Balkinization: Advice to Clinton (and To Obama Who Already Knows It): “Keep Your Sunny Side Up”

Advice to Clinton (and To Obama Who Already Knows It): “Keep Your Sunny Side Up”

Guest Blogger

Paul Finkelman

A year ago everyone assumed that by the early winter of 2008 Hillary Clinton would have locked up the Democratic nomination for president. She had money, name recognition, and a seemingly well-oiled machine. Now she is on the ropes, fighting to stay in the race. What happened?

Senator Clinton lacked one ingredient in the mix to make her a winner: the ability to project a sense of hope and optimism. I write this before the Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania primaries, so she may be able to turn this around. But, even if she wins the nomination, Senator Clinton needs to learn how to project a sense of hope and of a greater future for America if she is to win the general election. With the possible exception of Richard Nixon in 1968, every successful presidential aspirant since 1932 has been the more optimistic, hopeful candidate. Hope and a sense of a better future have been the key to electoral success. Senator Clinton should remember that in the depths of the Depression, with one third of Americans (more or less) out of work and hungry, Franklin D. Roosevelt campaign to the song “Happy Days Are Here Again.” It was little misleading – or at least a poor prediction. But it worked well.

Many things we might want in a president have not always been found in the winner.

Do we want the smartest candidate? Not likely. Herbert Hoover, a successful engineer, was probably brighter than the failed lawyer, Franklin Roosevelt. Thomas E. Dewey was surely better educated that Harry S. Truman. The erudite Adlai Stevenson could think rings around Dwight Eisenhower. Although many people would not want to admit it, Dick Nixon was no dummy. While not as sophisticated or urbane as John F. Kennedy, he might have been smarter. Nixon came up out of poor circumstances to be a star in law school and very smart lawyers, as well as a politician. That took brains. Putting together an academic bowl team? We would take Barry Goldwater, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and the Nixon of 1960, over Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Hillary Clinton is very very smart (so of course is Barak Obama), but being smart does not always get you elected president, especially if you convey to the electorate that you know you are smart. Intellectual hubris does not get you votes. Adlai Stevenson, Mike Dukakis, and John Kerry learned that the hard way.

The voters also don’t want too much honesty. That does not mean they want their candidates to lie. But the voters seem to prefer a hopefully optimistic program to the cold truth. Walter Mondale was honest in saying taxes would have to go up. It killed him at the polls. Herbert Hoover wanted to talk about the details of ending the depression, FDR just promised he would figure out how to do it, and only guaranteed the he would make sure prohibition ended. That was a policy all Americans could understand.

Knowing the most about the issues does not guarantee victory. Al Gore and Mike Dukakis were policy geeks. They lost. I am sure that Hoover and Nixon had a better grasp of the complexities of the government than did FDR and JFK. But, still all these policy wonks lost. George McGovern had elaborate plans to end poverty and the War in Vietnam, but his plans left us cold because voters don’t want to hear the details. H. Ross Perot kept telling us the “devil is in the details,” but what neither he nor Senator Clinton seem to understand is that the voters don’t want the details. Senator Clinton may know more about health care than Obama (and she may have even have a better program to offer us) but that has not impressed voters who zone out when the details are presented.

What voters want is to be reassured that the candidate cares about them, has the ability to accomplish something, and that the candidate will promise a better future. Bill Clinton, from Hope, Arkansas, understood that “hope” was the magic word. Senator Clinton, however, has been unable to convey a sense of optimism, of a better future, of “hope.” Jesse Jackson had no chance of getting the nomination when he ran, but he electrified Democrats – black and white – by urging them to “keep hope alive.”

Consider the elections from 1932 to 1996.

Hebert Hoover offered a dull, business-like determination to end the depression. His ideas were not wrong, but the technocratic engineer could not inspire anyone to hope for better times. Franklin Roosevelt never stopped smiling, offering a jaunty optimism. His theme song was “Happy Days are Here Again.” Roosevelt’s campaign had few concrete programs, and some, like his promise to balance the budget, were wrongheaded. His most specific program was that he would end prohibition. Otherwise, he ran on the promise of optimism and hope. On inauguration day he told Americans that they had nothing to fear “except fear itself.” Hungry, out of work Americans had pictures of FDR in their homes, knowing that he would lead them to a better time. The promise of hope, led to his reelection in 1936 despite the fact that the Depression had not been ended. Hope and trust carried FDR to two more electoral victories.

