansas?" — "What's the Matter With Spoiled College Professors" in which you explain how and why spoiled college professors just don't seem to understand their own true interests.
"He appeals to anyone who works."
On behalf of myself, who works, my extended family, all who work, and virtually all of my acquaintances, all of whom work, no, he really doesn't.
"During a few seconds of silence, and one of the guys smiled and said "Romney will fix it!" with fake sincerity. Howls of laughter."
There's something to that--and their mockery is justified. Government won't solve these problems, at best they can try not to make them worse. It's a depressing thought for a lot of people which is why sometimes they want to reach out to anyone who seems to have a solution. But often these solutions dig us in deeper.
"Brando, Trump threatens anyone with their snout in the bowl of government. This includes spoiled college professors."
How can that account for the large numbers of people on the Right who don't fit that description? It's easy to write off say Paul Ryan and say "he's part of that system, of course he hates an outsider" (though I'd disagree that being part of the system makes one fearful of Trump--he's not going to change that system at all but that's another argument). But what about everyone else, who abhors his political unreliability, his personality traits (not for being "offensive" but rather because of what they reveal about his judgment and ability to govern), and his seeming distaste for the rule of law or limited government? These are common criticisms from the Right, and not just pundits and donors.
"As I pointed out before, the majority of Trump supporters are self-reliant, middle class types who make over $50K."
I know — self-reliant, middle class types who want to "blow up" the only party that comes close to furthering your purported goals. "We're angry, we want attention, we're going to blow some shit up!"
And how are "spoiled college professors" threatened by Trump? Does Trump have some "use federal power to make colleges end tenure" plan that hasn't been revealed yet? Or was he planning to draft the professors to build his wall?
It's the wall thing, isn't it? I can just picture Alan Dershowitz applying the wrong kind of stucco right now.
"Cry me a river, working class guys in tech jobs."
I don't know if they voted for Romney or not. They were all pretty strong 2nd amendment types and had no love for Obama. The point was that they did not see the GOP as being able or even willing to address typical conservative issues. Until Trump ran, conservatives like Williams were the loudest people to complain about the GOP establishment.
"We're angry, we want attention, we're going to blow some shit up!"
Mocking the founding fathers, meade?
" I can just picture Alan Dershowitz applying the wrong kind of stucco right now."
Trump's supporters are so loyal to him that Trump could shoot Alan Dershowitz in broad daylight for applying the wrong kind of stucco and the wall would only get 10 feet taller.
...with twice the ivy cover.
...and with beautiful ivory watchtowers.
"Mocking the founding fathers, meade?"
Don't you think they, of all fathers, could handle it?
"We're angry, we want attention, we're going to blow some shit up!"
This is a characterization by made by the anti-Trump camp. I never hear any Trump supporters I know talk that way. They want to choose their candidate. They don't want to be told, "You don't have say."
I don't even hear them say "Take over the party", much less "Blow it up". I don't see them as motivated primarily by anger either, though it's certainly a factor. They tend to be very optimistic and excited about their whole Trump thing, probably irrationally so.
It seems like the GOP is saying, "I'm the leader, but these damn voters won't follow me because they suck." If you find yourself saying things like that, guess what? Your leadership may be lacking something.
"A vote for Cruz is a vote against white working and middle class Americans."
Sheesh, I didn't think racism would enter into it. Can't stand voting for a Hispanic, eh? Well, most of the white working and middle class Americans aren't part of the KKK wing of the electorate.
So, who did Althouse vote for? and why wont she tell us? Who is it? Who?!
Enquiring minds want to know.
"They tend to be very optimistic and excited about their whole Trump thing, probably irrationally so."
Trump supporters = Obama supporters, but with a different set of perceived frustrations. Idealizing a clearly flawed candidate who says what they want to hear and they applaud when they know he's really lying about his position ("he's positioning for a deal!")
He's a symbol that can contain their hopes and dreams.
Paddy O said...
Sheesh, I didn't think racism would enter into it.
