Karl Rove's Meltdown Immortalized

[ordnance11]

[img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/858221/thumbs/o-SIMPSONSKARLROVEGAG-570.jpg?4">
Lo, how the mighty had fallen!
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Jorlem]

And remembering what channel the Simpsons is on just makes it better.
-----
Stand between the Silver Crystal and the Golden Sea.
"Youngsters these days just have no appreciation for the magnificence of the legendary cucumber."  --Krityan Elder, Tales of Vesperia.

[Dartz]

It wasn't really that much of a meltdown

I googled it expected a full blow on-air couch-bouncing blow-out and it was, instead, nothing that hasn't happened a thousand times before. Like how teams can technically still win the league if they get a perfect streak from here on in, and everyone above them looses..... mathematically right, but it's probably not going to happen.

And I can't believe I just did that....
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh, c'mon. Even the FOX commentators thought he was being ridiculous. "...Or is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?"
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Glidergun]

I'm with Dartz here - not nearly the volume of histrionics I was expecting. He was being ridiculous, sure, but it was just a garden-variety clinging to the final shreds of hope. From the tenor of the Republican party at large, FOX News, and the way I'd heard it described I was expecting something closer to a Network-style Mad As Hell rant.

[Dartz]

Oh, c'mon. Even the FOX commentators thought he was being ridiculous. "...Or is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?"

That's exactly what it was...

It was also nothing more than that.

A full blown meltdown would be threatening to march on Washington, calling it election theft, a Democrat conspiracy to pervert the course of natural elections while threatening God's wrath on those who organised it all and bouncing around the studio.

Fox are just being sensationalist. In other news, rain is wet. And cold.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Bob Schroeck]

A full blown meltdown would be threatening to march on Washington, calling it election theft, a Democrat conspiracy to pervert the course of natural elections while threatening God's wrath on those who organised it all and bouncing around the studio.

Oh, you mean like Donald Trump and Victoria Jackson.  Jackson is a dip who shouldn't be expected to know better, but Trump is advocating armed insurrection to overthrow the lawfully elected government.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ECSNorway]

Have to stand with Dartz on this one. Rant, yes. Meltdown, far from.

What's apparently melting down is the average IQ of the American voter, to let the Chicago Messiah steal another four years to ruin the country.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Rev Dark]

No - average IQs are not melting down, as the American electorate repudiated a bunch of scientifically illiterate, fiscally irresponsible shitweasels.

[Dartz]

A full blown meltdown would be threatening to march on Washington, calling it election theft, a Democrat conspiracy to pervert the course of natural elections while threatening God's wrath on those who organised it all and bouncing around the studio.

Oh, you mean like Donald Trump and Victoria Jackson.  Jackson is a dip who shouldn't be expected to know better, but Trump is advocating armed insurrection to overthrow the lawfully elected government.

Yes.... more like that.

Just because the majority of people wanted their country ruined in a different way than you would've liked.... doesn't mean a full blown IQ meltdown however.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Labster]

What's apparently melting down is the average IQ of the American voter,
to let the Chicago Messiah steal another four years to ruin the country.

Quoted for relevance.  The thing is, no really thinks of him as a messianic figure now.  We had this election four years ago, and Democrats put all of their hopes for government into him (despite the fact that they conflict with each other and probably internally too).  Which was stupid, because he really was just an untested Senator who knew how to make a good speech.  But Dems had been losing for quite a while and really just wanted someone to believe in.
And then, Barack Obama turned into the average, moderate president we should have expected from the beginning.  I'm a Democrat, but I dislike a lot of his policies: not pushing for trials of those in Guantánamo Bay, exacerbating the problem in a patent and copyright system run amok, and failing to stop our huge waste of money and American lives in Afghanistan.  Everyone else has their issues with him as well, whether it was jobs or guns or whatever.  But no one thinks he's the messiah any more (well, up to 3s confidence, which is incidentally the interval quoted to Karl Rove on Ohio).  We voted for him anyway.
And... I did say moderate.  I would put Obama very slightly to the left of Richard Nixon, who signed the National Environmental Policy Act and eventually ended the Vietnam War.  Perhaps in beliefs Nixon and Obama radically different, but in policy, not so much.  So it was naïve and wrong of Democrats to have showered Obama with adulation and hosannahs, and especially so because it still makes conservatives so mad.  But we're over it, and Republicans should be too.  Obama is just a man, and a man who happened to get reelected.
As far as the stealing the election bit:  I can guarantee you that the election was accurate, if not precise.
-- ∇×V

[robkelk]

I get the feeling you folks are going to continue to get moderate Presidents as long as you have only the two parties you've got right now. And I have no idea how a third party would form right now, except possibly (slim, outside chance) by calving the Tea Party off of the Republicans. If either of your current parties disintegrated, there would be incentive to get any number of new parties going past the "wouldn't it be nice if somebody voted for us" stage... but I don't see that happening any time soon.

(In Canada, we have the opposite problem - too many parties on one side of the spectrum, which splits the vote on that side and allows the single party on the other side to take the plurality. It used to be balanced when both sides had multiple parties, but not any more.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ECSNorway]

I get the feeling you folks are going to continue to get moderate Presidents as long as you have only the two parties you've got right now. And I have no idea how a third party would form right now, except possibly (slim, outside chance) by calving the Tea Party off of the Republicans. If either of your current parties disintegrated, there would be incentive to get any number of new parties going past the "wouldn't it be nice if somebody voted for us" stage... but I don't see that happening any time soon.

(In Canada, we have the opposite problem - too many parties on one side of the spectrum, which splits the vote on that side and allows the single party on the other side to take the plurality. It used to be balanced when both sides had multiple parties, but not any more.)

