HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Monday, June 08, 2015

 
The derpiest thing you will read all week

by digby

Krugman talks about economic derp in his column today and it's quite entertaining. For those who don't know, he defines derp this way:
Derp” is a term borrowed from the cartoon “South Park” that has achieved wide currency among people I talk to, because it’s useful shorthand for an all-too-obvious feature of the modern intellectual landscape: people who keep saying the same thing no matter how much evidence accumulates that it’s completely wrong.
It's a good column, well worth reading all the way through.

I thought I'd also share some first class journalistic derp from "First Read":

On Sunday, the New York Times observed that Hillary Clinton plans to follow Barack Obama's general-election playbook -- competing in the same battleground states Obama contested (and mostly won) in 2008 and 2012. But that means not playing in some of the southern states that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 (like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Kentucky). David Plouffe, Obama's former top political strategist, summed it up this way: "If you run a campaign trying to appeal to 60 to 70 percent of the electorate, you're not going to run a very compelling campaign for the voters you need." In today's highly polarized political world, this is how you win elections -- by motivating your base and by recognizing there are few swing voters left. But it also makes governing harder, especially when the parties are trading electoral victories every two years (with Democrats benefitting from presidential turnouts, and with Republicans benefitting from midterm turnouts). When you have data-driven candidates appealing to win 51% of voters, it means that a president's job-approval rating is never going to get much higher than that, and it means that bipartisan policy goals (like the TPP free-trade agreement) are the exception rather than the rule.


Of course, there's a chicken-or-the-egg question here: What came first -- this red-blue campaign strategy we've seen since 2000, or America's political/geographical/cultural polarization? There's a strong argument to be made that it's the latter. Campaigns see an America more polarized than ever, and winning is all about coming out ahead in this polarized world. But it makes governing harder than it already was. Bottom line: Campaigns don't engage in persuasion anymore. They simply look for unmotivated like-minded potential voters and find an issue to motivate them. And if someone wins office by not having to persuade a voter who actually swings between the two parties, there isn't any motivation for said elected official to compromise. This cycle of polarization will continue until someone wins a massive election based on a different premise.

Can you see the fallacy there? I knew that you could. Take a look at this chart of presidential election winners sorted by percentage of the popular vote:



There are 57 presidential elections in total in that chart. (I am showing the top 24 winners of the popular vote totals.) You will notice that both George W. Bush's second term in 2004 and both of Barack Obama's elections in 2008 and 2012 are in that top 24. That would indicate that the period between 2000 and today is not marked by particularly narrow margins historically speaking. They aren't in the top ten like Johnson or Roosevelt. But they're comfortably in the middle of the presidential popular vote total derby. (Or should I say 'derpy.")

The point is that their implication that neither Bush or Obama had a mandate because they appealed to their own base is just nonsense. They both had mandates in those elections because they got a majority of the American electorate to vote for them. It wasn't a huge majority in either case, but it was a majority that fits right in the middle of presidential popular vote totals.  If you want to look at some hubristic claims of mandates, you need to go back to Bush's boasting in 2000, when he didn't win the popular vote at all. In fact, that's the one time I can think of a president making a completely empty claim to one based up on the narrowest of victories --- one given to him by his brother's political machine and a partisan Supreme Court majority. Other than that, all presidents have a right to claim their mandate based upon winning the election, period.  (And by  the way, Ronald Reagan got less than Bush 2004 or Obama in 08 and 12 in 1980. Yet, I've never heard anyone claim that he didn't have a mandate.)

As for whether the country is "polarized" because it's polarized, well, it's nice of them to acknowledge that this might not be because politicians are crudely ignoring the Great Independent Voter who represents What Real America Wants for once. Baby steps. But the fact that they even lamented that "campaigns don't engage in persuasion anymore" tells us that haven't given up their precious derp just yet.

Yes, there is little room for compromise when one party refuses to acknowledge that presidents of the other party are legitimate. And it's hard to find consensus when one party is answering to bunch of throwback extremists who've been brainwashed by billionaire run media companies to believe that democracy means that they have the right to flout any norms, rules or laws and use any means necessary to get their way. That little "problem" wasn't caused by the Democrats who spent decades kissing the rings of conservative voters and have only come around to the fact that these miscreants would prefer to  blow up the country rather than give an inch.  It took them too long to figure that out, but at least they seem to have awakened from their slumber. The media is still dreaming.


.