In 1948 Harry S Truman was supposed to lose. All the polls said so. But Truman was genuine; the voters trusted his plain spoken bluntness. “Give ‘em Hell Harry” promised people a “fair deal” in the wake of World War II. Truman was the guy next door you trusted – and the Army captain in World War I that the soldiers trusted. He inspired hope because of his own accomplishments and his willingness to speak truth to the people. Dewey, who did look like the little statue on the wedding cake, was unimaginative and offered little in the way of hope or a promise for a better country. He lost.

In 1952, for the first time in more than twenty years, there was no incumbent running. Adlai Stevenson was the darling of labor, intellectuals, and New Dealers. He was quick witted, wry, ironic, and thoughtful. He saw too many sides of the issues to inspire a sense of hope and prosperity. Had he been running for dean of some college he would have been a shoe-in. But he was no match for Ike. Being a general did not guarantee you would win the election. Certainly it did not help Winfield Scott. Nor did generalship guarantee presidential success once in office – just consider Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, or Benjamin Harrison. But Ike’s broad smile, his supreme self-confidence, and obvious leadership skills did inspire hope – hope that he would end the Korean War – which he did – and hope that he could help create a better economy – which he did not. But, he did inspire hope and it worked.

In 1960 there was a stark choice. On paper Nixon was the better candidate – with more experience and a better resume. But Kennedy offered hope and a sense of a better future. He won narrowly. Had he not been Catholic, he would doubtless have won with greater margins. Given the way Nixon later behaved in the White House, it is clear that the people made the right choice – to vote for the candidate of hope rather than the candidate with the best resume who appealed to our anger rather than our better instincts.

In 1964 the Republicans nominated the candidate of anger. Barry Goldwater wanted to dismantle social security, sell the Tennessee Valley Authority, and maybe use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. He had voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Lyndon Johnson offered the hope of what would become the Great Society. He won in a landslide. The Great Society did not fully come into being – Vietnam destroyed it. But remnants of it, like Head Start, remain his legacy of hope.

In 1968 the nation voted against the candidate of hope – the happy warrior – Hubert H. Humphrey. It was the only time since 1932 that the candidate of optimism lost to the candidate of anger. But, in some ways Nixon also offered hope. He promised to end the Vietnam War – he had a “secret” plan. That was enough for many people, fed up with Johnson’s war and his credibility gap. Humphrey could never figure out who he was that year, and the circumstances of his nomination were hardly hopeful. Gene McCarthy and the late Bobby Kennedy had won all the primaries. They were the candidates of hope and neither got the nomination. The stench of tear gas from Grant Park and the images of billyclubs in the hands of Mayor Daley’s police undermined the hopefulness of Humphrey’s campaign.

After 1972 the Democrats had a hard time focusing on hope. George McGovern promised an end to the Vietnam War, but most of his campaign focused on the negatives of American society. He was personally optimistic, but at the same time presented a moralistic, preachy tone. It was not the tone or message needed to unseat the relatively successful Nixon. McGovern lacked clarity of his vision and was bogged down in the details of his plans to end poverty. He was not a policy wonk, but at times came off a little like one.

Jimmy Carter, in 1976, did offer us hope that we could overcome the embarrassment and corruption of Nixon and Watergate. He was smiling, happy, and very human. His interview with Playboy defused much of the fears that many had about his self-consciously religiosity. His opponent was solid, and earned high marks for helping us move away from Watergate, but he also had no sense of vision or higher purpose. Faced with growing inflation, Ford offered us a slogan – whip inflation now – and a rather stupid WIN button. He had not program and no leadership. It is worth noting that in terms of resume, Ford should have been a great president. His many years in Congress taught him how Washington worked and how to get something through Congress. But, legislative experience did not translate into executive ability.