And what you've just described is exactly why we have a two-party system. People eventually aggregate to one side that comes closest to supporting their preferences, in the interest of keeping the opposition they hate the most from winning.

The way the electoral rules are written in the US it is flat-out impossible for a third party to gain any ground. They are designed from the ground up to prevent it and the party leadership on both sides will move heaven and earth to stop any attempt at changing that.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Jorlem]

Well, if this is at all accurate, it is interesting that the moderates on the left have remained fairly constant, while those on the right have faded away to nearly nothing.
-----
Stand between the Silver Crystal and the Golden Sea.
"Youngsters these days just have no appreciation for the magnificence of the legendary cucumber."  --Krityan Elder, Tales of Vesperia.

[Labster]

This might be off-topic, but I think my favorite moment of election night coverage was something else entirely:  One of the channels, I forget which one, refused to call the election in the state of Nevada until more votes came in from "Washuu" County.  I can only assume the votes were hiding in extradimensional spaces or something.
The fact that our system elects moderates is generally a good thing -- I know people who were very disappointed with the Chirac-Le Pen run-off election in France.  But I like to see a system based on Instant Runoff Voting, along with legislators elected in regional groups using Single Transferrable Vote.  But as ECSNorway says... self-interested parties are going to keep any major voting reform from happening.
-- ∇×V

[Dartz]

PR-STV is a great system

It prevents the big duoblock powers from developing. (We've got three big parties, and a smattering of small ones who end up being kingmakers, ensuring bit of variety to things.) The fact that we can get through 10 counts or more in some constituencies and still have things accurately come down to a matter of ten votes, and be verifiable is also a big win for democracy. And use of paper ballots.

Somehow, I don't see a system requiring ten counts or more, vote transfers and the like ever being reliable or efficient in the US..... yecan barely get one count right.

The Electoral Collage though isn't a bad idea.... it keeps the big states from shitting on the small ones with the populutation hammer. Given the choice, it's the only thing from the States I'd like to see the EU adopt.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[ECSNorway]

The Electoral Collage though isn't a bad idea.... it keeps the big states from shitting on the small ones with the populutation hammer. Given the choice, it's the only thing from the States I'd like to see the EU adopt.

It tries.It also fails.
What you get is districts gerrymandered to produce safe results in some states, such as California, Texas, or New York, and all their electoral votes being pretty much guaranteed to one party. Then you get a few battleground states like Ohio, and they end up being the ones that determine the election.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Jinx999]

I'm personally opposed to proportion representation. I believe it leads to minority governments having to build coalitions out of small single issue parties willing to hold things hostage unless their, often wonky policies, are supported. Leading to unstable governments prone to extreme policies.
Oh - and there are three things I really dislike about the American electoral system.
1) Gerrymandered electoral districts. On top of them being blatantly undemocratic, having a safe seat for one party means that the real election is the party selection - so you end up with candidates with policies appealing to the people who vote in party selections - extremeist idealogues.
2) That people can lose their votes due to felony conviction. I'm not arguing that felons are good citizens or would vote sensibly - but this is a power I fundamentally believe that the government should not have.
3) Elections for judges. All mechanisms for selecting judges are open to abuse, but I really think that this would lead to judges making popular decisions, rather than those in accordance with the law.

[Labster]

What you get is districts gerrymandered to produce safe results in some states, such as California, Texas, or New York.

Not in California, not any more.  I was a former resident of California's "Ribbon of Shame", the 23rd Congressional district, but now reside in the 26th District which mostly follows the county lines.  The new California Citizens Redistricting Commission's maps produced many competitive races -- a couple of which are close enough that absentee votes still being counted could determine the winner.
And despite the fact that the commission contained an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the Dems still picked up 5 congressional seats in California.  Republicans are losing traction here because they're being clobbered by demographic changes and a lack of organization at the state party.  It also doesn't help that most California conservatives are anti-tax libertarians, and don't care about social issues, so the message of national GOP election hurts them on those issues.
So now we get to go forward with a state government controlled by a supermajority of Democrats, with Democrats controlling all statewide offices.  And ironically, the most moderating voice on the state government is likely to be Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown.  The good new for Republicans here is that the races will still be competitive in 2 years, and they can come back and win if they can come up with some new ideas.  But in the meantime, I for one welcome our new Democratic overlords.
-- ∇×V

[khagler]

2) That people can lose their votes due to felony conviction. I'm not arguing that felons are good citizens or would vote sensibly - but this is a power I fundamentally believe that the government should not have.
3) Elections for judges. All mechanisms for selecting judges are open to abuse, but I really think that this would lead to judges making popular decisions, rather than those in accordance with the law.

The felony conviction thing is a case where changes in one part of the system are not reflected in another part. The loss of vote thing dates back to the days when only the most heinous crimes, like murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery were felonies. When that was true, you could make a reasonable case that it made sense. Unfortunately, the "law" in the US has shifted so that almost everything is a felony, and every single person in the country commits multiple felonies just going about their daily business.

As for elections of judges, I can understand your concern, but in practice it's not an issue. It's effectively impossible for anyone who's not a lawyer with lots of time on his hands to have any idea what any of those judges have done in their career, so you just get a long list of names that nobody knows anything about. Of course that means that elections for judges are still a bad idea, but because they're completely meaningless, not because they influence judges' decisions.

[Dartz]

The problem with First-past the post is that, if there're three candidates in an election, where one scores 40% of the vote, and the other's score 30 each, the FPP system ignores the fact that 60% of people voted against the winner.

The addition of 'single issue' parties can be a problem, at the same time it also leads to diversions from mainstream politics and gives important issues a chance to get into power. It makes going into politics and actually doing something viable on a small scale, rather thn just being borged into one of the larger parties and loosing all semblance of what you set out to achieve, just to get ahead and get in that seat.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?