Why Are the Midterm Elections Turning Off Voters? (Hint: It Involves Dildos)

Here's the situation a week and change before the midterm elections:

Obama'sapproval rating recently hit an all-time low of 40 percent and the Democratic Party's approval rating is at a 30-year low of just 39 percent. Most analysts now give the Republicans a 55 percent to 76 percent chance of winning the Senate. That's despite the fact that Republicans' approval ratings, at just 33 percent, are even lower than Obama's or the Democrats'.

I've got a Daily Beast column up that ties voter disaffection to the stunning and persistent unwillingness of Democrats and Republicans to talk about anything really substantive. Faced with voter antipathy, itself a product of political silliness, candidates are doubling down on shambolic issues. To wit:

When faced with a demotivated electorate, there's no reason to talk seriously about policy. The smart play is to fire up your party's faithful and try not to be as hateable as your opponent, which is actually more difficult than it seems for most politicians. Consider fading Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, best known for holding her bladder during an 11-hour, completely symbolic pro-choice filibuster in the Texas Senate and becoming the darling of progressive Democrats all over the country. Her campaign actually sent out a press release hyping an article about her opponent that was headlined "Greg Abbott: Dildos? Against 'em. Interracial Marriage? No Comment." Forget that the Anglo Abbot is married to a Latina. This jibe comes after ads in which Davis attacked the paralyzed Abbot for not caring about other wheelchair-bound Texans.

The most serious candidates in the midterms are folks such as Sean Haugh, a Libertarian is running for Senate in North Carolina, who is "pro-choice" and "anti-war" on everything. He's more than covering the spread between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican challenger Thom Tillis.

Read the whole piece here.

Howze bout it Reason readers: Are you voting on November 4? If so, who for and why?

Comments

[Notorious G.K.C.]

" But even a nation of idiots that is paying Social Security to Nazi war criminals deserves better" etc.

First off, I don't think these alleged National Socialist criminals have been convicted of anything.

Second off, they paid into the system, and if Social Security was actually an insurance program, as advertised, they should be entitled to benefits.

Of course, Flemming v. Nestor (involving Communist deportees) said Soc Sec is *not* an insurance program, but I thought that people here saw Flemming v. Nestor as the abomination it is.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Of course, if they're *convicted and fined,* the fines should be paid off out of their Soc Sec benefits.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

According to the AP, "because their crimes were committed outside the U.S. and almost always against non-Americans, Nazi suspects could not be tried in U.S. courts."

Instead, the US initiated denaturalization proceedings against National Socialist immigrants who lied about their past in order to obtain citizenship.

Sometimes the cases proceeding to a decision, sometimes not. But denaturalization is not a criminal proceeding, the defendants are not fined - and even non-Americans can collect Soc Sec if qualified, as these guys were.

Here's the difference between National Socialist justice and American justice: National Socialists act by executive and administrative edict, taking away people's rights whether they've been convicted of a crime or not. In American justice, punishment must be preceded by a criminal conviction.

Do we want to adopt National Socialist justice to go after National Socialists?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....TE=DEFAULT

[PM]

Here's the difference between National Socialist justice and American justice: National Socialists act by executive and administrative edict, taking away people's rights whether they've been convicted of a crime or not.

I'm not sure if collecting social security could really properly be called a "right". Actually I am sure. Doesn't justify doing away with due process protections, of course. But when we're talking about the state-granted privilege of intergenerational theft, let's make sure we use the appropriate language to describe it.

[Suthenboy]

"Do we want to adopt National Socialist justice to go after National Socialists?"

That depends. Do we have a pen and a phone?

[sasob]

Do we want to adopt National Socialist justice to go after National Socialists?

As in "give them a taste of their own medicine"? Frankly, I'm tempted to say yes.

[Acosmist]

If only the Nazis had killed as many as the Commies, it would be ok to give them Social Security. But they were only mostly as bad, so fuck 'em.

[Acosmist]

Voters are turned off because they're voting R? Oh. OK then.

[OneOut]

That comment sums this article to a T.

[Ken Shultz]

Voting in California is like being in an Alien movie.

No one can hear you scream.

[Response]

Yep, I live in CA. My vote doesn't matter. But I vote anyway... for practice.

[Heroic Mulatto]

From the hachet-job on Abbot:

It's especially odd because Abbott is himself married to a Hispanic woman?though the anti-miscegenation laws struck by Loving were particularly targeted to black-white relationships.