By 1980 Carter had lost any sense of purpose or vision. He was trapped in his own White House by his failure to deal with the Iraq crisis and with his vacillation and then failed effort to use force. With gasoline prices at record highs Carter’s only plan was to don a sweater and sit in front of a fireplace, urging Americans to lower their thermostats in the winter and raise them in the summer. This was neither hope nor leadership; it was not a plan. The Democrats almost dumped him for Ted Kennedy, who offered the promise of a hopeful future and a return to his brother’s vision. But the incumbent Carter beat Kennedy at the Convention. He then ran as a grim, angry, tired, and ineffective leader, humiliated by a revolution in Iran and stymied by an energy crisis. No wonder the nation embraced the smiling, self-confident Reagan.

Four years later Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes and make us pay for the sins of excess. It is hard to imagine a more uninspired campaign or one that was more destined to lose. Mondale’s preachy self-righteousness was no match for the Gipper’s smile, even if some of us suspect he was beginning to lose his focus. Reagan still offered the promise that it was “morning in America” and the future was grand.
George H.W. Bush did not inspire anyone. He should not have won. In fact, he did not so much “win” as Michael Dukakis lost. The Massachusetts governor promised competence and success. He was the candidate of the future: smart, technologically sophisticated, and above all, competent. It was a different kind of hope, but as America entered the technology age, it was a winning offer. There was just one problem: Dukakis’s campaign was incompetently run and managed. Rather than the technocratic whiz, he was saddled with his Alfred E. Newman impersonation in a National Guard tank. His campaign was clueless. He promised competence and could not deliver.

Bill Clinton avenged Dukakis, beating the incumbent Bush over a failed economy and a failed sense of promise. The first George Bush talked about “the vision thing,” but in fact he had no vision. Clinton offered up hope from his aptly named home town, Hope, Arkansas. He inspired Americans to believe that there was a better tomorrow while offering a level of technocratic competence. Four years later the Republicans were back in their “angry man” mode, with Bob Dole preaching about shame and the failure of the nation to appreciate the sacrifices of his generation. It is hard to imagine if Dole ever smiled in the campaign. He lost.

The message of these elections is that the candidate of hope is almost always successful. This is not always true in the primaries, where angry activists create candidates like Goldwater and McGovern who were simply unelectable. But in the general election, smiles and hope go a long way. Campaigns may still go negative, but the candidate must remain positive. The current president Bush brilliantly used others to go negative, as he smiled his way into the White House, beating better qualified, more competent, and brighter opponents. There is a lesson here.
I am not arguing that campaigns are only about hope and smiles. They are surely not, and I think in the Democratic primaries substance matters more than it does in the Republican primaries. Surely, as George W. Bush shows, not every hopeful, smiling candidate makes a good or competent president. But, candidates that can inspire hope and confidence are more likely to win. Some political scientist should do a study of smiles in the campaign. Someone should also study the rhetoric of hope and of a brighter future. My guess is that a pattern would emerge, tying success to those who give us a sense of a better tomorrow.

This should be a message for the Democrats this year. John Edwards refused to offer a message of hope or a better future. He asked Democrats to engage in class warfare. And he lost even though many thought he would be the best candidate in November. Senator Clinton has so far failed to inspire hope with her campaign. She knows the issues as well as anyone ever could. Her programs are smart and workable. On health care she has a great plan. She inspires many women who want a woman president, and many men as well for the same reason. But the inspiration does not come from her speeches and her campaign, but simply from who she is. This is not enough. The Democratic candidate should remember the words of the song writer Earl Burnett, and “Keep your sunny side up, up! Hide the side that gets blue.”

Posted 6:42 AM by Guest Blogger [link]

Comments:

"Consider the elections from 1932 to 1996."

But why skip 2000? Slightly less than a majority of voters and a 5-4 majority of SCOTUS bought into George W. What was the "hope" he projected? What was the "optimism" he projected? Whatever, look what we got. We may not want the smartest candidate. But do we want the dumbest?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:14 AM

Given their respective college experiences, the suggestion that Bush was the "dumbest" of the two, rather than merely the least articulate, is at least questionable.

# posted by

Brett : 7:21 AM

Shag asks what hope G.W. Bush projected in 2000. I would nominate "compassionate conservatism" for that role.

