The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Michael Peroutka elected to county council

Posted 5 November 2014 by Matt Young

Or, as Right-Wing Watch puts it, Neo-Confederate Republican Michael Peroutka Wins Maryland Election. Mr. Peroutka operates the family foundation that donated the allosaurus fossil to the Creation "Museum," as we reported here. I will not synopsize the Right-Wing Watch article, but I think that you will find that being a neo-Confederate is the least of Mr. Peroutka's problems; if he is not completely crackers, he is giving a convincing imitation.

55 Comments

ksplawn · 5 November 2014

Thanks for TOTALLY brightening my day, Matt and phhht. This all raises a couple of questions:

1) How do you lose to people like these?

2) Who votes for people like these?

phhht · 5 November 2014

ksplawn said: Who votes for people like these?
Why, Republicans, of course. Republicans elected them.

eamon.knight · 5 November 2014

Klingenschmitt? Holy crap! I read Ed Brayton's takedowns of him. Then I read GK's former commanding officer's (GK was a military chaplain for a while) verification of same in comments there, with further details of just what an asshat GK is. Then GK himself showed up to confirm it in spades. It was as spectacular an online train wreck as I have ever seen.

And this guy got elected? Humanity is doomed -- collectively, we're too stupid to survive.

phhht · 5 November 2014

eamon.knight said: It was as spectacular an online train wreck as I have ever seen.
I'd like to read that. Do you remember when it was?

RJ · 6 November 2014

I think maybe that when it comes down to it, people vote for guys like these because they are entertaining to them. Surely only a small fraction of the voters really subscribe to the crazy stuff these guys say. Even though a much larger portion are indeed dangerous authoritarians, ultimately they just get a kick out of these clowns. On this hypothesis, the problem is not primarily stupidity, but vapidity combined with the faith that it really is not possible to genuinely jeopardize our social order - nothin' to it for good ol' boys with fiscal responsibility and common sense.

SLC · 6 November 2014

ksplawn said: Thanks for TOTALLY brightening my day, Matt and phhht. This all raises a couple of questions: 1) How do you lose to people like these? 2) Who votes for people like these?
The Rethuglicans also won the governorships of Massachusetts and Maryland, two of the bluest states out there. Maybe there's something wrong with their candidates. Martha Coakley in Massachusetts lost her second consecutive statewide race. Previously she lost a Senate race, now a governor's race. She's obviously a lousy candidate so stop running her.

SLC · 6 November 2014

RJ said: I think maybe that when it comes down to it, people vote for guys like these because they are entertaining to them. Surely only a small fraction of the voters really subscribe to the crazy stuff these guys say. Even though a much larger portion are indeed dangerous authoritarians, ultimately they just get a kick out of these clowns. On this hypothesis, the problem is not primarily stupidity, but vapidity combined with the faith that it really is not possible to genuinely jeopardize our social order - nothin' to it for good ol' boys with fiscal responsibility and common sense.
I suspect that, just like in 2010, all too many Democratic voters stayed home.

RJ · 6 November 2014

Certainly that is the case, but there still remains the task of explaining why these guys are able to get more than five votes each.

eric · 6 November 2014

RJ said: I think maybe that when it comes down to it, people vote for guys like these because they are entertaining to them. Surely only a small fraction of the voters really subscribe to the crazy stuff these guys say.
I think around 60-80% of US voters will punch the (D) or (R) buttons with no real thought to the individual's qualifications. They are party line voters, using party designation as a proxy for individual qualification.* IMO that is how people like this get in. I also think that while the largest plurality of Americans tend to be somewhat socially liberal (two examples: the largest plurality right now is pro-choice and pro-SSM), they tend to like authoritarian or "strong" jingoistic individual leaders. So they will vote for republican individuals, consciously and intentionally, because they like their 'style' of leadership better. Call this the "Sideshow Bob" effect: "...you need me, Springfield. Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king." I think there's some truth in that last part: people want a forceful leader, an they will often take that over a less forceful person who shares more of their political views. *** *Side rant: using party as a proxy for candidate quality is often not a terrible thing to do, as that person probably *does* share the views of the party on most key issues and the party will likely have some control over the way a junior legislator votes, because that legislator will want to count on getting reelection money from the national party. However, the 'party as proxy' strategy fails in some cases, such as these two. Party line voting has a number of other highly negative side effects. It's the reason why gerrymandering works so effectively: because you are a known, reliable quantity now. It also allows politicians to ignore constituent concerns to a greater extent, because they know that the (picking one party for example; it applies to both) D voter is going to vote D regardless of what the democrat in office does. So if you're wondering why your representative spends more time kowtowing to a big donator rather than the people in his/her district, "party line voters like you" is one of the reasons why. Because you won't change your vote depending on what he/she does, but the contributor will change their contribution depending on what he/she does. Given that behavior, it is perfectly rational for a legislator interested in reelection to pay more attention to the person who *will* change their behavior depending on what that legislator does. In short, being a party line voter reduces your importance to politicians in a general election (you are still paid attention to in primaries).