That is completely mendacious. There were never 'miscegenation' laws "particularly targeted to black-white relationships". All miscegenation laws prohibited marriages between Whites and Others. In states with these laws, Mr. Wong wasn't marrying Miss Smith either. Indeed, that's why the term 'colored' was used in the particular law challenged by Loving, as opposed to 'black'.

Now, I realize the author of the article is a 12-year-old boy; however, I would think such a precocious youth, who earned a bachelor's degree in History, would be sufficiently educated about this topic. Therefore, we can only conclude that he lied about the history and nature of American anti-miscegenation laws so that he could advance a particular agenda at the expense of Abbot.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

They want to impose their dogma that defending traditional marriage is the same as banning interracial marriage - and in the case of the Lovings, exiling them from their homes because they were the wrong race.

The thing is, if someone in 1967 had said that the logic of the Loving decision required same-sex marriage, the supporters of that decision would have gotten purple-faced with rage, saying that this was a racist distortion.

Indeed, if anyone had made such a comparison in 1967, that person would have been a racist supporter of the miscegenation laws.

[Ken Shultz]

Well if you let people do that, then you're gonna have to let them marry their dogs!

/culture warrior idiocy

[Heroic Mulatto]

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. In 1967, the Mattachine Society was almost 20 years old that point. I'm sure there were some in 1967 who were arguing for SSM with that very same logic.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

The goals of the society listed in that article don't expressly mention same-sex marriage.

[Ken Shultz]

But the argument that if you let people of different races marry, you're going to have to allow gay people to get married sounds an awful lot like that trope about how if you let gay people get married you're going to have to let people marry their dogs.

That slippery slope must have been slippery back in the '60s, too.

What I used to hear from my grandparents (one lived to be 88 and the other to 94) was that the prevailing logic among people who supported anti-miscegenation laws was that it was for the children. I gather that, especially under Jim Crow, raising a child with the expectations of being in one group but relegated to the actual "advantages" of the other was cruel. The child (so they said) would never be accepted as white, but would never feel completely black--in a legally segregated society either.

The idea of getting rid of segregation was more or less absurd--very few people thought that was possible.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"But the argument that if you let people of different races marry, you're going to have to allow gay people to get married sounds an awful lot like that trope about how if you let gay people get married you're going to have to let people marry their dogs."

OK, so you're saying there is no automatic connection between interracial marriage and SSM?

[Ken Shultz]

Logically, perhaps. The idea that you should be able to marry who you want applies to a lot of different things.

I don't think that's the process people went through, though. They didn't go, well, rationally speaking, if we allow people of different races to marry, it logically follows that...

People supported anti-miscegenation laws because they were racists. There were still plenty of people around who were not racist--but who were against gay marriage for other reasons. There are still plenty of black people who are against gay marriage for religious reasons. I think there are other reasons that people oppose gay marriage that aren't about religion either (taboos about gender roles, etc.).

Certainly, the legal support for gay marriage didn't materialize immediately after the anti-miscegenation laws disappeared. That took, what, another 40-45 years?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Yes, and then suddenly we began hearing that interracial marriage was totally the same as same sex marriage, an equivalence which had somehow escaped legal analysts for several decades but now to be imposed as dogma.

[Ken Shultz]

No doubt, the acceptance of one contributed to the acceptance of the other.

That acceptance traveled different routes, however, and overcame different obstacles.

Let me ask you this: Do you imagine that the acceptance of gay marriage will naturally result in people being free to marry their dogs?

Seems to me that there are still numerous obstacles to that--especially in terms of people's acceptance.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"Do you imagine that the acceptance of gay marriage will naturally result in people being free to marry their dogs?"

No. It naturally leads to violations of freedom of association and freedom of religion.

Because you can't fit a sheet of onionskin paper between the SSM movement and the "I want cake" movement.

[Ken Shultz]

Now that the SSM movement has, more or less, won, I suspect their political allegiances may diversify.

They certainly weren't about to go all in supporting tax and spending cuts so long as the major party catering to fiscal conservatives was also specifically campaigning on discriminating against them.

[PM]

Do you imagine that the acceptance of gay marriage will naturally result in people being free to marry their dogs?

I think the point he was making is that if you had asked anybody in 1967: "Do you imagine that the acceptance of interracial marriage will naturally result in homosexuals being free to marry each other?" it would have seemed every bit as absurd as the suggestion today that gay marriage will naturally result in people marrying their dogs. In the interceding 45 years, however, the argument that gay marriage and interracial marriage are morally and legally identical has become a central one of gay marriage proponents.

