Breaking the Mold on Primaries

by wj

A couple of years ago, California modified it's primary election process -- via an initiative, necessarily. Josh Richman has a column in the local paper today on the impact of that new system. Money quote:

California's top-two primary system and independently drawn legislative districts took effect in 2012.

The new primary pits candidates of all parties against each other and sends the top two vote-getters to fight it out in the general election regardless of affiliation, opening the door to intraparty battles. That puts pressure on candidates to woo voters from beyond their own party's rolls, while a few more legislative districts have become competitive now that lawmakers can't gerrymander "safe" seats anymore. The result is increasingly moderation, compared to the far-left and far-right opinions that used to win elections. [emphasis added]

It's pretty obvious, from a strictly tribal point of view, why the various political parties would dislike a "top two" primary system.** Ditto politicians who are particularly far from the political center (however that is defined). But what is the down side from the perspective of the overall population? Why wouldn't most of us (especially those who register as "independents" and thus would otherwise not get a primary vote) like a system which forces would-be office holders to consider the whole population, not just those who happen to belong to their party, when crafting their positions?

** Not least that it makes running as an independent far more feasible that it used to be.

Comments

[bobbyp]

As a partisan, I'm none too thrilled about top two primaries (we now have a blanket primary system in Washington State). I understand the positive features.

On the other hand, this effectively shuts out the voice of the opposition where the voting population leans heavily in one partisan direction, and tends to dilute the power of organized political parties, which may or may not be a good thing.

It does nothing for "independents".

Partisan candidates in closely contested districts do have to consider means of obtaining a majority, i.e., the "whole population" (a not at all useful phrase when analyzing any election).

It also tends to promote bland personal popularity contests (cf. "non-partisan" municipal elections)that I find a great disservice to the voting public.

If you are an active member of a political party in a district where you are a distinct minority, this system basically tells you to just STFU...you got nothing.

[wj]

Perhaps my perspective is skewed. But here we have the D-R-I split of roughly 40-25-35. That is, lots of people who are not registered in either party. What party primaries do is tell that 1/3 of the population to STFU.

So the partisan vs. top-two thing can cut both ways.

[Brett Bellmore]

It also, not incidentally, makes it almost certain that third parties will never make it to the general election ballot.

I say, closed primeries, and then lower the petition threshold for independents to get on the ballot. Top two is just another mechanism for making the general election meaningless, a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition.

I think that's why California went for it, frankly: To shut Republicans out entirely.

[bobbyp]

In a traditional system, those "lots of people" always have a choice to become engaged in one of the two major political parties and help get nominees (the mythical moderates) who they support on the ballot.

Insofar as they do not, they shut themselves up.

We have a political system that locks us in to a two party system. This is baked into the cake with winner take all representation.

Locking it down further into a contest between two candidates sharing a basic ideological outlook is not doing the polity any favors.

[bobbyp]

I think that's why California went for it, frankly: To shut Republicans out entirely.

On the other hand, there is always sophisticated analysis (Benghazi! IRS!)like this from the twilight zone of the political spectrum.

Of course, why deeply lopsided states leaning the other way politically have not adopted this measure goes unexplained.

I guess they figure their current one party iron rule is just fine as it is.

[bobbyp]

wj,

imagine a situation where two "independents" are the top 2. Now 2/3 of the population is in STFU land!

OMG!

;)

[wj]

I think that's why California went for it, frankly: To shut Republicans out entirely.

Actually, it looks like it may be helping the Republican Party here in California. We are seeing Republicans get on the general election ballot. It's just that they are not the ideologues that party-only primaries were throwing up. (It's also tending, when we get two Democrats on the general election ballot, tending to cause their ideologues to lose.)

[wj]

But Bobby, independent voters are not a block; they don't have positions for an "independent" candidate to slavishly follow or else. As a result, the independents tend to listen to all of their constituents.

[John M. Burt]

I almost agree with Brett here. I'd rather make it easier for other-than-Republicrats (minor parties and non-partisan candidates) to get on the final ballot.

An Australian ballot seems like a simpler and more intuitive approach: mark your favorite #1, your second-favorite #2, &c.

Still, as dubious as I am about a "top-two" arrangement like California's (we voted against it in Oregon last year), it has to be an improvement over what we have now.

[russell]

That is, lots of people who are not registered in either party. What party primaries do is tell that 1/3 of the population to STFU.

FWIW, here in MA if you are registered as unenrolled (what we call independents, "Independent" is actually one of the third parties), you can vote in primary for any one party during any election cycle.

So, you can vote in either (R) or (D) primary, but not both.

You could also vote for candidates from any of the rest of our smorgasbord of recognized parties, including the Prohibition party, the Pirate party, and the Pizza party.

[John M. Burt]

I keep telling people, "You can 1) Vote for the Democratic candidate and thus give your vote to the Democratic party, or else you can 2) do anything from voting Republican to cutting paper dolls out of your ballot and thus give your vote to the Republican party."