TomS · 6 November 2014

RJ said: I think maybe that when it comes down to it, people vote for guys like these because they are entertaining to them. Surely only a small fraction of the voters really subscribe to the crazy stuff these guys say. Even though a much larger portion are indeed dangerous authoritarians, ultimately they just get a kick out of these clowns. On this hypothesis, the problem is not primarily stupidity, but vapidity combined with the faith that it really is not possible to genuinely jeopardize our social order - nothin' to it for good ol' boys with fiscal responsibility and common sense.
There was that professional wrestler who was elected of governor of Minnesota clearly on that appeal, but he won, as I recall,with less than 50% of the vote. One might say that Eisenhower, Grant and Washington were elected solely on their being winning generals. Except that Washington also presided over Constitutional Convention.

Charley Horse · 6 November 2014

I think the donated fossil was a tax dodging conspiracy between the Florida owners, this dude and AIG.
I am sure without any supporting evidence that this dude was able to show a million plus writeoff donation
to AIG. I seriously doubt he/ his foundation actually paid anywhere near what was claimed.

I've been in a funk since Tuesday night. Horrible election results. The voters here in Tennessee even voted
to give up freedoms guaranteed in our state's constitution to allow for the social engineers to get rid of
abortion clinics.

AltairIV · 6 November 2014

Here are the Encyclopedia Of American Loons entries for the two above-mentioned loons, just to provide some more background depth for those of us who aren't familiar with them.

Michael Peroutka

Gordon Klingenschmitt

diogeneslamp0 · 6 November 2014

phhht said:
eamon.knight said: It was as spectacular an online train wreck as I have ever seen.
I'd like to read that. Do you remember when it was?
2007. Google "Ed Brayton" "Norm Holcomb" "Klingenschmitt's Former Commander Replies"

Carl Drews · 6 November 2014

House District 15 is in El Paso county, which sits squarely atop Colorado Springs:

http://www.elpasoco.com/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.elpasoco.com/Documents/ColoradoMap.pdf

Colorado Springs is home to military facilities (U.S. Air Force Academy), which as you know are generally correlated to conservative voters in America. Within El Paso County, House District 15 appears to be carved out of the northeast side:

http://car.elpasoco.com/Election/Pages/DistrictMaps.aspx

http://car.elpasoco.com/Election/Documents/house15.pdf (long load time)

I still wonder how this election result happened; Gordon Klingenschmitt seems too extreme even for them.

Mike Elzinga · 6 November 2014

Gary Glenn wins a seat in Michigan. He is just about as bad as Klingenschmidtt.

Conspiracy theorist, Joni Ernst in Iowa wins a US Senate seat. She appears to be yet another Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachmann type.

We still have Ted Cruze, Louie Gohmert, and Darrell Issa. Maybe they will all get to chair come paranoid "investigative" committees. What fun!

And still more craziness coming to Congress.

It appears that the IQ of the general public has gone off the cliff in this last election. What happened to the Press? And some pretty cowardly Democrats to boot.

Didn't anyone pick up on how the Republicans were packaging their candidates after the faux pas remarks of their embarrassing candidates in the last election?

On the "bright' side, at least the comedians will be having a few good years of material to work with. I suspect that Jon Stewart and John Oliver will have plenty of hilarious material from just Congress alone.

Matt Young · 6 November 2014

Dail Kos has a list here, and they don't even have our guys on it.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM · 6 November 2014

I think it's partly complacency--in the last go-round, "I-am-not-a-witch" in Delaware and batshit crazy Sharron Angle in Utah both lost. Maybe rational folks figured the wackaloons would lose again. So now we have even more crazies in government, including a legislator who carries a gun so she can be ready to murder government officials when she gets fed up; Peroutka who thinks the national anthem is "Dixie;" a guy who has been indicted, one who likely will be, and one who lit out of town a step ahead of the constables to become governor of Florida.

Dave Luckett · 6 November 2014

On Klingenschmitt:

My father was a Navy chaplain. I recall him remarking that you got the nonsense knocked out of you pretty quick in that job, or you went under. It seems that Mr Klingenschmitt went under. From what I recall of the ex-Navy personnel that regularly called on my father (and treated him with affection and respect), I cannot imagine someone like the person Klingenschmitt seems to be being tolerated for long in that job.

Of course, my father had the advantage of serving on the lower deck during WW2, and knowing what it's like.

SLC · 7 November 2014

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: I think it's partly complacency--in the last go-round, "I-am-not-a-witch" in Delaware and batshit crazy Sharron Angle in Utah both lost. Maybe rational folks figured the wackaloons would lose again. So now we have even more crazies in government, including a legislator who carries a gun so she can be ready to murder government officials when she gets fed up; Peroutka who thinks the national anthem is "Dixie;" a guy who has been indicted, one who likely will be, and one who lit out of town a step ahead of the constables to become governor of Florida.
Sharon Angle ran in Nevada and lost to Harry Reid.