I personally doubt inter-species marriage will ever be a thing. Once the gays get their pony interest will be pretty well lost in the subject (including among libertarians) until fundamentalist Mormons and/or Muslims get popular enough to start demanding official recognition of polygamy. But you're making the same argument based on likelihood that could have been made about gay marriage when Loving was decided. It doesn't mean every slippery slope argument is valid, it's just a historical observation.

[Pulseguy]

I don't think there is even a bit of a doubt that SSM will lead to legal Poly Marriage.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

People supported anti-miscegenation laws because they were racists.

People support gay marriage bans for the same reasons. Wrap it up in any flag you wish to make yourself feelz better, but it's the same disgusting irrational hate.

[Ken Shultz]

Black civil rights people, who were/are publicly against gay marriage, would probably disagree with you about that being the exact same hate. Racism and homophobia may both be irrational hate, but they are irrationally hating two different things.

And, yeah, they may be irrational, but much of the world is. I can't think of anything more irrational than projecting rationality onto irrational people. If so many people in the world are irrational, then that's the world we have to contend with.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You contend with the irrational.

I'm going to make principled arguments based on...wait for it...reason.

Tenet 1

A person may do as they wish, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

[Ken Shultz]

I agree with that.

The question was how politicians, the law, and the general public came to accept these things.

Houyhnhnms, they're not.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The question was how politicians, the law, and the general public came to accept these things.

Because they have either no principles or the wrong principles.

Mine maximize liberty.

The trick is to convince people what the right principles are PRIOR to applying them to issues.

[Ken Shultz]

"Because they have either no principles or the wrong principles."

And yet they got rid of anti-miscegenation laws, and the prohibitions against gay marriage are falling down around us.

...all this despite not having Objectivist principles--or being especially rational.

Evolution makes mindless insects and fish organize themselves socially in rational ways. Mindless people aren't immune to these same forces. We continue to evolve socially today. The process by which that happens is really interesting.

And ignoring how irrational people find ways to organize themselves in rational ways is completely irrational. There's certainly no need to wait for people to become rational before we can effect rational change. I guess that's why I'll never be an Objectivist.

[PM]

Mine maximize liberty.

You're otherwise a great fella and a straight shooter, but on this particular issue your principles have really almost nothing to do with maximizing liberty and everything to do with maximizing equality of access (well, for at least one additional group anyway) to an institution that is almost the antithesis of liberty by its very definition. Legal equality is a fine and laudable goal, but you incorrectly conflate it with liberty. They aren't the same thing. At all. Legal equality is ensuring that, say, every contractor has an equal right to petition the state for a business license. Liberty is ensuring that no contractor ever has to petition the state for a business license. I'm sure you can draw the parallel to the relevant issue.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

your principles have really almost nothing to do with maximizing liberty and everything to do with maximizing equality

Respectfully PM, equality doesn't figure into my philosophy at all.

Two simple tenets:

1. A person may do as they wish, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

Negative rights are limitless, positive rights must be defined in a constitution.

It does maximize liberty. My ability to do as I wish is only constrained by my actions not harming another. AND, without government to protect my rights, I will lose them by force, however, if government is given ANY more power than Tenet 2 grants it, government will begin to inhibit liberty.

Following my two tenets has nothing to do with "equality" (although equality may be a byproduct), it has to do with not violating the rights of another.

[PM]

Eh, we've had this conversation before. Your tenets only make sense in this context if we think of a marriage license as a right. I'm of the persuasion that a marriage license is not a right in the legitimate sense of the term, because it is a positive rather than a negative right, and, IMO, not a legitimate function of the government in any case. I'm not unsympathetic to an argument from the standpoint of legal equality, but in terms of the civil construct of marriage I don't think liberty even enters the picture. It's a non-sequitur. Your tenets certainly apply to any sort of private arrangement or association that any 2 (or more) individuals might wish to partake in, but it's my opinion that you can't even really discuss liberty properly in the context of accessing a government license to obtain certain privileges.

[PM]

That having been said, I wasn't being facetious when I said you're an otherwise great fella and a straight shooter [no homo, nttawwt], I just happen to disagree with you on this particular argument.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I'm of the persuasion that a marriage license is not a right in the legitimate sense of the term, because it is a positive rather than a negative right, and, IMO, not a legitimate function of the government in any case.

We are agreed. Marriage is a positive right (as it exists today) and it breaks Tenet 2, and therefore is not moral and shouldn't exist as it does.