More thoughts about how to design a ballot can be found here (ignore the Hugo Award stuff and just read what it says about how to count votes): http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016206.html#016206

[Tony P.]

wj,

Care to speculate on why "top two" is better than, say, "top three"?

--TP

[cleek]

So, you can vote in either (R) or (D) primary, but not both.

NC does it that way too. seems like a reasonable way to do things.

[hairshirthedonist]

In New Jersey, if your registration is unaffiliated, you can vote in either primary, but not both. Once you do, you are registered as a Democrat or Republican, depending on which primary you voted in. Thereafter, you can only vote in the primary of that party, unless you change your party no less than 55 days prior to any given primary election.

I think it's stupid. I wish we did it like MA.

The only thought I have right now about the top-two system is that, if you're in a district where one party is so dominant that they'll get both spots on the general-election ballot, wouldn't they win in a typical general election, anyway, at least the vast majority of the time? Isn't the minority party in such as case getting a big STFU either way?

[Brett Bellmore]

"wouldn't they win in a typical general election, anyway, at least the vast majority of the time?"

I suppose you could have the occasional case where the majority party fields somebody who manages to disqualify themselves somehow, or croaks, or something.

Then they'll probably pull a Torecelli anyway, and be permitted to replace them even if the deadline has passed.

But there's something to be said for having a choice on the ballot, even if which way the election is going to go is an almost sure thing.

[hairshirthedonist]

But there's something to be said for having a choice on the ballot, even if which way the election is going to go is an almost sure thing.

Yeah, but you can vote in the primary that puts the people on the ballot, and you can still vote in the general if you have a preference between the candidates. It's not like you're anymore shut out than you ever were if you look at the entire process, AFAICT.

Unless you're so married to a particular party that you'd never even consider voting for another party's candidate, I don't see who this particular aspect of it is such a bad thing, especially if it prevents the two parties from throwing up a couple of wack-a-doodles, which doesn't leave you will a hell of a great choice when it happends.

[wj]

Care to speculate on why "top two" is better than, say, "top three"?

Tony, I don't know that it is.

My personal definition of "better" means a system which
a) put a premium on supporting the sort of policies which a majority of the total population, rather than just a majority of one party, supports,
b) allows those who are more centerist than most of their party, albeit well away from the center of the population, a chance to influence what their party stands for,
and
c) gives a chance to those who are interested in government, but not willing to kowtow to either of the major parties.

Would "top three" do that? I simply don't know. I wonder if there is any way to model an election and make a prediction . . . .

[wj]

But there's something to be said for having a choice on the ballot, even if which way the election is going to go is an almost sure thing.

Even with "top two," there is always a choice. The two candidates may be from the same party, but that is a huge distance from their being identical.

In fact, based on the elections I have seen so far, they can have seriously different views on a lot of issues. We are currently having a special election for State Senate (to replace someone who got elected to Congress). One of the two candidates in the run-off (essentially a general election scenario) is what Brett would call a typical Democrat -- pro-union, pro-big-government, etc. The other (also a Democrat) is running on smaller government, cutting back government pensions plans, banning strikes by government workers, etc. What, a couple of decades ago, would be considered a typical Republican platform.

Except that, for the past 15-20 years (before top two) we have rarely seen a Republican in California who was not totally whacko -- to the point where the only election of interest for state-wide office was the Democratic primary. We simply never saw someone win a Republican primary who had a chance of being elected. (Since top two went in, we have started getting some sensible Republicans running. And, when we do, they get on the general election ballot quite handily.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing I most object to about the top two primary, is that there aren't two parties, and that candidates don't normally have to be members of a party to be in the general election.

I think it prematurely winnows the choices.

[wj]

So, independence of the two major parties is a bad thing?

Is that what you think in general? Or just that you can't imagine enough independents winning to significantly influence what the legislature serves up? (And if the latter, why would you support third party candidates, as long as they belong to a formal party?)

[Snarki, child of Loki]

So, top three primaries? Top four?

I don't see why not, other than the usual vested interests. The only "real" advantage I see for "top two" is that the winner definitely has a majority (not just a plurality), but that's a minor point.

[hairshirthedonist]

I think it prematurely winnows the choices.

The top two aren't party restricted, and, in practical terms, of what importance is the "prematurely" part? Is some truly viable candidate likely not to be on the ballot? If so, would you be okay with some other top-N system and for what value of N?

[wj]

Perhaps the question to ask, when considering "top three" is: what is the probability that the third place finisher will go on to win in the general election? How many primary candidates would there have to be from one part of the political spectrum for that to happen?

[Brett Bellmore]

One of the things "top two" did, was abolish write in votes. It has, literally, abolished for the first time in California a voter's right to vote for whoever they please, regardless of whether they're on the official ballot.

Maybe write-ins seldom won, but now you can't even do a write-in vote as a protest.

[russell]

One of the things "top two" did, was abolish write in votes

You can't vote for a write-in in CA primaries?