Do note that you are replying to a fake AReasonableMan. Just a troll trying to get someone else blamed for saying something offensive that they never actually said.
Bob Boyd wrote:
This is a characterization by made by the anti-Trump camp. I never hear any Trump supporters I know talk that way. They want to choose their candidate. They don't want to be told, "You don't have say."
I don't even hear them say "Take over the party", much less "Blow it up". I don't see them as motivated primarily by anger either, though it's certainly a factor. They tend to be very optimistic and excited about their whole Trump thing, probably irrationally so.
Look at some of the commentary on national review every time someone their makes an anti trump post. A lot of them DO seem to want to blow up the party. That's what calling repubs who disagree with Trump "establishment' is all about.
Heading to the polls now on Madison's far west side, with the same thoughts as A. Althouse. Still not sure what to do. Seems like an important election, but then why isn't the choice clearer?
By God, if we don't manage to elect a Republican congress and president in 2016, we'll have legal abortion and gay marriage in all fifty states! Open borders! Why, they'd even force people to buy those stupid made in China CFL lights instead of good ol' American made incandescents!
I expressed my hope for a President Paul Ryan by voting for Ted Cruz this morning. They only way I see Paul Ryan getting the nomination in July is by denying Trump the necessary 1,237 delegate votes to win on the first ballot. The more votes Cruz gets today, the greater the chance of Ryan getting the nomination after the first ballot at the convention.
"By God, if we don't manage to elect a Republican congress and president in 2016, "
I get your snark. But, seriously, what do you expect to have with a Democratic congress and Trump president? Because, I hope you realize, a Trump president does mean a Democratic congress.
Meade said...
"As I pointed out before, the majority of Trump supporters are self-reliant, middle class types who make over $50K."
I know — self-reliant, middle class types who want to "blow up" the only party that comes close to furthering your purported goals. "We're angry, we want attention, we're going to blow some shit up!"
4/5/16, 9:50 AM"
Why not? What has the Republican Party offered them except a somewhat more competent management of the welfare state.
Perhaps they are getting tired of paying taxes to support able-bodied people who should be doing the work that illegal aliens are doing. It isn't such a difficult mental stretch to figure that slowing down the numbers of illegals, make it far more difficult for the illegals already here to stay here and when they self-deport the Americans on welfare who can work can be told your welfare is done. There's a job. Take it.
Blogger Meade said...
"By God, if we don't manage to elect a Republican congress and president in 2016, "
I get your snark. But, seriously, what do you expect to have with a Democratic congress and Trump president? Because, I hope you realize, a Trump president does mean a Democratic congress.
4/5/16, 10:47 AM'
Why do you assume this? There is nothing mandated by God or even common sense that that would be the inevitable outcome. A more likely scenario is a President Trump with a Republican Congress who would more likely a restraint on Trump's excesses than those of a Hillary Clinton.
"By God, if we don't manage to elect a Republican congress and president in 2016, we'll have legal abortion and gay marriage in all fifty states! Open borders!"
Right now federal funds cannot be spent on abortion and states can pass a variety of restrictions on abortion. Think a Supreme Court with three Hillary appointees added or a Democratic congress couldn't make it so those restrictions go away and Medicaid suddenly can be spent on abortions?
Right now we have about ten million illegal aliens in limbo with no legal right to federal benefits such as social security. Think Hillary might not decide with Congress helping her to give them benefits, pass blanket amnesty, path to citizenship, and maybe relax border protection?
"Why do you assume this? There is nothing mandated by God or even common sense that that would be the inevitable outcome. A more likely scenario is a President Trump with a Republican Congress who would more likely a restraint on Trump's excesses than those of a Hillary Clinton."
Possibly, for two years at most.
Meade said...Meade said...
"the guys smiled and said "Romney will fix it!" with fake sincerity. Howls of laughter."
And then they all voted to reelect Obama. Cry me a river, working class guys in tech jobs.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner--this guy gets it. There still a tad bit too much mirth in there, though; I could barely detect the head shaking. The bitterness...it may come.