# posted by

Max Hailperin : 7:36 AM

While optimism usually triumphs over pessimism in Presidential campaigns, that is not always the case.

Was FDR optimistic on the stump in 1932? I recall he ran on balancing the budget, hardly gripping stuff. Most of the illustrations of FDR's optimism occurred after he was in office trying to rally the country. Consequently, FDR's reelection campaigns are a good example of optimism and ideas.

Dewey was sunnier than Truman, but could not pull off the upset in a Dem country.

Neither Eisenhower or Stevenson were very sunny. The war hero won over the professor and generally will every time.

JFK's win is usually offered as a good example of the optimism thesis, but his razor thin victory in what was still a Dem country may owe more to the Daley machine and appears to be an underperformance.

LBJ won by scaring the hell out of the country with the other guy.

Nixon won when the South left the Dem Party and went for Wallace. The country was not happy in 1968.

Nixon's landslide in 72 was LBJ's win in 1964 in reverse. McGovern scared the country.

Carter was not really an optimist, he just felt safe after the prior decade of turmoil.

Reagan was the most optimistic and charismatic candidate since JFK. However, he coupled that optimism with campaigns of pretty dramatic ideas. That was the difference between FDR and Reagan's transformative presidencies and JFK's 1960 squeaker.

George I won on Reagan's coattails. George I was a bureaucrat, not a sunny candidate.

Clinton studied and ran as Reagan lite. One can argue that his optimism was the reason the Dems broke their presidential losing streak.

However, Gore's popular vote win over George II does not recommend the optimism thesis. George II was the one running the optimism campaign while Gore became increasingly shrill as the vote neared.

George II won reelection because he was a war President. The optimism of the 2000 campaign was long gone by then.

The apparent Obama win over Clinton does support the optimism thesis. However, there is also a national fatigue with the Bushes and Clintons here which Obama's "change" rhetoric taps into.

However, optimism without FDR or Reagan beef usually only translates into less than 50% of the vote (see JFK and Clinton). Obama's change and working across the aisle rhetoric is likely to be far less effective against McCain, who unlike Obama actually has a track record of doing these things. If he wants to win in the general election, Obama is going to have to combine his optimism with ideas that actually sell with the voters.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:15 AM

In 2004, neither candidate expressed a genuinely hopeful vision for the future. Nevertheless, they both *asserted* that they were "the optimistic candidate" and that America is an "optimistic country" because this optimism-as-winning-formula trope has become political conventional wisdom. It inspires some awful tripe when politicians try to conform to it. Hopeful politicians can win, but not when it's part of a calculated political "formula".

# posted by

ADamiani : 10:35 AM

In 2004, the winning ticket was drawn by a candidate that projected the most fear mongering among the nation. And to response to brett, Bush is not an idiot, anyone trumping on his lack of collective intelligence is being inanely dishonest. But he is smart to run a company NOT to govern a nation. And the pronounced presenile dementia aggrandizes his lack of ability to be the most capable leader which pretty much allows the sycophants, advisers, and lobbyist to run the show.

P.S. Doesn't it bother anyone that these 4 remaining candidates are the best we got to offer? I am boycotting this election -- it's a macabre joke.

# posted by

Unknown : 11:28 AM

Nixon came up out of poor circumstances to be a star in law school and very smart lawyers, as well as a politician.

So you think that both the Old and New Nixons were very smart lawyers. Which one screwed up with Watergate?

# posted by

marcel : 12:49 PM

maybe optimism is the key to moving public opinion.

but thus far, I can't think of any issue on which Hillary has weighed-in, and, when she did so, public opinion moved a dot.

In that sense, Hillary is not qualified.

# posted by

redwood : 1:49 PM

Just a note: when you mention Carter failing to deal with the "Iraq crisis" circa 1980, did you mean to write the "Iran crisis"?