Not to harp on how wonderful things are here in the people's republic, but the Sec of State (of MA) hosts a web page explaining how to run as a write-in candidate.

You can even use stickers, to make it easier for people to do.

[wj]

Just to be clear, you can run in California as a write-in candidate. What you cannot do is write in the name of someone who is not running. Which doesn't seem unreasonable.

And the candidate has to be certified. Which means submitting a written statement giving:
(1) Candidate's name.
(2) Residence address.
(3) A declaration stating that he or she is a write-in candidate.
(4) The title of the office for which he or she is running.
And, if there are statutory requirements (e.g to be 35 to be President), the write-inn candidate has to meet them.

It's not really an onerous hurdle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just to be more clear, you can run in California, in the primary, as a write-in. Not in the general election anymore, or so I understand.

[bobbyp]

But Bobby, independent voters are not a block; they don't have positions for an "independent" candidate to slavishly follow or else. As a result, the independents tend to listen to all of their constituents.

This is essentially BS. Those holding office listen to "interests". "Interests" generally speaking have very strong opinions.

[bobbyp]

Except that, for the past 15-20 years (before top two) we have rarely seen a Republican in California who was not totally whacko -- to the point where the only election of interest for state-wide office was the Democratic primary.

What you are essentially saying here is that because the GOP has gone off into la la land that we need to punish the Democratic Party. This is risible. You also imply that as a consequence, most statewide Democratic office holders and/or nominees are "far left". This, too, is a laughable claim.

Counterfactual: The idiots (the great hordes of voters that I dearly lover otherwise) in California elected Ronnie and Arnold to the chief executive slot. The idiots in California passed the Jarvis tax "reform" (cough, cough).

You can't be serious.

[bobbyp]

My personal definition of "better" means a system which
a) put a premium on supporting the sort of policies which a majority of the total population, rather than just a majority of one party, supports,

Non sequitur. Does not follow.

b) allows those who are more centerist than most of their party, albeit well away from the center of the population, a chance to influence what their party stands for,
and

Again. How does this work? Are you going to look me in the eye and tell me Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are not, in very important policy respects "centerists"?

It strikes me that you desire more than anything to tilt the playing field to get the political outcomes that you desire. Calling your preferences "centrist" is just so much frosting on the cake.

c) gives a chance to those who are interested in government, but not willing to kowtow to either of the major parties.

Please. If you are interested in government there are many ways to get involved and have influence. And just about anybody can walk into a local LD Dem and/or GOP LD and join, no questions asked.

Not a whole lot of effort involved, if you ask me.

[bobbyp]

wj,

Another concern I have: Mitigating organized political party influence will just mean that said influence may well just wind up with unaccountable private interests.

I am not convinced such an outcome would be "better".

[wj]

This is essentially BS. Those holding office listen to "interests". "Interests" generally speaking have very strong opinions.

But, Bobby, if that's true, why does it matter whether they belong to a party or are independents? Given that they only listen to interests, they would be saying STFU to all of the voters anyway, wouldn't they?

[CharlesWT]

Voting system

[wj]

The idiots (the great hordes of voters that I dearly lover otherwise) in California elected Ronnie and Arnold to the chief executive slot.

True.
And everybody (including Arnold) was entirely aware that the only reason he was elected the first time is that it was an open election (i.e. without party primaries) to fill an vacant position (the result of a recall). No way in hell he would have won a Republican primary, and everybody here knows it.

[wj]

Are you going to look me in the eye and tell me Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are not, in very important policy respects "centerists"?

I have no problem saying that Barbara Boxer is not a centerist. Not even close -- even for California. What she is is one of the luckiest politicians going. Every time she comes up, the Republicans nominate someone who is either ever farther out than she is, or who is manifestly incompetent (e.g. Fiorina).

[bobbyp]

why does it matter whether they belong to a party or are independents...?

Because a block in a party can have outsized influence (as you so duly note), and the party itself can be a countervailing interest.

someone who is either ever farther out than she is

She is "further out" in what sense? Does she advocate smashing of the state? The dictatorship of the proletariat? Abolition of private property? Nationalizing Hollywood?

She also brings up a couple of criticisms I have not mentioned: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-boxer-senate-visitors-20150121-story.html

[bobbyp]

wj,

This article raises some interesting points about this issue, specifically wrt California. I'd be open to ranked choice voting. Non-partisan delineation of district boundaries seems also a long overdue reform (something even a partisan like me supports):

http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/fix-the-top-two-primary-admirable-goals-dont-justify-indefensible-outcomes/

[bobbyp]

No way in hell he would have won a Republican primary, and everybody here knows it.

agree. but be careful of what you ask for!

http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20131007/californias-recall-arnold-schwarzenegger-era-changed-nothing

[Donald johnson]

I don't know enough about the nitty gritty of politics to know what effects this idea would have.