Meade said...Maybe you could write the sequel to "What's the Matter With Kansas?" — "What's the Matter With Spoiled College Professors" in which you explain how and why spoiled college professors just don't seem to understand their own true interests.
I think you've misread this one, Moderate Meade. He's asserting that "spoiled college professors" DO vote their interests and that those interests compel them to vote for the Dems/socialists. Now you and I find arguments framed as "you only vote that way because it directly benefits you/your group" distasteful and I agree it's not really applicable here (what the hell would the choice of President really do for the employment prospects of a given current Prof?), but the "What's The Matter With" argument is that people are unknowingly voting AGAINST their own interests and he's asserting that spoiled college profs are knowingly voting FOR their interests (and against the interests of other groups).
Unless...unless you're breaking news that some Professors you know voted for Trump?!
Meade said...
I expressed my hope for a President Paul Ryan by voting for Ted Cruz this morning.....The more votes Cruz gets today, the greater the chance of Ryan getting the nomination after the first ballot at the convention.
Listening to Reince Priebus this morning on the Jay Weber show (AM 1130), he was basically saying that rules can change prior to the convention, but any rule modifications have to be approved by delegates, which will basically be Cruz and Trump delegates.
From Cruz' latest maneuvers, he seems to be aware of all angles. Rule 40, which increased the requirement from winning 5 states to 8 states in order to protect a future President Romney has to be changed, and approved by the delegates before Ryan's name can be placed in nomination.
That's a big hurdle. Kasich needs to stay alive to blow the convention open beyond Cruz and Trump in order to put Ryan's name up for nomination. Strengthening Cruz maybe slows Trump's momentum, but doesn't help Ryan.
Am I the first to say this? Vote and buy ammo.
Gonna be a wild ride.
@cubanbob, I agree — it's not a difficult mental stretch at all. The difficult mental stretch is in figuring how a Donald Trump nominee could 1. win in November and 2. make those things come about while having to work with the inevitable Democrat controlled congress.
Hypothetically, a President Trump just might regret having gotten to the White House via blowing up the GOP.
Ann Althouse said...We joined the door-buster group at 7 minutes before 7, with 7 voters ahead of it in line.
Semi-serious question Prof. and ModerateMeade--did you worry that anything that happens today could have changed the way you'd want to vote? I mean, say Cruz or someone gave a speech this afternoon at 1pm and said something you consider disqualifying, but you've already cast your ballot...any concern about that? If you've already made up you mind well ahead of time (with certainty) I can see where it wouldn't be much of a concern, but if you're just deciding as you enter the voting booth couldn't something you see or learn make you regret your vote that day?
I really wonder about people who vote super-early (as in weeks before, like you can do in many states)--how many Rubio-supporting early voters ended up kicking themselves once he dropped out ahead of their actual voting day?
"Unless...unless you're breaking news that some Professors you know voted for Trump?!"
All I'm saying is I know of one Professor who is not afraid to vote against her own narrow self-interests in favor of greater principles.
Meade said...Hypothetically, a President Trump just might regret having gotten to the White House via blowing up the GOP.
I'm having a hard time imagining D. Trump, much less PRESIDENT D. Trump, feeling regret about much of anything.
If I got paid by typos, comma splices, and verb-tense agreement problems I'd be a wealthy hombre, I tell you what.
All I'm saying is I know of one Professor who is not afraid to vote against her own narrow self-interests in favor of greater principles.
And if you don't like those she has others.
Difficult decisions for a country essentially being run by the SDS.
Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said...
"If I got paid by typos, comma splices, and verb-tense agreement problems I'd be a wealthy hombre, I tell you what."
We could start a franchise.
"Difficult decisions for a country essentially being run by the SDS."
Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, 1/2 SCOTUS are SDS?
"but if you're just deciding as you enter the voting booth couldn't something you see or learn make you regret your vote that day?"
Yes, that's always the case for me. One of the main reasons I don't do early voting unless I need to.