W. H. Heydt · 7 November 2014

SLC said:
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: I think it's partly complacency--in the last go-round, "I-am-not-a-witch" in Delaware and batshit crazy Sharron Angle in Utah both lost. Maybe rational folks figured the wackaloons would lose again. So now we have even more crazies in government, including a legislator who carries a gun so she can be ready to murder government officials when she gets fed up; Peroutka who thinks the national anthem is "Dixie;" a guy who has been indicted, one who likely will be, and one who lit out of town a step ahead of the constables to become governor of Florida.
Sharon Angle ran in Nevada and lost to Harry Reid.
There's her problem right there. She ran in a state that wasn't crazy enough.

harold · 7 November 2014

We appear to have moved into a post-rational, post-enlightenment society.

This isn't going to be pretty.

These ideologues reject reason and humane values, but they lack the traditional wisdom and survival skills of medieval peasants. They are the worst of both worlds.

This is a new and deeply disturbing development of human history. Although it's possible that extinct societies of the past when through something similar. Perhaps the Classical Maya or the people of Easter Island were driven to some kind of reality-denying fantasy by the local equivalent of Fox News before their societies collapsed.

For obvious reasons, though, surviving societies, from the Amazon basin to the high tech economies of East Asia, tend to be populated by those who can accept reality.

These crazed ideologues depend completely on technology, to put it mildly. But they aren't smart enough to perceive the source of the technology. They just take for granted that it will always be there, even after they smash science, the economy, the environment, and everything else they can nihilistically smash for the sake of smashing.

Do I need to point out that attacks on funded scientific studies as examples of "government waste" were a big part of some of these campaigns?

Quick poll -

1) Is funding for scientific research in the US likely to increase or decrease?

2) Is the US likely to maintain its scientific leadership in the world, or continue to decline from that position?

eric · 7 November 2014

harold said: We appear to have moved into a post-rational, post-enlightenment society. This isn't going to be pretty. ...This is a new and deeply disturbing development of human history...
It's a bigger swing than we saw last election, but nothing world shaking. In the Senate, +7 for GOP vs. +2 for Dems in 2012. In the House, +13 for GOP vs. +8 for Dems in 2012. IIRC, pro-Dem pundits were screaming two years ago about how this meant the GOP was really going to have to change and be more welcoming of immigrants and women if they ever wanted to win another election, ever. Those pundits were obviously wrong. But now we've got pro-GOP pundits screaming that the Democratic party is fundamentally broken and can't win elections without change, and they are just as wrong as their pro-Dem compatriots of two years ago. IMO this is pretty much par for the course in US politics. What GOP control means is that this Congress will probably pass just as little legislation as the last one. This Senate will continue to obstruct judicial nominations just as the last one did. Maybe instead of never passing an ACA repeal they actually pass one now...but Obama will be able to succesfully veto it, because they don't have numbers to override a veto. The same will be true for any other egregiously bad legislation they might think up; they might get it passed (whereas before the Dem Senate prevented that), but even in that unlikely event, it won't survive a veto. I predict that Punxatawny Phil (or his replacement, R.I.P.) will come out of his hole, look at his shadow, and see two more years of continuing resolutions. Then there will be the 2016 elections. Maybe 5-10 Senate seats and 10-20 House seats will change hands - just like it always does - and the winners will proclaim that the losers are so out of touch with America that they will never regain control of either house, ever, until they change their policies to be more in line with the winner's policies. And they will be wrong then, too.

Just Bob · 7 November 2014

harold said: 1) Is funding for scientific research in the US likely to increase or decrease? 2) Is the US likely to maintain its scientific leadership in the world, or continue to decline from that position?
1) Does that include military-related or funded research? 2) Continue to decline, maybe mostly because others are accelerating past. A couple of weeks ago I was on the Shinkansen. One pulls through Tokyo Station every 15 minutes or so. They're now using third or fourth generation rolling stock. Will Republicans push high-speed rail? Only if the Koch brothers want it.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM · 7 November 2014

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: I think it's partly complacency--in the last go-round, "I-am-not-a-witch" in Delaware and batshit crazy Sharron Angle in Utah both lost. Maybe rational folks figured the wackaloons would lose again. So now we have even more crazies in government, including a legislator who carries a gun so she can be ready to murder government officials when she gets fed up; Peroutka who thinks the national anthem is "Dixie;" a guy who has been indicted, one who likely will be, and one who lit out of town a step ahead of the constables to become governor of Florida.
Oops--my bad. I was thinking of some other crazy person in Utah.

Mike Elzinga · 7 November 2014

It appears that a significant number of the Republicans, and the people who vote for them, have become pretty much like trolls who show up here and who dominate the "discussions" we see over at Uncommon Descent. That is a pretty scary level of ignorance that thinks of itself as intelligent and informed.

What I would like to see in the next couple of years - and I am fairly hopeful that comedians like Jon Steward and John Oliver will pick up on it - is to parade the shenanigans of these crazies in their full nakedness for everyone to see. Former Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, would like to see Ted Cruze run for the Presidency so that his terrifying craziness can be broadcast to the entire world.

Maybe it will take that kind of exposure to frighten a complacent public into paying attention to what they are voting for, or for allowing such characters to win elections through voter complacency. There are now plenty of those characters within the Republican Party who would make good poster children for sheer nuttiness and ignorance.