I gather wj's bigger issue is that centrists are thought to be extinct. Depends on the issue and what one defines as the center, but it does seem to be a common observation that the parties are very polarized these days. I always wanted the Democrats to go far to the left, but seeing how crazy the Republicans are these days I find myself almost wishing for the days when both parties contained a mixture of live pedals and conservatives and centrists--the Democrats of course were more to the left on average, but there was Much more ideological overlap.

It startles me to find myself thinking like this, since I've loathed centrist self-regard--it always seemed to me that centrists thought they were automatically correct simply by virtue of being in the middle between two extremes as they saw them. But seeing how far the Republicans have drifted towards utter lunacy, maybe we need two less polarized, ideologically mixed parties if on,y to keep the crazy right in check.

[Donald johnson]

My IPad is doing its little editing thing again. "Live pedals" is apparently a corrected version of my attempt to spell "liberals".

[bobbyp]

maybe we need two less polarized, ideologically mixed parties if on,y to keep the crazy right in check.

But what forces will auger such a transformation?

Right now, the two major parties are fairly polarized. More polarized, according to some observers, than at any time since prior to the Civil War.

There are reasons as to why this is so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?_r=1

There are, consequently, reasons why "a pox on both your houses" is not being very smart.

Climate change being one really, really, big one.

And here I am a way "out there" political outlier on most social and economic issues. And I shall never cease my bitter and unending invective against so-called mainstream Dems.

But I have never voted for a Republican, no matter how good the candidate, nor however bad the Dem opponent....because at a bedrock level the GOP is against everything I stand for and voting 3d party is a wasted effort.

It startles me to find myself thinking like this, since I've loathed centrist self-regard--it always seemed to me that centrists thought they were automatically correct simply by virtue of being in the middle between two extremes as they saw them.

Agree. As the GOP has gone off to la la land the space for constructive mutual concessions has shrunk dramatically.

Finding the center? What was it that Vonnegut wrote about fool's errands? I am old and senile, but it might come back to me.

[wj]

I can't speak for other states. But what we seem to have seen in California, as our Republicans have been sojourning in la-la land, is the Democrats expanding to encoumpass even mild conservatives -- basically any politician who was not a far right nut case. (Again, this is based on what I have seen in California. Republicans elsewhere may be different.)

As noted, since the top-two primaries came along, we seem to be getting more Republican candidates who are mildly conservative pramatists. But without that, we semed headed towards a Democratic Parryt which ran from far left to solid right. Opposed by a Republican Party which was interested in ideological purity rather than winning elections. Let alone actually governing -- not that there was any chance of that arising.

[Donald johnson]

Bobbyp--I don't really disagree with any of that. But I look at how the Republicans seem to be drifting further and further to the right and wonder if there is any way to stop this. Maybe it can't be stopped. Maybe, as wj suggests, it just turns out that the Democrats expand to include everyone from the center right to the far left.

[Roger Moore]

One serious drawback of the top two primary is that it can produce very unpopular results if there are a very large number of candidates in the primary. When that happens, candidates with narrow but deep support can wind up winning the top two spots in the primary with relatively small fractions of the total vote, resulting in a ballot for the general election that has no candidates the majority of the electorate is happy with.

My worry is that this will perversely wind up giving the party bigwigs a more important role. To avoid splitting the vote in the primary, parties will wind up having a kind of shadow caucus where the party leaders decide which plausible candidates are allowed to run and which ones aren't. We've already seen something like that with the Democratic party quickly coalescing behind Kamala Harris as the anointed successor to Barbara Boxer.

[wj]

The impact of a lot of candidates with roughly equivalent positions splitting the vote is, indeed, a problem in a "top-two" primary system. But then, it is a problem in a party primary election as well.

And like Roger, I'm not sure there is a solution. At least that there is a solution which doesn't head us back towards the days of "smoke-filled rooms."

[wj]

Maybe, as wj suggests, it just turns out that the Democrats expand to include everyone from the center right to the far left.

I do have a serious question in my mind. When the (California) Republicans have gone far enough, and narrowed their base enough, what happens? Specifically, do the Democrats split into a liberal party and a center-right party?

I'm guessing that the "top two" primary system will tend to work against that. But we shall see in time, I suppose.

[Roger Moore]

And like Roger, I'm not sure there is a solution.

I don't think there's a solution within the basic concept of a primary/general/first-past-the-post voting system, which means we need to abandon that part of our system and try something really different. My personal preference is for approval voting: vote for as many candidates as you like; the winner is the candidate with the most votes. It allows voters to express more preferences than the current system, encouraging candidates who have broad appeal and diminishing the importance of strategic voting. At the same time, it's easy to understand, easy to vote, and easy to count. That's a big deal for a state like California, where the ballots are already dauntingly large and complex.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Don't kill yourself trying to design a "perfect" voting system, at least not until you've read up on Arrow's Theorem.

Not to say that you can't make improvements, but there's a limit.

[wj]

I think, if we are going to allow people to cast multiple votes, we ought to have them rank those votes. Too often, I have people I like, but also people I can stand but don't favor. I really want my vote to go to those I prefer, and only to the ones I can merely stand if none of those I prefer get in.