The national GOP is gone. The fucking morons backed Little Brother Bush to give you an idea of how out of touch they are. Another compassionate conservative who favors high government spending but low taxes so that deficits can just pile up forever.
For the leaders now is all about keeping what little influence they have by not losing the House. Hillary won't be able to raise taxes so the people who hire the spouses and family members of GOP leaders as "consultants" and will bankroll the leaders in retirement along wth passing them insider trading information to boost their investments will be pleased. That's all that matters to them, keeping their taxes a little lower. That's why they loved W. They didn't care that he exploded the growth in government with the help of people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell who voted for all the stupid Big Government shit W pushed. Their taxes were lower.
The GOP: High Deficits; Big Government; War; and Low Taxes for the Rich. What honorable man can they select to carry this banner of nonsense to the electorate this fall?
"Kasich needs to stay alive to blow the convention open beyond Cruz and Trump in order to put Ryan's name up for nomination. Strengthening Cruz maybe slows Trump's momentum, but doesn't help Ryan."
I agree. I don't remember such electoral complexity in all the 44 years I've been voting. Not even 2000.
Our district (2) will likely go for Kasich. I prefer Kasich over Trump and Cruz. But my vote for Cruz weighed more than a vote for Kasich in the effort to slow Trump.
But rarely get everything I want. If I could, Donald Trump would not even be on the ballot.
Amnesty is getting through. It's one of the things Paul Ryan and Hillary agree on, along with trade deals that benefit the rich. They also agree on more war in the Middle East in which other Americans lives are at risk so Ryan will agree to an increase in social spending for an increase in miltary spending.
Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton get a long very well. They agree on a lot of issues.
I have to think the biggest "if only" of this cycle, and maybe many after it, will be "if only Rubio hadn't been for amnesty/in the Gang of 8."
That dude would be cleaning up now, no? Cruz or Paul could settle for VP and they'd give Herself a real fight.
Meade said...
But rarely get everything I want. If I could, Donald Trump would not even be on the ballot.
If I could get everything I want we wouldn't even need a ballot.
No need to worry, I'd be benevolent.
At first.
"[Ignorance is Bliss] was good in the beginning, but he went too far."
— Marge Schott
Meade said...
"Difficult decisions for a country essentially being run by the SDS."
Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, 1/2 SCOTUS are SDS?
You forgot the Whitehouse and the other side of the isle.
I wish.
Kasich needs to stay alive
Kasich is a pretty weak candidate. I read something in the paper this past weekend wherein Kasich was essentially complaining that other people were stealing voters away from him. Most politicians would see that as a fault in their own self and their messaging, but apparently it's other politician's fault when voters don't vote for Kasich.
Jeeze. Nobody likes a whiner (he whined)
Thank you, Ann, from those of us in other states who can't influence the outcome of the nomination process at this time. I was able to vote for the candidate of my choice in my own state, but my brother also put aside his feelings about the candidates and took one for the team, voting for a "not trump" candidate in order to try to help slow Trump down.
I hope you did something similar. If not, so be it. You were thoughtful and informed, whatever you did, and that's all we can ask of voters.
@MadisonMan, bingo. That makes 3 big strikes against Kasich in my book. 1. Put forth Wisconsin Act 10 type reforms in Ohio but failed to understand the necessity of leaving police and firefighters with collective bargaining statutory rights. 2. Failed to get out of the GOP primary race when wisely counseled (by Scott Walker) to do so. And 3. Whining.
Batter, you are OUT!
@ Meade
If a drafted nominee like Ryan is going to succeed against Hillary in the fall, the Party is going to have to do some reconciliation. It won't be enough to have the "independents" and some Dem crossovers. The candidate will have to have the votes of a significant number of current Cruz and Trump supporters.
If that's going to happen, it's time for important national opinion leaders like yourself to stop with the angry vitriol and start reaching for understanding and commonalities. Millions look to you Meade, for...well, not millions.... dozens look to you, Meade, for...um...I look to you Meade, for wisdom and guidance and...some other stuff I can't think of right now.