The problem, however, extends beyond the insanity of these idiots in the Republican Party. Cowardly Democrats and timid reporting by the press prevents portraying these Republican nutcases as they actually are. Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh are the only sources of "information" for large sections of the country; and that is getting to be an extremely dangerous situation. People are being conned into voting against their own interests.

The far more pressing issues of the human footprint outrunning the carrying capacity of the planet, as well as the effect it is already having on the Earth's climate, are being ignored; and some people are deliberately directing public attention away from such issues. We could very likely be headed for another Easter Island/Mayan Civilization scenario on a global scale; and we have plenty of demagogues perfectly willing to push us all in that direction.

mattdance18 · 8 November 2014

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect expressed in politics.

For me, the absolute clincher was the shutdown battle, when Congressman Ted Yoho of Florida argued that not increasing the debt limit would stabilize world markets by showing everyone we're serious about tackling our debt. Yes... yes, that's, uhhh... well, let's be honest, that's just fucking stupid. But to his base, he's brilliant.

The down side of democracy.

SLC · 8 November 2014

Mike Elzinga said: It appears that a significant number of the Republicans, and the people who vote for them, have become pretty much like trolls who show up here and who dominate the "discussions" we see over at Uncommon Descent. That is a pretty scary level of ignorance that thinks of itself as intelligent and informed. What I would like to see in the next couple of years - and I am fairly hopeful that comedians like Jon Steward and John Oliver will pick up on it - is to parade the shenanigans of these crazies in their full nakedness for everyone to see. Former Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, would like to see Ted Cruze run for the Presidency so that his terrifying craziness can be broadcast to the entire world. Maybe it will take that kind of exposure to frighten a complacent public into paying attention to what they are voting for, or for allowing such characters to win elections through voter complacency. There are now plenty of those characters within the Republican Party who would make good poster children for sheer nuttiness and ignorance. The problem, however, extends beyond the insanity of these idiots in the Republican Party. Cowardly Democrats and timid reporting by the press prevents portraying these Republican nutcases as they actually are. Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh are the only sources of "information" for large sections of the country; and that is getting to be an extremely dangerous situation. People are being conned into voting against their own interests. The far more pressing issues of the human footprint outrunning the carrying capacity of the planet, as well as the effect it is already having on the Earth's climate, are being ignored; and some people are deliberately directing public attention away from such issues. We could very likely be headed for another Easter Island/Mayan Civilization scenario on a global scale; and we have plenty of demagogues perfectly willing to push us all in that direction.
It is very dangerous to underestimate Ted Cruz. He is considered by everyone who knows him to be a brilliant man. Former constitutional law profess Alan Dershowitz, from whom Cruz took constitutional law, considered him to be one of the two most brilliant students (the other was Elizabeth Warren) he ever had in class. IMHO, he combines high intelligence with a highly developed capability for demagoguery. Think Joe McCarthy with brains. IMHO, he is the most dangerous man in the Rethuglican Party.

Mike Elzinga · 8 November 2014

SLC said: It is very dangerous to underestimate Ted Cruz. He is considered by everyone who knows him to be a brilliant man. Former constitutional law profess Alan Dershowitz, from whom Cruz took constitutional law, considered him to be one of the two most brilliant students (the other was Elizabeth Warren) he ever had in class. IMHO, he combines high intelligence with a highly developed capability for demagoguery. Think Joe McCarthy with brains. IMHO, he is the most dangerous man in the Rethuglican Party.
I don't doubt that Cruze is dangerous. Remembering the lead chalices of Rome, one has to wonder what forms of pollution in our overpopulated world might be causing our political processes to veer off into insanity. That's not a comfortable thought; overpopulation, disruption of the global environment, and people's brains too addled by pollution to be able to figure out what is going on let alone being able to address any issues. Perhaps an "Idiocracy" is not out of the question.

Scott F · 8 November 2014

SLC said: It is very dangerous to underestimate Ted Cruz. He is considered by everyone who knows him to be a brilliant man. Former constitutional law profess Alan Dershowitz, from whom Cruz took constitutional law, considered him to be one of the two most brilliant students (the other was Elizabeth Warren) he ever had in class. IMHO, he combines high intelligence with a highly developed capability for demagoguery. Think Joe McCarthy with brains. IMHO, he is the most dangerous man in the Rethuglican Party.
What I don't comprehend is, why would such a smart man have to lie so much? Why does the Republican party have to lie so much? And why do Republicans believe them? Obama was born in Kenya. Obamacare is socialized medicine. Global Warming is a hoax. Lowering taxes will lower the deficit. Raising taxes will kill job growth. Evolution is a communist conspiracy to destroy religion. (Daddy Cruz said the latter, but son Cruz hasn't denied it.) I mean, if Cruz is one of the top legal minds in the nation, he must know that these things are demonstrably wrong. And if he knows that they are false, that makes him a liar. Sure, there are "political lies" that every politician says: "I promise two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot." But when they start saying things that are factually wrong, they're really crossing the line, in my view.