But even if we don't do that, let people vote NO on anyone they really cannot stand. And nobody can be elected if their NO votes exceed the votes for them. Even if they got a majority of the votes for.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But I look at how the Republicans seem to be drifting further and further to the right and wonder if there is any way to stop this."

I think you'd have to stop the electorate from drifting further and further to the right, to stop it. Otherwise, of course politicians are going to follow the electorate.

Oh, this is hilarious, but somehow not surprising:

More than 2 MILLION of Hillary Clinton's Twitter followers are fake or never tweet – and she's already under fire for 'buying' fake Facebook fans

[wj]

In places where the electorate is shifting to the right, that would be quite true.

But the Republican Party has also been moving to the right, even in places where the electorate has not. With the result that, in those places, they have been rapidly becoming an irrelevance.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a national party. It can't very well move the the right nationally, (And very successfully, when you look at how many states they control now.) and then move to the left in one or two states, or just in some cities. They're stuck hitting a note that works well on average, just like the Democratic party.

[wj]

Why not? In the early and mid-20th century the Democrats in the South were extremely conservative, while elsewhere the Democrats were the liberal party. Apparently no real necessity for national coherence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Better communications, would be my guess.

[Countme-In]

If I'm going to retreat, I shouldn't lurk, but in response to Icarus's invocation of Montanans not killing each other with guns, yes, in absolute numbers (you've got to get in your truck and drive a ways find somebody to fight with), but per capita they rate in the top five.

Wyoming too is in the top five per capita and their gun homicides outnumber homicides by other means.

I live in Colorado and have traveled extensively in both states.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/20/1308465/-New-Study-Ranks-50-States-By-Gun-Sense-And-Gun-Violence-Deaths

Massachusetts, referred to by Russell as a strict state regarding guns, ranks in the bottom five states for per capita gun homicides.

As does New Jersey.

Maybe Montana and Massachusetts could switch gun regulatory schemes for awhile and we'll see what happens.

"Top" meaning most deaths per capita; "bottom" meaning least deaths per capita.

[Countme-In]

By the way, I favor technological advancements which would program the guns of the future to disable themselves if pointed at human flesh, from any distance.

That way, everyone could keep and bear arms, and carry, to their hearts' delight.

The verb "to fire" in not in the Second Amendment.

[Countme-In]

Wrong thread.

[Emile Snyder]

Awww man, comments closed on gun control post? But, but, I looked up actual numbers and everything! Unable to control myself, posting below, sorry:

---------------
This has been a fascinating thread, but many of the assertions of fact made me curious. It's not immediately obvious to me what is scenario I should imagine when hearing about gun deaths. Nor is it obvious to me whether suicides or homicides would occur at similar rates via other means. So, I went digging for stats on the state I live in (Oregon, USA, pop ~4 million), and a similarly sized European political entity w/ stricter gun laws (Scotland, pop ~5.3 million)

It looks like we have similar homicide rates (~100/yr for Oregon over the last decade, similar average for Scotland but more of a downward trend), but almost none of the homicides in Scotland involve the use of a gun.

Oregon looks to have something like 1/2 the suicide rate of Scotland.

Given that, I'm actually kind of skeptical that gun control is the way to make a difference in any of the violent death stats in my corner of the world. The biggest chunk by far of gun deaths (~80%) are suicides, followed by homicides (~15%.) The homicides seem to break down between domestic violence (mostly middle aged to older white guys who kill their partner, often a child, and sometimes themselves) and what looks like more urban violence (males, 18-24, using pistols.)

The accidental deaths look like a very small slice of the pie, and that is like 2 to 1 people actually shooting themselves, vs others.

Given numbers like that I would much rather we focus on reducing the mass incarceration and drug war problem we have (undoubtedly contributing to the urban violence segment) and general social safety net / mental health support (undoubtedly contributing to the suicide and domestic violence portions) rather than get wedge-issued on gun control.

Sources:
http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/InjuryFatalityData/Pages/nvdrs.aspx
http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/InjuryFatalityData/Documents/NVDRS/SummaryDataTablesByYear2003_11.pdf
http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/InjuryFatalityData/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/homicide_suicide_2015v02262015.pdf
http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/InjuryFatalityData/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/firearms_2015v02262015.pdf
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html
http://www.chooselife.net/Evidence/statisticssuicideinscotland.aspx

[Slartibartfast]

Oregon looks to have something like 1/2 the suicide rate of Scotland.

It is, after all, shite being Scottish.

/obligatory

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Also note the high rates of alcoholism and suicide in nordic countries. It's quite possible that "Seasonal Affective Disorder" is a major component...months and months of semi-darkness is not something that humans are good at, it seems.

But it's eminently treatable! Just not with standard incandescent light-bulbs (too yellow), but LED lights? Oh, yeah.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, I'm manfully fighting my unfortunate urge to always try to get the last word in on this subject, and you're not making it easy here.