It's not all bad though, feel free to disparage Hillary with no consideration whatsoever for any sort of taste or decorum. Just cut loose there.
1) Romney had a good shot and a solid track record on fixing problems.
2) Trump hasn't even paid lip service to slicing government down.
All this talk about a draft Ryan movement (which I could get behind, as well as a move to draft several other worthy Republicans not on the Wisconsin ballot) has me wondering about the actual effect of the much-discussed but little-understood Rule 40 and the bit about needing to reach a certain threshold of state wins in order to be nominated. As I understand it, Karl Rove explained that this simply means that without that many wins, one cannot have the usual long-winded nomination speech given by a supporter before the voting begins. Rove indicated the rule did NOT mean that no one was allowed to vote for someone who was not given the official nomination treatment. Delegates could vote for anyone they are bound to (if they are bound) or they preferred (if they are unbound), which fits with my recollection of past conventions. I mean, there always seem to be some one-off votes for various favorite sons and other non-contenders, even though those names were not formally put into nomination. So is Rove right? Can the convention, after the votes in which many delegates are bound to a particular candidate, vote for others or are they indeed, as Cruz has tried to spin it, required by Rule 40 to only vote for Cruz or Trump?
"If that's going to happen, it's time for important national opinion leaders like yourself to stop with the angry vitriol and start reaching for understanding and commonalities."
I understand. I agree. I'm with you.
Ted Cruz is characterizing all Cruz votes as really for Cruz. And he knows better, of course.
is Rove right?
That's what I would assume.
It is possible to check the record. (I think everyone except for Ron Paul had released his delegates)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz2k9sbmwTE
You don't need to place a name in nomination in order to vote for that person. Is there somebody trying to confuse people about that? I read now that the old rule for anominating speech was 5 states. There never was, before 2012, any limitation on who delegates could actually vote for.
You and Meade were numbers 8 & 9 in line? And you ended up being voter #12?
So there were four (4) votes recorded before the polls opened, or what?
Hint: maybe some vote fraud!
I just heard Ryan say he believed no one should be nominated who had not run for the nomination. Is he a fraud, a liar? Are you expecting him to violate his own ethics? What is he, a political pawn with a nice face?
"Do note that you are replying to a fake AReasonableMan."
Ah, I didn't notice that. I trolled a troll, I think this cancels each other out.
Cruz wasn't my first...or ANY choice in this race. They were all pretty "meh", or worse.
I've recently taken a shine to Senator Ben Sasse (first class education, resume, etc.), but he's not a candidate this time around. Maybe the uncommitted Nebraska delegation will see things differently.
Cruz also has a first class education and well-above-average resume. But as they used to say in NYC, "That and a token gets you a ride on the subway."
What makes the unappealing Cruz (he puts you to sleep with way too long answers when short, pithy ones will do) much more appealing is that the well-oiled campaign organization he created may well be the deus ex machina that keeps Trump from being nominated on the first ballot.
If that happens, people should / will be grateful. Sane ones, at least. Perhaps sufficiently so to make him the nominee.
But whoever it is, I'll be glad if it isn't Trump.
StephenFearby said...4/5/16, 2:40 PM
Cruz also has a first class education and well-above-average resume. But as they used to say in NYC, "That and a token gets you a ride on the subway."
Bernie Sanders still thinks a token will get you a ride in the subway.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-not-savvy-subway-rider-article-1.2585761
They used to occasionally replace the token when they raised the fare. They would bluff people.
A token was used for just about exactly 50 years, starting in 1953 when the subway fare was raised from a dime to 15 cents. It had gone from a nickel to a dime in 1948.
The metrocard was slow in getting adopted by people until it came with free transfers and then unlimited ride metrocards came in. That was in about 1998.