# posted by

LOTUSVILLE : 2:17 PM

An interesting analysis with one glaring error: Whatever one thinks of Al Gord's inept campaign in 2000, he did not "lose the election" to George W. Bush. Not only did he get more votes nationwide, but he would have taken Florida (and the presidency) as well if a) the Palm Beach registrar (a Democrat) had designed a better ballot--the evidence is incontrovertible that the "butterfly ballot" cost Al Gore the election; or b) if the Supreme Court had not shut down the recount and if there had indeed been a full state-wide recount of both "overvotes" and "undervotes." (The latter, I recognize, is more debatable; thus, I rely primarily on a).) I also leave out of the equation the fact that many military absentee ballots did not follow the precise letter of Florida's law or, of course, the scandalous excision of many Afridan-Americans from Florida's voting rolls.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 1:19 AM

"Whatever one thinks of Al Gord's inept campaign in 2000, he did not "lose the election" to George W. Bush. Not only did he get more votes nationwide"

Sandy, it does little good to state, after you've lost a game of baseball, that if it had been scored like golf you'd have won. Both candidates knew going in of the existence of the electoral college, if both candidates weren't trying to win in the electoral college instead of the popular vote, then one of them was a moron.

Furthermore, it's quite easy to paint "if not for" scenarios that enhance Bush's vote, too. "If only the networks hadn't called Florida before polls closed in the Panhandle.", to name just one. And that's just looking at Florida, Gore carried some states by very narrow margins, under questionable circumstances, too.

Focusing just on "If not for" scenarios that help your guy, and proclaiming he really should have won, is just confirmation bias.

Yes, Gore DID lose the election. Get over it.

# posted by

Brett : 7:54 AM

Sandy:

Your argument makes a number of assumptions:

Assumption 1: The percentage point of Florida voters without the mental wherewithal to mark a ballot once for the candidate of their choice were all Dems who intended to vote for Gore rather than the second or third candidate they marked the ballot for.

Assumption 2: The felons scrubbed from Florida's voter rolls were all African Americans and Dems who intended to go to the polls to vote for Gore. In fact, most of these felons were white and felons usually do not show up at the polls.

Assumption 3: The Dem voting officials in Palm Beach, Broward and Metro Dade were conducting an actual objective recount rather than manufacturing votes. In fact, the accounting firms hired by the press to recount the ballots after the fact could not find the votes being created by those Dem voting officials. The US Supreme Court stopped a fraud.

Assumption 4: The Gore campaign or the four Dems on the Florida Supreme Court who approved the selective recount for the Dem counties of Palm Beach, Broward and Metro Dade had any desire to perform a statewide recount in the more numerous GOP counties. Does anyone honestly think that the selection of only these counties was an accident?

Implied Assumption 5: Even if they were all Dems, it would have been a good thing to have felons and people too stupid to fill out a ballot deciding who would be President.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:22 AM

it would have been a good thing to have felons and people too stupid to fill out a ballot deciding who would be President.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:22 AM

Is that any different from counting your vote?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:42 AM

As a lawyer, I'm willing to concede that "Gore lost the election." As a political scientist trying to understand the behavior of the electorate, I make no such concession.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 12:30 PM

"As a lawyer, I'm willing to concede that "Gore lost the election." As a political scientist trying to understand the behavior of the electorate, I make no such concession."

The election did not exist distinct from the electoral system it was run under. Chiefly because the campaigns leading up to it were shaped by the electoral system they were trying to win under.

If, contrary to fact, the election had been run under a national popular vote system, instead of electoral college, both candidates would have run largely different campaigns. It is entirely possible, given that the popular vote was close as it was, and that Bush was more successful at doing what they were both attempting to do, that Bush would have won the popular vote. If that's what he had been trying to do.

On ANY basis, lawyer or political scientist, pretending that Gore won because he got the popular majority neither of the candidates were TRYING to get is coo coo for Coco Pops.

Stop rationalizing. Gore didn't win. Period, end of story.

# posted by

Brett : 7:44 PM

Brett:

Given their respective college experiences, the suggestion that Bush was the "dumbest" of the two, rather than merely the least articulate, is at least questionable.

Why one would use that rough metric (much less arrive at that opinion) is beyond me.

One could just look at the debates. Sure, "everyone knows" that Gore was just too wonkish, too intellectual, too "goody-two-shoes" or whatever pissed the media off so much. It was his bad point, Brett. Too damn accomplished for his own good, and a sighing and insufferable "know-it-all" to boot.