What's particularly amusing about Hillary's fake Twitter followers and Facebook likes, is that apparently the State Department was doing the exact same thing while she was SoS, spending over $600k to buy "likes" from fake Facebook accounts, which they stopped when she left.

So it's going to be pretty darned hard for her to declare this some kind of accident or mistake. Then again, she may not have to say anything about it, with only the foreign press and conservative bloggers having any interest in reporting the scandal.

Must be nice to have the media in the tank for you.

[russell]

Not that I'm rushing in to defend Hilary's sacred honor, but does buying fake Twitter followers qualify as a scandal these days?

I think most folks nowadays call it "marketing".

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Dunno, it just seems like another example of an "older generation" not quite being aware of all internet traditions.

Perhaps not quite so much "older" as "isolated from internet culture".

The intersection of internet, politics, and government is still a work in progress.

I, for one, look forward to Rand Paul discovering the joys of sock-puppetry.

[russell]

Also:

Hey, I'm manfully fighting my unfortunate urge to always try to get the last word in on this subject, and you're not making it easy here.

Well done. Your effort is recognized and appreciated. That is a zero-snark statement.

Best to you and your family Brett, the stuff you're dealing with is hard and pretty much sucks. Hang in.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but does buying fake Twitter followers qualify as a scandal these days?"

Not as much of a scandal as doing official government work on your personal computer, and then wiping the hard drive when the legal problems start so that nobody in the legal system can second guess your decisions about what's business and what's private.

Not as much of a scandal as having a family foundation accepting huge donations from foreign governments while you're Secretary of State, and making decisions that effect the interests of those governments.

I would put this more in the "Ought to cause deep embarrassment if you were capable of it" category, than the "Ought to cause a long stay in jail" category, but, yeah, it's a scandal.

Paying to have huge numbers of likes from fake internet accounts generated, and generating fake Twitter followers, is an internet tradition in the sense it's been done before, sure. Lots of things people ought to be embarrassed to be caught at have been done before. I don't doubt that you could work up a legal case against her if the administration really wanted, violating TOS for companies like Facebook actually IS illegal, though it's not likely for the average person to get prosecuted, and she doesn't get prosecuted for stuff that would destroy average people.

But should she be embarrassed, were she capable of it? Yeah.

[hairshirthedonist]

Dunno, it just seems like another example of an "older generation" not quite being aware of all internet traditions.

I'd file it under goofy/clueless. It's one of those things that, when you have a team of advisors, come up because "idea."

[cleek]

if we're to believe the Daily Mail, pretty much all US politicians have fake twitter followers.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/clockingin/2013/09/politicians-and-their-fake-twitter-followers/

[hairshirthedonist]

I couldn't give a flying rat's eyelash about twitter, so my question is, do people are into twitter care how many followers politicians, in particular, have? Are they savvy enough to know already that some or most of them are fake, being all twittery as they are about stuff? What percentage of likely voters do such people represent?

[Countme-In]

I'll take the Fake Twitter-followers (decent band name) over the real Twitter-followers of Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Wayne LaPierre.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

It is objectively true that Paul and Walker have lots of twit followers.

[Countme-In]

Let's review one twit's real tweets:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/is-the-most-powerful-conservative-in-america-losing-his-edge/383503/

He's getting a fake degree in biblical studies, mostly those passages on how to f*ck and then roast a goat.

God, atwitter over Erickson's reality, faked an orgasm.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I couldn't give a flying rat's eyelash about twitter, so my question is, do people are into twitter care how many followers politicians, in particular, have?"

Honestly, I don't know. I have a low opinion of politicians in general, which is one of the reasons I want government to have little power. Telling me, "They all fake their numbers!" isn't going to convince me that Hillary isn't wrong to do it. Just that they're all scum.

I'm much more concerned about the email thing. That's the sort of abuse that would put many people lower down the food chain in prison. A deliberate and ongoing violation of the rules in order to defeat FOIA and data retention policies.

Wiping the hard drive after it came out is just one big upraised finger to the entire legal system, and you want somebody with THAT attitude in the White house?

[wj]

Fake followers on Twitter, fake friends on Facebook -- pretty much of an irrelevance. For Clinton or anybody else, politician or not.

Having her family foundation get big donations from foreigners? Foolish as a PR matter -- see Brett's reaction. But unless she is getting a cut or a huge salary from the foundation, or the foundation is violating its legal basis by campaigning for her? Just not a big deal.

The e-mail thing, however. That actually does rise to the level of something serious. Maybe not criminal (IANAL), but I would certainly go so far as scandalous. Perhaps that's because I put some effort to keeping my personal and work e-mails in seperate accounts. (I have, occasionally, gotten sloppy and sent something from the wrong one. But it is something that happens a couple times a year at most. And anything work-related on the personal account gets forwarded over there as soon as I realize what happened.)

The problem with the frothing outrage that (part of) the GOP attaches to all these things is this: We get so accustomed to the ones which are nothing, that when something real comes along it gets less attention than it should.

