Ok, now you’re scaring the shit out of me Ed. I’ll bet Republican strategists are digging old commercials out of the vaults even now.
“We Interrupt This Election Cycle…”
Well, It’s high time someone did. Preferably with potent doses of truth and common sense.
one specific incident, as opposed to huge upheavals in major cities. And Nixon didn’t send them, the governor of Ohio did.
I made mistakes, lots of them. I didn’t steal cars or deal drugs. Stupid stuff is in my eyes is felonies, not drunk in public. And you can put a lot of that demonization on the nanny state mentality of the left, the MADD, all sex is rape, Ritalin-pushing control freaks that put that on the rest of us.
Very good point. I tend to agree but with a bit of squishiness due to not wanting to underestimate the potential of wingnuts to manipulate fear.
2 Likes
Mothers against drunk drivers is partisan? Drunk driving is a violent crime. Moms, dads, everyone should be mad.
All sex is rape? What laws are you writing about?
I don’t know why you think that any particular philosophy has anything to do with “Ritalin-pushing control freaks.” Wouldn’t these freaks be doctors?
1 Like
Agreed. In any case, Hillary made a great speech today, and she is clearly staking out a different platform:
It’s time to change our approach. It’s time to end the era of mass incarceration. We need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe.
That’s clearly not the lock 'em up and throw away the key language one would expect from a law and order approach. People should really read the whole speech, it was quite good.
2 Likes
Yeah, I posted this just before I read her speech. I think she took a wise approach, not only because I agree with most of what she said, but also because prison and criminal justice reform is the most defensible position right now. Strict law and order measures have demonstrably failed and it is time to take a new approach. If the facts are provided to the public, the majority of the public will agree.
2 Likes
This is a common canard. The assumption goes that if Perot wasn’t in the election all his voters would have voted republican. In actuality an analysis of Perot voters shows that they broke about even for Dem vs Rs. Many were voting for the first time, many more were Libertarian leaning who would not vote for any mainstream candidate.
In the Governor’s races, Perot’s voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot’s voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton’s lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.
In the Senate races, Perot’s supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)
In the House races, Perot’s voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.
Perot’s voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot’s voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot’s voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.
So stop repeating this baseless assertion.
2 Likes
My god, I hope you’re right about that. It’s hard to be optimistic about a change in America’s mood on law & order when millions still get their news from FOX though.