But the question isn't/wasn't whether marriage (in its current legal form) was proper. The question was whether gays can morally be prohibited from marrying.

If you are arguing that we can stop gays from marrying based on the illegitimacy of marriage, you MUST also argue to prohibit all couples from marrying. (And I'm guessing you are.?.?)

And thx. I feel the same of you.

[OneOut]

Get a room.

[Robert]

What distinguishes an edict saying 2 people of the same sex are legally married from one saying my note is legally a dollar?

[Pulseguy]

I've read some pretty strong rants from black people hugely offended that homophobia is as bad as racism.

In fact, I think it is probably worse. Other than you can hide if you're gay, you can't if you're black.

[bland]

but it's the same disgusting irrational hate.

Is the disgust you feel the same as a the disgust a person might feel watching two men make out in public or is it a different type of disgust?

[Ken Shultz]

The kind of disgust you're talking about is personal--and you should be free to feel whatever you like.

I think the kind of disgust he's talking about is the kind when you take your qualitative preferences and use the coercive power of government to inflict them on other people who don't share your preferences.

You see the difference, right?

[Ken Shultz]

P.S.

I hate butternut squash.

The mere sight of it makes me want to wretch.

BLECH!

[Migrant Log Picker]

Squash sucks, so I hate Pocohontis....lacist.

[bland]

You see the difference, right?

No. His disgust is just as personal.

I think the kind of disgust he's talking about is the kind when you take your qualitative preferences and use the coercive power of government to inflict them on other people who don't share your preferences.

So he also is disgusted by the people pushing for SSM or transexual locker room preferences?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

No. His disgust is just as personal.

You can be disgusted as much as you want, about whatever you want. So long as you don't attempt to force your beliefs upon others.

[Homple]

"You can be disgusted as much as you want, about whatever you want. So long as you don't attempt to force your beliefs upon others."

Which is why we shouldn't object to those who want to marry their dogs.

[Ken Shultz]

"So he also is disgusted by the people pushing for SSM or transexual locker room preferences?"

Not sure I understand what you're saying, but if you're suggesting that the government also shouldn't force, say, girls in high school locker rooms to suffer the presence of male to female transexuals?

To whatever extent the libertarians in this room disagree on that issue, both sides will base their arguments on government coercion.

Some will say that the government shouldn't force people who self-identify as female to go into a male locker room. Some may say that the government shouldn't force girls to share a locker room with someone who is really a male.

Sometimes our rights overlaps and conflict with each other. You'll find libertarians on both sides of the abortion issue for that reason. This would be another one of those issues.

Almost all libertarians would point out that if the government weren't in the business of public schools, it wouldn't have to force anybody to do anything. The tuition paying parents and business that educates their children would work it out for themselves.

Most libertarians agree that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage either. And there wouldn't be much of a gay marriage controversy if it weren't.

[bland]

Sometimes our rights overlaps and conflict with each other.

What rights? The right to have your every whim catered to. Public bathrooms exist. Access must be administered with some rules and regulations. Segregation by genitalia is perfectly reasonable and in itself does not violate any rights. Except for the right that everyone must play along with someone else's fantasies.

[Ken Shultz]

What rights?

The right to personal autonomy. The right to make choices for yourself. Sometimes people's rights conflict with each other.

"Public bathrooms exist. Access must be administered with some rules and regulations."

When you say "public bathrooms", do you mean in facilities that are "owned" by the government, or facilities that are open to the public?

Has this become a major issue somewhere--outside of transsexuals in public high schools?

If so, it's the first time I've heard about it. Seems to me that hundreds of millions of Americans have been doing a pretty good job of sorting themselves into the appropriate restrooms for a really long time.

[Pulseguy]

It was a legal issue in my city. A gay bar for lesbians had transexuals using the women's washrooms. The bar refused to let them, and a catfight ensued. Along with legal fighting. I think the bar was sued by the offended trans, and the lesbian customers who for awhile were using a public/private washroom with those with male genitalia.

This being Canada it turned out the business was wrong to let the trannies use the women's washroom, and also wrong to change their mind and let them. The business had to pay compensation to both.

[Ken Shultz]

That's too bad.

If customers don't like a business owner's restroom policies, they should go somewhere else.

[Migrant Log Picker]

That so sums up where we are, had a good laugh.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Is the disgust you feel the same as a the disgust a person might feel watching two men make out in public or is it a different type of disgust?