Indeed, it has gotten to the point (with Obama as well as Clinton) that those who are outside the echo-chamber make jokes about it. Which, I submit, means that those who are reflexively and constantly outraged have succeeded in shooting themselves in the foot.

[Brett Bellmore]

The foundation has been paying her travel and staff expenses as she's gone around supposedly not running for President yet. That's a significant chunk of change.

"Indeed, it has gotten to the point (with Obama as well as Clinton) that those who are outside the echo-chamber make jokes about it."

Just a way to blame your pre-existing disinterest in abuses by your side on the other side.

[cleek]

no, really: a person who screams at the top of his lungs about everything that he doesn't approve of, and always expresses that disapproval in the most hyperbolic and apocalyptic way possible and with the maximum amount of bad faith, is someone who others will regard as either an asshole or a lunatic, or both.

[Brett Bellmore]

They've been screaming at the top of their lungs, because she's been getting away with this crap since Little Rock, and you get frustrated when somebody doesn't even have to pretend to be law abiding in order to stay out of jail.

Seriously, having the Rose law firm billing records show up magically on a table in the map room, a couple days after the statute of limitations expire? After that, I'll excuse people for screaming. This woman is like an Ayn Rand villian come to life, she's so over the top.

[wj]

Just a way to blame your pre-existing disinterest in abuses by your side on the other side.

Regard it that way if you like. (Although I would note that I am among those who really, really doesn't want to see Hilary as President.) But as cleek notes, it really is going to have an impact on those who are not already of the same massive reflexive antipathy.

Now maybe you don't care about that. Nor about the detail that having everybody else start tuning you out is likely to enhance her chances of winning. Not to mention causing real scandals to be ignored. But that IS what is happening.

[Countme-In]

Which Ayn Rand villian?

[cleek]

of course she is. of course.

please GOP, please, get the word out that it's 1996 again and that all campaign messaging needs to be tightly focused on Whitewater and, even better, Monica Lewinsky.

that's what people really care about. that's what will guarantee your electoral success.

trust me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, I don't think any of these scandals are going to have much impact on her chances, because most of the MSM are just Democratic operatives with bylines. They won't cover anything that really hurts her.

What's really going to kill her chances is that she's just flat out unlikable.

But that's assuming she means to be President. I think she just wants to run for the opportunity to launder some of those billions into her own pocket.

[wj]

If she doesn't mean to be President, what do you suppose will happen if she wins? Besides apoplexy

Because, let's face it,
a) there doesn't look to be anyone on offer who will take the Democratic nomination from her this time. Much as we might wish someone would appear. And
b) if there is a potential (and nominatable) Republican candidate who would be able to beat her, it isn't obvious who it might be. No matter how unlikeable she is.

You can blame b) on a partisan MSM if you like. But it remains the case.

Or do you see someone that you believe could win the nomination and then beat her -- in spite of what he would have to say and do to get the nomination? If so, pray tell Who?

[cleek]

because most of the MSM are just Democratic operatives with bylines

of course they are. of course.

what isn't right and proper must be a conspiracy against the right and proper.

[Brett Bellmore]

The new host of Face the Nation was advising Obama not so long ago to prioritize destroying the GOP, just totally illegitimizing them, over actually accomplishing anything.

The interviewer who got in a huff with Rand Paul is married to a Democratic activist.

Donations from people identifiable as working for media outlets in the US run 10-1 or more Democratic.

Or I could bring up Journolist.

Yes, they are mostly just Democratic operatives with bylines.

A. Yeah, your bench is patheticly shallow, isn't it? It may be that Hillary, as revolting as she is, is the best you've got.

B. I think several of the people talking about running, or who've thrown their hats in the ring already, have the potential to beat Hillary. IF, that is, the GOP establishment doesn't adopt their usual stance of sabotoging any candidate who they don't own. Fratricide is her best hope.

[wj]

Brett, could you perhaps offer a (partial) list of candidates with that potential? Because I confess I am not seeing anyone that seems at all likely, and obviously you do. Thanks

[cleek]

Yes, they are mostly just Democratic operatives with bylines.

you named two people. that list needs to be a bit longer before you get anywhere near 'many', let alone 'most'. and if you ask the journalists themselves, not even a plurality consider themselves Democrats.

always with the conspiracies.

[cleek]

italiexo

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the best prospect is probably Scott Walker, who has demonstrated the capacity to win state-wide office in a state which generally trends Democratic in Presidential elections, and isn't afraid of a fight.

I like Paul, but I'm not going to let that fool me into thinking he's ready for the Presidency. But with some time in the VP slot he might become ready.

I somewhat dislike Cruz and Rubio, (Seem squishy on illegal immigration.) but likewise, don't think I should fool myself that they aren't popular.

At this point my ideal ticket would be Walker for President, and Paul for VP. You should have executive branch experience before becoming President, it's not a starter job.

[Brett Bellmore]

Jeb Bush seems the most likely puppet for the party establishment to try to annoint, but I don't think Republican primary voters are going to permit it. He doesn't even qualify as "squishy" on illegal immigration, he's firmly on the wrong side. And the previous Bushes soured Republicans on the name.