SLC · 8 November 2014

Scott F said:
SLC said: It is very dangerous to underestimate Ted Cruz. He is considered by everyone who knows him to be a brilliant man. Former constitutional law profess Alan Dershowitz, from whom Cruz took constitutional law, considered him to be one of the two most brilliant students (the other was Elizabeth Warren) he ever had in class. IMHO, he combines high intelligence with a highly developed capability for demagoguery. Think Joe McCarthy with brains. IMHO, he is the most dangerous man in the Rethuglican Party.
What I don't comprehend is, why would such a smart man have to lie so much? Why does the Republican party have to lie so much? And why do Republicans believe them? Obama was born in Kenya. Obamacare is socialized medicine. Global Warming is a hoax. Lowering taxes will lower the deficit. Raising taxes will kill job growth. Evolution is a communist conspiracy to destroy religion. (Daddy Cruz said the latter, but son Cruz hasn't denied it.) I mean, if Cruz is one of the top legal minds in the nation, he must know that these things are demonstrably wrong. And if he knows that they are false, that makes him a liar. Sure, there are "political lies" that every politician says: "I promise two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot." But when they start saying things that are factually wrong, they're really crossing the line, in my view.
Cruz is positioning himself as the candidate of the teabaggers. He is operating on the premise that he can attain the Rethuglican nomination in 2016 with much less then a majority of the votes in the primaries, much as George McGovern did in 1972 for the Democrats. Yes, he is a lying sociopath but so was Rmoney in 2012. Both of them will say anything to pander to their base. The problem for him is that, in 1972, nearly all the primaries were winner take all. These days, many fewer primaries are winner take all.

ksplawn · 8 November 2014

Scott F said:
SLC said: It is very dangerous to underestimate Ted Cruz. He is considered by everyone who knows him to be a brilliant man. Former constitutional law profess Alan Dershowitz, from whom Cruz took constitutional law, considered him to be one of the two most brilliant students (the other was Elizabeth Warren) he ever had in class. IMHO, he combines high intelligence with a highly developed capability for demagoguery. Think Joe McCarthy with brains. IMHO, he is the most dangerous man in the Rethuglican Party.
What I don't comprehend is, why would such a smart man have to lie so much? Why does the Republican party have to lie so much? And why do Republicans believe them? Obama was born in Kenya. Obamacare is socialized medicine. Global Warming is a hoax. Lowering taxes will lower the deficit. Raising taxes will kill job growth. Evolution is a communist conspiracy to destroy religion. (Daddy Cruz said the latter, but son Cruz hasn't denied it.) I mean, if Cruz is one of the top legal minds in the nation, he must know that these things are demonstrably wrong. And if he knows that they are false, that makes him a liar. Sure, there are "political lies" that every politician says: "I promise two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot." But when they start saying things that are factually wrong, they're really crossing the line, in my view.
Thinking about it in these terms, he "has" to lie because that's the easiest path he can see to power, influence, and authority for himself. It's a lot harder to actually solve society's problems (rather than invent straw problems to whip up support) and that doesn't get you nearly as much personal gain.

Yardbird · 8 November 2014

Mike Elzinga said:
SLC said: It is very dangerous to underestimate Ted Cruz. He is considered by everyone who knows him to be a brilliant man. Former constitutional law profess Alan Dershowitz, from whom Cruz took constitutional law, considered him to be one of the two most brilliant students (the other was Elizabeth Warren) he ever had in class. IMHO, he combines high intelligence with a highly developed capability for demagoguery. Think Joe McCarthy with brains. IMHO, he is the most dangerous man in the Rethuglican Party.
I don't doubt that Cruze is dangerous. Remembering the lead chalices of Rome, one has to wonder what forms of pollution in our overpopulated world might be causing our political processes to veer off into insanity. That's not a comfortable thought; overpopulation, disruption of the global environment, and people's brains too addled by pollution to be able to figure out what is going on let alone being able to address any issues. Perhaps an "Idiocracy" is not out of the question.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is crazy.

W. H. Heydt · 8 November 2014

Yardbird said: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is crazy.
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is the one that heeded the sign "Do not look into laser with remaining eye."

phhht · 8 November 2014

W. H. Heydt said:
Yardbird said: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is crazy.
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is the one that heeded the sign "Do not look into laser with remaining eye."