Tokens were last sold on April 12, 2003, by which time only 8% of fares were paid with them, and became useless for going on the subway on May 4, 2003 when the undiscoiunted single ride subway fare went up from 41,50 to $2.00. They were still worth $1.50 on buses until December 31, 2003 and continued to be used on the Roosevelt Island tram until February 29, 2004. It still cost $1.50 but had no free transfer until it switched to metrocards.
Blogger mikee said...
You and Meade were numbers 8 & 9 in line? And you ended up being voter #12?
It can be deduced from the post that they split up into two lines for sign in (divided by alphabetical order of last name) and didn't adhere,in either line, or at least on the A-L line, to the same order as they had been in while waiting outside. A completely new and unrelated line formed for voter sign-in.
So while Ann Althouse was #7 or #8 in the line outside, she became #12 in one of the split lines. Maybe she hesitated as to where to go or wanted to talk to Meade some more.
If the polls had opened at 6 am, there might not have been any waiting at 7 am.
At just before 30 minutes, Iowa cast 22 votes for Ron Paul and 6 votes for Mitt Romney. But the chair repeated just "6 Romney" Colorado had some delegates who abstained.
Kansas cast 39 delegate votes for Mitt Romney and 1 for Rick Santorum. But again the chair repeated only 39 Romney. Louisiana's chair said he's like to record 2 votes Santorum 12 for Paul and 32 for Romney. But the chair only repeated 32 Romney. And the same thing for Maine.
So maybe they weren't counted.
ellamentary said...4/5/16, 12:38 PM
Can the convention, after the votes in which many delegates are bound to a particular candidate, vote for others or are they indeed, as Cruz has tried to spin it, required by Rule 40 to only vote for Cruz or Trump?
In 2012, on the roll call, they ddin't seem to be counting any non-Romney votes (but the not counted votes also didn't reduce the number needed to nominate)
By coincidence, the A-L line was longer than the M-Z. The last shall be first but sometimes the middle gets to be last (which shall be first).
Ann is funny. She plays a game with us not telling how she voted.
The logical conclusion is she voted for Cruz to at least help to stop Trump and hope someone other than Cruz gets the nomination in Cleveland. If true, I think Ann (and many others) would have had a hard time imagining six months ago that they would vote for Cruz.
Ann should run a poll on who she voted for, both for president and the more interesting vote for a Supreme Court justice.
My vote would be Cruz and Bradley, but Ann is so good at being an enigma, it could be anyone but Trump and could be the lame liberal judge.
Thank you, Sammy, for the responses. One thing I know is that the old rule, pre-2012, was that the threshold for a nomination speech was 5 states but the Romney folks upped it to 8, figuring it would prevent Ron Paul from being able to qualify to get a speech into a 2016 convention that would, they hoped, be nominating President Romney for a second term. Sorry that isn't the circumstance in which this convention will take place, by the way.
This nomination rule talk is insignificant. Delegates can vote for a person regardless of whether they have been formally "nominated."
This is where the the commenters freak out about who Althouse voted for.
Why?
I don't even vote.
kinky sex games and voting: two great tastes that taste great together. amirite?
seriously, cruz imo
What an interesting year. I was talking to a black doctor I work with today and he asked me what I thought of Trump. We talked for a while and I think he is leaning toward voting for Trump. I probably will although I don't like him very much.
I think his appeal ifs broader than uneducated white men.
I don't see Cruz winning a general election.
Ann,
Did you vote for the "Uncommitted Delegate" that was on the ballot? How does that work?
AReasonableMan said...
A vote for Cruz is a vote against white working and middle class Americans.
*************************
I don't think when I vote for Cruz in 2 weeks I'll be voting against my self interest.
Speaking of strategic voting, mathematically, plurality popular vote is among the weakest methods of accurately reflecting the will of the electorate when more than 2 candidates are offered (it's tied in that respect with its mirror opposite, which is having voters cast votes for the person they least want to win and the person with the fewest votes wins). That said, all voting systems have flaws when there are more than 2 candidates and more than 1 voter (Arrow's Impossibility Theorem).
Post a Comment