[wj]

cleek, both you and Brett could be correct. Yes, really.

Suppose there are 100 MSM journalists (scaling up to actual numbers). Of those, 11 contribute to political parties/campaigns -- 10 to Democrats and 1 to Republicans.

At that point it is true that journalists contribute to Democrats over Republicans at a ration of 10 to 1 -- just like Brett said. And it is also true that the vast majority of journalists do not consider themselves (and are not) politically partisan -- just like you said.

It's all in how you view the data.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or the vast majority make 'in kind' contributions, and figure they're good.

[cleek]

It's all in how you view the data.

this brings up the fact that we don't know if those are political reporters, sports writers, weather-persons, etc..

[wj]

Thanks, Brett.

I've got a somewhat higher view of Bush's chances than you do. But you could well be correct. Certainly he would have to follow in Romney's footsteps to convince Republican primary voters to support him. And doing so would make the general election harder. And his comment about being willing to lose primaries (but presumably not all of them) to win the general election suggests that he knows it.

I can see Walker winning the nomination. But I just don't see him winning the general election. Clinton could manage to lose it to him, of course. Certainly she has shown some aptitude for that.

But I think it would take some work. While Walker has won in a somewhat Democratic state, state elections tend to be focused on much narrower concerns than Presidential ones. Has Walker anything to offer on foreign policy, beyond "anything Obama has done I will reverse"? Has he any economic policies which differ from what McCain and Romney lost with? Feel free to educate me, but I'm not aware of anything on either front.

As you say, Paul at least offers some new ideas. But whether they would play with either the Republican base or the overall electorate is far from certain. And I suspect that the modifications he would have to make to win over one would tend to damage his chances of winning over the other.

Cruz is popular with the base, but hopeless beyond it. Just hopeless.

However Rubio might actually have potential. I'm not sure he is ready for prime time yet; but he has surprised on that score in the past, and could do so again.

[russell]

do fake twitter followers dream of electric candidates?

When Obama first ran for President, I sometimes amused myself by making up the most farcical conspiracy theories about him, then seeing how close those were to ones that were actually proposed.

My favorite one - that Obama was the love child of Malcolm X and Angela Davis - never really came up, but some others came pretty close.

What conspiracies about Hilary can we look forward to?

Monica Lewinsky was really having an affair with *her*, and Bill just took the rap?

Benghazi was really orchestrated by Clinton, to cover up her murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was her S&M love slave?

She is really a space alien sent to enslave the Earth, and the missing emails from her private server are encoded transmissions from Planet H?

You could do this for any of the candidates, really, but my money is on Clinton as far as inspiring the really outre examples.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with him being willing to lose primaries to win the general election, is that it seems to me he's likely to shed Republican votes faster than he gains Democratic votes, by leftward movement. Especially since, like his father and brother, he starts out towards the left side of the Republican party. He's already lost part of the party before he even starts.

They've tried that tacking to the left in the general election thing before, it never seems to work. They're probably going to have better luck trying for a high turnout of the base.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

The crazy conspiracy theories have taken a mortal blow since the Weekly World News stopped their dead-tree editions.

I, for one, plan on voting a straight "Bat Boy/Elvis" ticket in 2016.

[cleek]

My favorite one - that Obama was the love child of Malcolm X and Angela Davis - never really came up

not that at least one idiot didn't do her best to investigate it.

(warning: that post at that link rates a whopping 0.8 on my patented Time Cube Index of Crazy)

[wj]

They've tried that tacking to the left in the general election thing before, it never seems to work. They're probably going to have better luck trying for a high turnout of the base.

That "high turnout of the base" approach may (may) have been of some help to Obama originally. But it generally has not worked very well. And I can't really see it working all that well this time.

I guess we shall see in a couple of years if I'm right about that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think it's probably easier to get the guys on your side who are marginally motivated to turn out, than it is to get the guys on the other side to switch to you. But we will indeed see in a couple of years. Actually, in about 19 months.

We should have a good idea who the Republican nominee will be, and what his strategy will be, in not much over a year.

And, if Hillary is going to implode, she'd better do so soon, or you're going to be stuck with her.

[Ugh]

Why do we need any *new* conspiracy theories/scandals about Hillary? Seems they are already in plentiful supply.

Indeed, I'm sure once things really heat up even the Democratically controlled MSM will feel the need to "educate a new generation of voters" about all the scandals, etc., from 1993-2001.

[Brett Bellmore]

We don't need any new scandals, frankly. But tell her that, she seems to insist on generating new ones anyway.

I mean, seriously, that email thing? I can't think of even one *good* reason she'd pull a stunt like that. The *bad* reasons are only too obvious.

That's what I mean when I say she's like an Ayn Rand villian. Just too over the top, you expect real villians to be more subtle. I suppose it's wrong to expect that, subtle villians you probably don't realize are villians in the first place.