In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. And the one-eyed man with the high heels and the feather boa is queen. -- Dr. Squid

Matt Young · 9 November 2014

The Country of the Blind by H. G. Wells.

scienceavenger · 10 November 2014

Eric said: IIRC, pro-Dem pundits were screaming two years ago about how this meant the GOP was really going to have to change and be more welcoming of immigrants and women if they ever wanted to win another election, ever. Those pundits were obviously wrong. But now we’ve got pro-GOP pundits screaming that the Democratic party is fundamentally broken and can’t win elections without change, and they are just as wrong as their pro-Dem compatriots of two years ago.
Apples and oranges. The Dem pundits were talking about the national races, and to a lesser extent statewide ones, and they remain correct. Democrats have won 18 states worth 242 electoral votes for an unprecedented 6 POTUS elections in a row. While there can always be a candidate bad enough or a late-breaking scandal large enough to be the political equivalent of the lucky one-punch KO, pretty much all the Dems have to do is run an average candidate, hold serve with those 18 and win Florida, and the presidency will once again be theirs. There are just too many demographic trends in their favor for the GOP to compete until it experiences a major overhaul on policy, and we can already see this happening. 60+% of Millenial Republicans favor same-sex marriage for instance. The GOP chest thumping now is completely off base, because they are ignoring how rigged the deck was in their favor this time around. The Democrats had far more states to defend, and those states were mostly red and mostly devoid of Hispanics (~5% overall if memory serves). In short, the GOP got lucky. They won't play on a field this biased for them for another 6 years at most. And yet their win was, as you noted, within historical norms. So even with the deck stacked in their favor the GOP shot par. If they stay on the course they are on now, 2016 will be a bloodbath of epic proportions. Don't fall for the McConnellian trap - watching two sides fight and say the same things and conclude their footing is equally valid. It's not even close.

scienceavenger · 10 November 2014

Oh, I'd also add that the GOP wised up this time around and finally clamped down on all the rape-abortion talk that got them into so much trouble in the past. They were also aided by weak Democratic candidates. Grimes in Kentucky was particularly embarrasing, Braley in Iowa had the good sense to badmouth farmers, and the guy in Colorado made John Kerry look downright flamoyant by comparison.

mattdance18 · 10 November 2014

scienceavenger said: So even with the deck stacked in their favor the GOP shot par. If they stay on the course they are on now, 2016 will be a bloodbath of epic proportions.
One look at the Senate election map in 2016 shows exactly why this is the case. Of 34 seats up, only 10 are Dems (2 competitive), while 24 are Reps (at least 9 competitive, maybe more depending on potential retirements and primary challenges). Turnout will be higher in a presidential year, and high turnout favors Dems. Plus we're about to observe the farce of two years of Republican/conservative "governance." I like the Dems' chances. We must not underestimate the GOP. And we must remember that they've gerrymandered the bejeezus out of the House, making it a non-possibility for a long time to come -- maybe 2022, following post-2020-census redistricting. But overall the demographics and the policy realities -- Kansas anyone? Brownback won this time, but how long can conservatives win when their policies demonstrably wreck economies?... -- favor the Dems and libs in the long term. And heavily. People need not to freak out about one election and focus on the long game.

scienceavenger · 11 November 2014

mattdance18 said: We must not underestimate the GOP. And we must remember that they've gerrymandered the bejeezus out of the House, making it a non-possibility for a long time to come...
Indeed. I've been watching most intensely over the Obama era how my former party was going to deal with the demographic and social changes working against them. To my mind they had two chocies: change their positions on key issues, or hold their ideological ground and be relegated to minority party status (rich irony there) similar to where they were prior to the Gingrich revolution. I didn't dream they'd find a 3rd option - cheat - but the success of that is surely fleeting. One note about the House. Gerrymandering is only part of the problem. Even without it Democrats will be at a disadvantage because Republicans tend to live in open spaces and Democrats in congested cities. Look at the 2012 Election by-county map of Texas: the blue blobs in that sea of red are the big cities. Even a completely unbiased districting will favor the GOP in the House for at least another decade.

Just Bob · 11 November 2014

But districting is based on population, isn't it, not area? That's why Massachusetts gets more congress people than Wyoming, and why those colored maps are misleading.

Just Bob · 11 November 2014

All of Alaska, for instance, seats ONE representative, while Massachusetts has 9. My city, Houston, has 5 congressional districts, but, yes, the Democratic urban areas in Texas are overwhelmed by all the Republican hinterland. If you want to see a pair of gerrymanders engaged in unnatural acts, check out the maps of districts 18 and 29.

http://www.bellairedemocrats.org/senate_house.shtml

Carl Drews · 12 November 2014

Just Bob said: All of Alaska, for instance, seats ONE representative, while Massachusetts has 9. My city, Houston, has 5 congressional districts, but, yes, the Democratic urban areas in Texas are overwhelmed by all the Republican hinterland. If you want to see a pair of gerrymanders engaged in unnatural acts, check out the maps of districts 18 and 29. http://www.bellairedemocrats.org/senate_house.shtml
Sure enough! Thanks for the maps. Gerrymandering is one of those things you read about in history books and can't believe it still happens in modern times. But there it is. Computers and GIS technology could draw geo-contiguous districts that would be truly random. It is technically feasible.

scienceavenger · 12 November 2014

Just Bob said: But districting is based on population, isn't it, not area? That's why Massachusetts gets more congress people than Wyoming, and why those colored maps are misleading.
Yes and no. The number of districts a state gets is based on state population relative to other states, but the districts themselves can vary greatly as to their population, and that is what creates the problem. Many states have high-population urban districts full of Democrats and low-population rural districts full of Republicans, and often simply because that's where the intuitive cultural lines fall and not because of gerrymandering. The unfortunate result is far more Republican representatives than Democratic ones per capita.