One could see that Dubya either didn't know things, lied, or both.

Subsequent events have borne this impression from back then out in spades; the folks that defend Dubya now aren't saying he's smarter than Gore; rather, he's more "resolute" or "decisive" or wears the biggest codpiece west of San Diego bay. But "smart"?!?!?, for the guy who's had the most disastrous (not to mention criminal) administration pretty much in all of history?!?!?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:23 PM

Aria:

And to response to brett, Bush is not an idiot, anyone trumping on his lack of collective intelligence is being inanely dishonest. But he is smart to run a company NOT to govern a nation.

Oh, he ran the companies he had into the ground too (along with some insider trading that his dad had the SEC wink at). The late, great Molly Ivins referred to him as the "only Texas oilman not to find oil in Texas"....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:29 PM

Prof. Levinson:

An interesting analysis with one glaring error: Whatever one thinks of Al Gord's inept campaign in 2000, he did not "lose the election" to George W. Bush. Not only did he get more votes nationwide, but he would have taken Florida (and the presidency) as well if a) the Palm Beach registrar (a Democrat) had designed a better ballot--the evidence is incontrovertible that the "butterfly ballot" cost Al Gore the election; or b) if the Supreme Court had not shut down the recount and if there had indeed been a full state-wide recount of both "overvotes" and "undervotes."

You left out "c) if there hadn't been systematic disenfranchisement of blacks in Florida thanks to Harris and Choicepoint/DBT. This has been well chronicled by Greg Palast.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:32 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

Your argument makes a number of assumptions:

Assumption 1: The percentage point of Florida voters without the mental wherewithal to mark a ballot once for the candidate of their choice were all Dems who intended to vote for Gore rather than the second or third candidate they marked the ballot for.

There's been statistical studies that have shown that some 18K votes went for Buchanan that are simply inexplicable in any other way. There's also been studies that have shown that such "butterfly ballots" are confusing (and in fact they are banned in numerous places, and AFAIK, now in Florida as well).

Assumption 2: The felons scrubbed from Florida's voter rolls were all African Americans and Dems who intended to go to the polls to vote for Gore. In fact, most of these felons were white and felons usually do not show up at the polls.

Greg Palast showed that the voter rolls were scrubbing thousands of people who were not felons, and inordinately balcks. See link above. The rest of your bald assertions are wrong as well.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:38 PM

"Bart":

Please stopmaking sh*te up.

Assumption 4: The Gore campaign or the four Dems on the Florida Supreme Court who approved the selective recount for the Dem counties of Palm Beach, Broward and Metro Dade had any desire to perform a statewide recount in the more numerous GOP counties.

There weren't "four Dems" on the Florida Supreme Court. The "contest" phase decision was as to whether the entire state should be manually recounted, and the majority-Republican Florida Supreme Court said "yes".

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:42 PM

I think this is the Palast link you meant to post.

Somewhat inaccurate, though it does recount the Democratic talking points. A list was distributed. The cover letter, as I recall, identified it as a list of names which elections officials were to investigate, not purge. Some officials blew off the investigation, and just went straight to the purge, clear malfeasance. But in most instances, especially where the officials were Democrats, the list was simply ignored. (Also malfeasance, purging the rolls IS one of their jobs.) No investigation, and a rather large number of genuine felons remained on the voting rolls.

And, according to an investigation by the Miami Herald, the result was a substantial number of felons illegally voting. We don't, of course, know who they voted for, but the fact that most of them were registered as Democrats IS suggestive...

My point remains: Looking only at things which would have boosted Gore's totals, but not anything that would have boosted Bush's, is just confirmation bias. And they were both trying to win the electoral college. It's anybody's guess who would have won the popular vote if that was what they were trying to do.

# posted by

Brett : 9:53 PM

Bush was more successful at doing what they were both attempting to do

Except, of course, that he was only "more successful" if you assume that he won FL. Since that's the whole point you're trying to prove, you're just arguing in a circle.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:53 AM

Brett:

I think this is the Palast link you meant to post.

There's lots by Palast, including his book.