You don't have a right to be comfortable if it's dependent upon requiring others to modify their harmless behavior to accommodate you. See Tenet 1.

If you don't like what you see...simply don't look.

[bland]

If you don't like what you see...simply don't look.

Yes, but is looking away a disgusting and irrational act? Is it similar to the disgusting irrationality of someone who opposes SSM?

[Ken Shultz]

One of those things uses the coercive power of government.

The other one doesn't.

Do you honestly not see which is which?

I think butternut squash is disgusting. And I'm really vocal about it. I wince, and make nasty faces whenever I see anyone eating or serving it.

That's different from using the coercive power of government to stop other people from eating, though, isn't it?

[bland]

One of those things uses the coercive power of government.

SSM and now transexual recognition demands are recent phenomena within society. It it the people pushing for such things that are forcing their preferences on everybody else. The people in opposition are trying to defend against this imposition.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

SSM and now transexual recognition demands are recent phenomena within society. It it the people pushing for such things that are forcing their preferences on everybody else.

They don't get to make demands that depend upon the actions of others. See tenet 1.

[Ken Shultz]

"It it the people pushing for such things that are forcing their preferences on everybody else."

Being gay married isn't forcing you to do anything.

In the recent case of the baker who was sued because he refused to cater a gay wedding, I don't think there was a single libertarian around here that wasn't against that.

We support the right of Christians to make choices for themselves, too.

Apart from that, the fact that two gay people are married--instead of not--doesn't force you to do anything.

You weren't about to try to pass laws against gay people showing affection to each other in public, were you? Do you think the government should arrest or ticket gay people for kissing in public, where you can see it?

[Ken Shultz]

"Yes, but is looking away a disgusting and irrational act? Is it similar to the disgusting irrationality of someone who opposes SSM?"

You should be free to feel whatever you want to feel, and say what you want to say about it, too.

You should be free to tell gay people that God is going to throw them into a fiery pit--if that's what you want to do. ...and there aren't many libertarians here who wouldn't defend you if the government came along and tried to stop you from saying that.

It's using the government to discriminate against gay people that's the problem. You should be free to feel about gay marriage and say what you like about it, too.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

But the argument that if you let people of different races marry, you're going to have to allow gay people to get married sounds an awful lot like that trope about how if you let gay people get married you're going to have to let people marry their dogs.

And why, exactly, would I care if someone wants to marry their dog?

[Ken Shultz]

You probably shouldn't, but that argument resonated with a lot of other people.

So much so that I saw it all over the interwebs.

Google gay marriage + dog

[NotAnotherSkippy]

The dog argument is reducto ad absurdum. A better question to ask is if you support SSM, do you support multiple marriages? But that's absurd, right?

Actually, I expect you are fine with polygamy(andry), but you and I both know that there is a significant population--almost certainly a majority--who supported SSM and would completely oppose having more than one spouse at a time.

And supporting SSM for reasons of liberty is making a tradeoff. You are increasing the liberty of those getting married and decreasing the liberty of the rest of the population by entitling the former group to their labor either in the form of wedding cakes and photographs or through their taxation to support these expanded entitlements. You think the tradeoff is worth it and that's fine, but don't neglect to mention that there is a tradeoff.

The solution that makes sense to me is getting government completely out of the marriage business. Thank you fellow Reason commentards for that one.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

but you and I both know that there is a significant population--almost certainly a majority--who supported SSM and would completely oppose having more than one spouse at a time.

I'm sure there are. And that's why you make the argument based upon principle rather than feelingz. If the guiding principle is that people can do as they choose provided they do not violate the rights of others, the position remains consistent. If you can convince people that your principles are sound before applying them to individual issues you will have an easier time convincing them to change their minds on the issues.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

You think the tradeoff is worth it and that's fine, but don't neglect to mention that there is a tradeoff.

Missed this part.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Missed this part.

No, I didn't. There is no tradeoff. Allowing gays their liberty doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever. Allowing gays to marry doesn't make them a protected class. That is an entirely different issue.

ANd I'm already on record as believing married people shouldn't be entitled to fuck all.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

I don't need that in my search history.

[Robert]

I think you'd care if you had a hotel with a families-stay-free rule and a no-dogs rule. No dogs allowed? Tough, he's my husband.

[gaoxiaen]

She's my bitch.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Seriously, what do you think the people crusading against miscegenation laws at the time would have said if some Grand Kleagle had proclaimed, "the next step is allowing the gays to marry each other!"