eric · 12 November 2014

scienceavenger said: Yes and no. The number of districts a state gets is based on state population relative to other states, but the districts themselves can vary greatly as to their population, and that is what creates the problem.
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. I think congressional districts must all be within about 5% of the "right" population, i.e., state population/number of districts (except for those states which just have one district, in which the population just is what it is). When they don't, the courts step in and insist boundaries be redrawn to make them even. The constitutional requirement is that all votes be equal (or as equal as possible), and that's the way its implemented. The issue with gerrymandering isn't that they mess with the population numbers. It's that one party will arrange the boundaries to give themselves the smallest statistically hard-to-beat lead in as many districts as possible, while "dumping" the excess population of the other party all in one district. So for example, let's say you have a state with 1,000 people (500 dems and 500 rebs), 5 districts, and everyone always votes the same way. The rebs might draw the district boundaries to look like this: D1: 105 rebs, 95 dems D2: 105 rebs, 95 dems D3: 105 rebs, 95 dems D4: 105 rebs, 95 dems D5: 80 rebs, 120 dems Thus each congressional district has the same population, but the rebs win 4 of them consistently while the dems win 1 consistently.

Just Bob · 12 November 2014

Yep, that's pretty much the way it works. Redistricting may be mandated after every census, if the population figures are too unequal. Sometimes states even lose a district to another state as populations fluctuate.

scienceavenger · 12 November 2014

eric said:
scienceavenger said: Yes and no. The number of districts a state gets is based on state population relative to other states, but the districts themselves can vary greatly as to their population, and that is what creates the problem.
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. I think congressional districts must all be within about 5% of the "right" population, i.e., state population/number of districts (except for those states which just have one district, in which the population just is what it is).
OK, I stand corrected on that last comment. I went and checked population figures for Texas districts and they were all between 710,000 and 760,000. But that doesn't really effect my basic point, which is that the way our population is geographically distributed, with high concentrations of Democrats and lower concentrations of Republicans, it naturally gerrymanders itself, resulting in population distributions similar to your gerrymandered example. One could easily draw districts innocently and end up with something similar.

eric · 13 November 2014

scienceavenger said: OK, I stand corrected on that last comment. I went and checked population figures for Texas districts and they were all between 710,000 and 760,000. But that doesn't really effect my basic point, which is that the way our population is geographically distributed, with high concentrations of Democrats and lower concentrations of Republicans, it naturally gerrymanders itself, resulting in population distributions similar to your gerrymandered example. One could easily draw districts innocently and end up with something similar.
I'm not sure I see a problem neeeding to be fixed there. The point of drawing good district boundaries is not to balance democrats vs. republicans; that would be just as artificial as current gerrymandering. The point is to use some sort of rational, objective geopolitical criteria (as much as you can) so that there is no systemic bias for or against a particular citizen interest group. Local government boundaries as well as geographical (everyone next to a major river) or man-made geography ones (everyone next to a major highway corridor) often make the most sense. But it would make no sense at all to say "hey, most of that city is democrat, while most of tha country area around it is GOP, so we're going to make a pie-slice district that gives an exactly 50/50 split between them." Economically or geopolitically, what do those various people have in common? Do they have the same land use concerns? Water availability concerns? Traffic and development concerns? In what way can they be considered a 'community?' There's a lot of bad gerrymandering out there. That pie slice strategy I mentioned? ideas like that are already used...to sweep up 'pockets' of minorities in with concentrations of minorities, making supermajority districts that disenfranchise those residents. I don't think the answer is more of such gerrymandering. I think the answer is finding some political-party neutral or objective (as much as is reasonably possible) methodology for drawing district boundaries. And if those neutral criteria sometimes create 60% dem districts or 60% GOP districts, well, let the chips fall where they may.

scienceavenger · 13 November 2014

eric said: I'm not sure I see a problem neeeding to be fixed there. The point of drawing good district boundaries is not to balance democrats vs. republicans; that would be just as artificial as current gerrymandering. The point is to use some sort of rational, objective geopolitical criteria (as much as you can) so that there is no systemic bias for or against a particular citizen interest group.
I agree entirely. I was addressing the view held by some Democrats that the ENTIRE house disparity is caused by gerrymandering. It isn't, not by a long shot.

AltairIV · 14 November 2014

There are quite a few proposals for ways to reduce or eliminate gerrymandering, including using neutral agents to determine districts, using fixed districts, various kinds of proportional representation systems, and a handful of objective mathematical algorithms.