[Ken Shultz]

"I've got a Daily Beast column up that ties voter disaffection to the stunning and persistent unwillingness of Democrats and Republicans to talk about anything really substantive."

Establishment Republicans not talking about anything that's really substantive is why they're likely to do okay. When they talk about something "substantive", they're talking about guns, gay marriage, abortion, or shooting at Muslims.

If there were some Republicans talking about something genuinely substantive, like cutting spending, getting rid of ObamaCare, deregulation, or tax cuts, etc., the Democrats would paint them all as a bunch of lunatics--and the establishment Republicans would join right in with the bashing.

I'm just hoping for a significant check on Obama from the Senate. The substantive battle comes in 2016. Until then, the Republican party is lead by John Boehner, whose interests are only the same as mine insofar as he opposes Barack Obama--and I have big doubts about how much he really does that.

[Stickler Meeseeks]

^^^THIS

[OneOut]

Yes. The Rs are doing right by keeping their mouths shut about specifics.

When your opponent is trying to hang himself you should always give them some rope.

[american socialist]

So, you guys are fine with a politician who doesn't say what he intends to do because he or she is fundamentally dishonest about what they intend to do. How very straussian... Those common folks and their democracy... What a bunch of nonsense. We need a benevolent plutocracy.

[Ken Shultz]

"So, you guys are fine with a politician who doesn't say what he intends to do because he or she is fundamentally dishonest about what they intend to do."

You're surprised that libertarians accept that politicians are fundamentally dishonest--really?!

[Pope Jimbo]

Fuck, they are on to us!

[PapayaSF]

Ha. I think the text is based on an H+R comment by John, which got picked up by Instapundit, and it's now a meme. Congratulations, John!

[shamalam]

Awesome, John!

[El Oso]

Voted for that fellow Nixon in my first election. Have regretted it ever since, and have decided that voting is a fool's game.

[AlmightyJB]

I usually try and put off the vomit inducing process of figuring out which criminal I'll be voting against as long as possible. In some races I probably won't be able the pull the lever for either/any of the criminals because I would just feel too dirty. I would say in most cases I do end up voting against the democrat but certainly not all. I would take a severe beating and still not vote for Mike DeWine (R) for Ohio Attorney General. I really, really hate that guy. Not sure about his opponent. Gridlock will sometimes be my strategy when it makes sense. It's extremely rare to find a candidate that I feel good about voting for. I'll start looking at the candidates next week some time.

[wadair]

Don't for sure who I will vote for, but it won't be Wendy Davis.

Last week someone rang my doorbell while I was preparing dinner. So I went to the door to tell them I was busy and uninterested in whatever they were peddling. When I opened the door, I noticed their "Vote for Wendy Davis" lapel button so I yelled: "I'm not voting for Wendy Davis." They walked away without saying a thing.

[PM]

I already voted early. There's some state ballot measures that I'm concerned about. My state has no senators up for election, my congressional district is a Democratic lock, and the Republican incumbent governor was enjoying a 25 point lead in the last polling I saw. All but 1 of the local offices in the tiny little town I live in were single-candidate or single-party races. So all in all I pretty much voted, probably in futility, to keep from imposing a 2% gross margin tax on state businesses and to keep from overturning state constitutional caps on taxes for mining interests.

[Stickler Meeseeks]

Sooooo, you're saying dildos are a turn OFF.

[deepspeed]

I've decided to "throw my vote away" on Sean Haugh. I very much want Hagan gone, but once I saw Tillis palling around with McCain, I realized I couldn't vote for him.

[DrAwkward]

I'm in NC too, but voting for Haugh will not get Hagan out of there. She is way too putrid for me to cast a symbolic vote for Haugh.
This is such a tight senate race, do you really want to help Kay Hagan?

[deepspeed]

I consider voting for Haugh a principled choice rather than a symbolic gesture. I certainly don't want to help Hagan, but I can't in good conscience vote for Tillis.

[RBS]

So, here in SC the R's big campaign slogan is Keep SC Red... Anyway, I might actually vote this year since there is a Libertarian running for Governor.

[juris imprudent]

OT: Paul Begala gets the vapors about an Ernst comment on guns:

"Since you brought it up, exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or a soldier in the head?"

Well Paul, I would say it is perfectly acceptable to do this when that police officer has dynamically entered my home in full black ninja gear, or, when that brave man in blue has just executed one of my dogs on my own property. Yes, indeed, putting a bullet into such a shit-head's brain may be the ONLY appropriate response.