Wikipedia lists the options here

mattdance18 · 14 November 2014

scienceavenger said:
eric said: I'm not sure I see a problem neeeding to be fixed there. The point of drawing good district boundaries is not to balance democrats vs. republicans; that would be just as artificial as current gerrymandering. The point is to use some sort of rational, objective geopolitical criteria (as much as you can) so that there is no systemic bias for or against a particular citizen interest group.
I agree entirely. I was addressing the view held by some Democrats that the ENTIRE house disparity is caused by gerrymandering. It isn't, not by a long shot.
Exactly, Eric, and exactly, Avenger. I think it's worth remembering that in 2010, the GOP won the House fair and square. This is not to say that earlier gerrymandering was irrelevant in that year, either. But the fact is, Dems held the majority going into that election, and no boundaries had yet been redrawn before it. The GOP took the majority away from the Dems. Gerrymandering has reinforced and increased some of those gains, but it's not the sole reason for that reinforcement and increase. I once saw an essay claim that the fundamental problem with contemporary American politics is that Republicans can't govern but Democrats can't win. And I think the last two midterms illustrate that pretty well. On policy, the Dems are clearly superior on multiple fronts -- and when you stop talking about terms like "Obamacare" and get into clear and concise points of policy, even a majority of the public supports those approaches. But for whatever reason, Democrats can't market themselves for a damn at election time, even going so far as to run away from their own achievements. Gerrymandering aside, they ran a generally awful campaign in 2010, and again this year. Meanwhile, the Reps are great at promoting their candidates and their ideology. Granted, that ideology doesn't work well in practice, as a cursory glance at the Kansas economy demonstrates. But it can be explained simply (if not usually honestly... but I digress), and it therefore lends itself toward good political marketing. If it weren't for the human costs involved, I'd almost hope for a total conservative Republican victory in 2016. Because I fear that the only way for the objective uselessness of virtually every plank in the GOP platform to get revealed is for them actually to attempt to enact it -- and short of such a revelation, I don't think people will put policy failure ahead of political appeal come election time. I mean, it took five years of war and a killer hurricane to get people to realize what a horrible job Bush had done with everything. And similarly, the simultaneous contraction of both economic growth and the social safety net would cause tremendous harm. So I just can't root for that, any more than I could for wars and hurricanes. But if the Democrats want to avoid this, they need a better marketing strategy. Gerrymandering is part of the problem, but eliminating it won't solve much if the Dems can't figure out how to sell themselves more effectively.

Matt Young · 14 November 2014

If it weren’t for the human costs involved, I’d almost hope for a total conservative Republican victory in 2016. Because I fear that the only way for the objective uselessness of virtually every plank in the GOP platform to get revealed is for them actually to attempt to enact it ....

An excellent summary, and this is kind of off task, but be careful what you wish for. It took, let us say, from 1880 till 1935 to get the New Deal, child labor laws, antitrust laws, safety regulations, pensions, collective bargaining. We did not get anti-discrimination laws till the mid-1960's and universal health care till now. By my estimate, if the Gop wins in 2016 we will not have those back till, say, 2050, and that assumes that we have actually learned something. I am also reminded that the Communists in Germany in the 1930's thought that when the Nazis failed, they would be right there to pick up the pieces. They were sadly and tragically wrong.

W. H. Heydt · 16 November 2014

Matt Young said:

If it weren’t for the human costs involved, I’d almost hope for a total conservative Republican victory in 2016. Because I fear that the only way for the objective uselessness of virtually every plank in the GOP platform to get revealed is for them actually to attempt to enact it ....

An excellent summary, and this is kind of off task, but be careful what you wish for. It took, let us say, from 1880 till 1935 to get the New Deal, child labor laws, antitrust laws, safety regulations, pensions, collective bargaining. We did not get anti-discrimination laws till the mid-1960's and universal health care till now. By my estimate, if the Gop wins in 2016 we will not have those back till, say, 2050, and that assumes that we have actually learned something. I am also reminded that the Communists in Germany in the 1930's thought that when the Nazis failed, they would be right there to pick up the pieces. They were sadly and tragically wrong.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the activities of my great-uncle's employer may have aided the cause in getting some of those reforms...not that said employer would have wanted them, you understand. My great-uncle was Charles O. Heydt. Google is your friend.

Gsparky2004 · 18 November 2014

Late to the party, as always. Since I live in Anne Arundel, I'll add a few tidbits. The surprising part, to me, is that Mike Peroutka's district (District 5) encompasses the second wealthiest part of Anne Arundel, Severna Park, as well as the area of Arnold, which is only slightly less well-off. The tax aspect thus makes the most sense. Can't have those darn revenooers takin' away my God-given money!

Or some such.

Typically, in this bluest of blue states, Severna Park can be counted upon to vote fairly strongly Republican. Still, he did not win by that much. Most of those who voted probably had no idea about just how far off the rails Peroutka is. I'm in District 7 (Crofton) which tends to be fairly Democratic, and yet the only person we had run was a Republican, Jerry Walker. Jerry is also now Chairman of the County Council, and in his election information, he ranted that, "I am opposed to the concept of common core and have not met anyone except those associated with the local or state Board of Education that are supportive of this methodology of instruction." That, combined with his so-called "pro-life position" was enough to ensure that, running alone or not, he was not getting my vote.

The good news is something that Jerry ranted about in his hatred of the common core, and that was, "Unfortunately the County Council has very little power over the State run public school system." Yup. That's just too bad there, Jerry. Just. Too. Bad.

bayilil veren · 10 December 2014

And heavily. People need not to freak out about one election and focus on the long game.