[AlmightyJB]

It's funny how he mentions the forefathers with such obliviousness to the fact that they created this country by shooting the King's soldiers. That is why there is a second amendment. I mean are these people really that stupid?

[juris imprudent]

He's a little old to pull the Ezra Klein bit, isn't he?

[american socialist]

"Are you voting on November 4? If so, who for and why?"

I'm going to vote for jerry brown and ca Democrats-- you know, because they can actually pass a budget and don't jump up and down and threaten to shut down the government when they don't get what they want. In other words, I tend to vote for grown-ups

[AlmightyJB]

Lol.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Silly rabbit, pension obligations are for kids!

[american socialist]

Well, since pension obligations are about 3% of the total budget I don't worry that much about it. But I suppose California's budget situation would be made better by right-wing grandstanding about jobz creatorz and how California's workers should move to ugly sprawling crime-infested cities in Texas in order to work in exploding factories. I say fuck that... If you want to move to Red State shitholes that's your problem.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Things are AWESOME in CA. Nope, no problem at all. None.

Texas sure can't compete with Oakland or or Stockton. Maybe they could if they banned guns, though.

[juris imprudent]

If I were still in California, I'd vote straight Dem too - the sooner they drag that state down on top of them, the better.

[american socialist]

There sure are a lot of people that want people to be miserable because they disagree with someone's politics. You'll surely be unhappy to learn that now that California has people in the legislature that actually want to govern we went from a $25 billion dollar deficit to a surplus. Bad news, I know.

I checked out your BRC pictures. I went there way way back. I stopped going because there were too many annoying shitheads that didn't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Has this been your experience?

[juris imprudent]

California has hollowed out the middle class, so if you are hanging in you are either pretty well off or poor.

Burning Man has an interesting mix of people, and yep, some are annoying. Fortunately a lot of annoying people end up saying "I went there way back when and stopped going..."

[Robert]

I'm voting for myself (C,R) for NY assembly, AD80. I'm told my interview on a NPR feature story has aired.

Robert Goodman

[gabbygripagf]

my roomate's aunt makes $62 hourly on the laptop . She has been unemployed for seven months but last month her paycheck was $19618 just working on the laptop for a few hours. look at this web-site...

????? http://www.netjob70.com

[Homple]

The candidates could excite the voters by debating real serious stuff, like legalizing pot. Or food trucks, maybe.

[american socialist]

"Wendy Davis, best known for holding her bladder during an 11-hour, completely symbolic pro-choice filibuster in the Texas Senate and becoming the darling of progressive Democrats "

So, nick, libertarians should vote for the politician that wants to end access for women who want to get an abortion?

[AlmightyJB]

So if elected Senator, Abbott is going to overturn Roe v Wade? Oh No's! He must be stopped. How many decades after legal abortion are you going to keep using this scare tactic?

[american socialist]

So people driving 200 miles to jackson, Mississippi to get an abortion and then having sanctimonious religious extremists making me wait a weekend to have the procedure done is a figment of my imagination? I'm for personal liberty. What are you for?

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Except when it comes to deciding what to put in your own body or keeping your own money. Then that liberty thing is really an inconvenient bunch of nonsense.

[AlmightyJB]

Does that happen to you every wekend?

[The artist known Dunphy]

Decision coming soon for Ferguson and let's get ready for emotion to trump reason (drink) and I pray for Ferguson and specifically for its officers because they are going to have some serious absurd violence to deal with if the Jury comes down without a true bill

SJW's will be frothing at the mouth

Patronizing racist progressive pundits will be spouting nonsense. Maybe Al Sharptom can invite some more murder even without the jooooooooooooooooos to blame! Heck, has anybody checked? Does OFC Wilson 'light the menorah' to quote Adam Sandler?

At the centre is an officer that the physical evidence and witness testimony overwhelmingly suggests acted reasonably in response to a threat from a violent piece of shit thug

[ChrisN]

My choices:

1. Rod Blagojevich for PRES 2016!. Blago's got it all, and f**k you if you don' like that. What the f**k do you know about politics?

2. An iguana

3. The endearing chimney sweep and bootblack 'Poor lil Nigel Cumberbun' from Hothouse Theatre's production of Woodson & Yardley's "Londontown Flats" which got 3 stars in Assingham's Fleet Street Review & Dinner Guide.

TB, hunger, and the other 'Wharf Rats' ain't keeping this kid from his dreams.

[XM]

Unfortunately, Haugh not a serious candidate.

Robert Sarvis is (a former teacher and businessman) a good candidate. The pizza delivery man has achieved precious little in his life. Click on the "About me" section of his site, and you'll read gems like this

"I love living in Durham in part because it's a lot like living in Tulsa without having to live in Tulsa any more. These travels have made my accent rather thick and a tad unusual - an amalgamation of the Oklahoma and Piedmont drawls with a dash of Brooklyn Yiddish."

"My hobbies besides politics are cooking and baking, studying food as medicine, reading philosophy and history, listening to music, taking road trips across America, and fantasy football."

Are you writing a college admission essay or something?

And just recently he trashed the Koch brothers because a group funded by them ran an ad that urged Dems to vote for him. He's a little better than Christine O'donell.

[Mildred111]

my co-worker's mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

----------------http://shorx.com/onlineatm

[Mildred111]

my co-worker's mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

----------------http://shorx.com/onlineatm

[Mildred111]

Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

[Ken Shultz]

"Where does the Constitution protect equal rights for dogs?"

The point is that gay marriage--in most people's minds--has nothing to do with marrying your dog. ...it's just that there are some really confused echo chamber victims, out there, who made this an issue--in their own disturbed minds.

You're barkin' up the wrong tree.

Woof! Woof!

[Ken Shultz]

"Even the 9th and 14th Amendments, which forbid ALL levels of government from denying or disparaging gay marriage say "people"

You think you're all smart 'cause you finally uncovered our secret. But guess what? It's not a secret anymore. The cat's out of the bag? You think you finally figured it out?

It was ALWAYS about marrying our dogs--from DAY ONE.

Why can't you social conservatives just get out of the way and let us marry our dogs already? It's just a matter of time now. It's game over, and you lose.

ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF!

[american socialist]

He'll get 5% of the vote. This is a libertarian moment? I thought its just an election that no one cares about.

[Ken Shultz]

What the hell are you talking about?

[Ken Shultz]

When someone writes "/culture warrior idiocy", do you have any clue what that means?

If someone pitched you as a character at the The Onion, the editors would probably reject it for being over the top.

You're so fucking ridiculous, it isn't even funny.

[Ken Shultz]

Wow, the religious conservative and the socialist agree.

Is this another aspect of that Bootleggers and Baptists thing we keep hearing about?

http://mercatus.org/video/boot.....uce-yandle

I guess libertarians are a threat to both groups--and their ability to regulate our lives.

[american socialist]

We'll I consider myself a libertarian-- although, you know, not in a Jim jones way. I'm not religious myself, but the first people With whom I went to my first anti war in DC was with a progressive Catholic group so I have much respect. If I had a choice between a.)someone who takes the Sermon on the Mount as a literal truth and a way to live your life and b.) someone who, like me, thinks these stories are fairy tales AND thinks you should die quickly if you are poor and get sick, I'll take option a.

[The artist known Dunphy]

Jim Jones was an extremely far left progressive and a darling of the San Francisco political elite, with whom he hobnobbed

This is not controversial or arguable

Study history

This may help

Read Salon.com's article

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, Jim Jones was an atheist.

His whole idea was to use the auspices of a church to preach atheism and socialism.

"By the late 1960s, Jones began at least partially openly revealing the details of his "Apostolic Socialism" concept in Temple sermons.[14] Jones also taught that, "those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment ? socialism."[38] Jones often mixed these ideas, such as preaching that, "If you're born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you're born in sin. But if you're born in socialism, you're not born in sin."[39]

By the early 1970s, Jones began deriding traditional Christianity as "fly away religion," rejecting the Bible as being a tool to oppress women and non-whites, and denouncing a "Sky God" who was no God at all.[14]

....

Marceline Jones admitted in a 1977 New York Times interview that Jones was trying to promote Marxism in the United States by mobilizing people through religion, citing Mao Zedong as his inspiration.[37] She stated that, "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....ornia_Eden

There's a little kool-aid drinker in the heart of every socialist. They all want you to think that no one cares about you except for the government and that we all need to make sacrifices for the common good.

[american socialist]

My point was that I am not dogmatic. Maybe I should have said... I'm a libertarians but, you know, not in a Tim mcveigh way...

[juris imprudent]

Oh I bet you are every bit as libertarian as McVeigh was.

[SQRLSY One]

"If we let people smoke joints w/o punishing them, next thing ya know, they will be demanding their rights to MURDER other people"! ... Ah shits ye not, ah haz heard the like... You will NEVER go bankrupt, for over-estimating human stupidity!