Somewhat inaccurate, though it does recount the Democratic talking points. A list was distributed. The cover letter, as I recall, identified it as a list of names which elections officials were to investigate, not purge....

It was a purge list. Whether the list was to be used as is, or just the start of "investigat[ion]", or the default to be rebutted, doesn't matter much. It was used to boot people, and it was known to be inaccurate and wholly overinclusive. Some counties in fact looked at it and just threw it out as worthless; others did not. If it was in fact worthless, WTF was Harris doing?!?!?

... Some officials blew off the investigation, and just went straight to the purge, clear malfeasance....

Nonsense. Harris put the imprimatur on the state on it, and it wrongly charged people with being felons. While you may fault those that either lazily (or maliciously) used it w/o checking, that harld absolves Harris and Choicepoint/DBT of their guilt.

... But in most instances, especially where the officials were Democrats, the list was simply ignored....

Could it be because people looked at the list and saw that entries listed various supposed "felons" as having committed crimes in the future?!?!? (IIRC, one official threw the list because he found his name on it...)

... (Also malfeasance, purging the rolls IS one of their jobs.)...

Huh? Perhaps, but can you explain then why they should give a damn about the C/DBT list ... and at the same time why it is they and not Harris/C/DBT that are at fault?

One thing you can't deny is that the list was horrid.

... No investigation, and a rather large number of genuine felons remained on the voting rolls.

FWIW, that prospect doesn't alarm me. See below.

And, according to an investigation by the Miami Herald, the result was a substantial number of felons illegally voting....

Cite, please? Anything like the number of wrongful purges?

.. We don't, of course, know who they voted for, but the fact that most of them were registered as Democrats IS suggestive...

Perhaps but the issue here should be whether they (and those illegally purged) should be voting at all.

It is my considered opinion that it is a far greater crime to illegally deny one citizen the right to vote than it is that ten illegal voters are let through. But that's just me....

Not to mention, there is a cure for any actual felons illegally voting: Prosecute them for it. But for the poor schmuck denied that right illegally, what are you going to do to fix that?

Voter eligibility should be liberal. Denying the right to vote is something that was considered such a travesty that we passed Constitutional amemdments to make sure that doesn't happen.

OTOH, some states even allow felons to vote, so I'm wondering a bit about the grave threat there.

My point remains: Looking only at things which would have boosted Gore's totals, but not anything that would have boosted Bush's, is just confirmation bias....

Huh? What would have "boosted Bush's" totals?!?!? Counting unarguably illegal absentee ballots (including one faxed in), perchance?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:29 PM

"Whether the list was to be used as is, or just the start of "investigat[ion]", or the default to be rebutted, doesn't matter much. It was used to boot people, and it was known to be inaccurate and wholly overinclusive"

Well, duh. You WANT a list of people to be investigated to be over inclusive: The function of the investigation is to eliminate false positives: You can't investigate a list of potentially disqualified names, and come up with anybody who wasn't on the list, after all.

"Nonsense. Harris put the imprimatur on the state on it,"

As a list of people to be investigated. That cover letter you want to ignore just can't be blown off this way.

"but can you explain then why they should give a damn about the C/DBT list ... and at the same time why it is they and not Harris/C/DBT that are at fault?"

Because it was a list of people to check on. Purging them without conducting any investigation was one form of wrongdoing, failing to purge anybody without conducting an investigation another.

Like two cops by the side of the road, one lets speeders by, the other tickets everybody who goes by for speeding, no matter their actual speed. They're both bad cops...

"It is my considered opinion that it is a far greater crime to illegally deny one citizen the right to vote than it is that ten illegal voters are let through. But that's just me...."

Indeed, that's just you. Wrongly purging presumptive opposition voters, wrongly permitting voting by voters presumptively on your side, they're both functionally equivalent ways of criminally manipulating the outcome of an election. Indeed, permitting an illegal vote by somebody who will vote for candidate X, and illegally disenfranchising somebody who'd vote for his opponent, are fungible crimes, the only difference is that the latter is more sneaky.

"Not to mention, there is a cure for any actual felons illegally voting: Prosecute them for it."

BS. This can not alter the rigged election outcome, since ballot secrecy makes deleting the illegally cast votes from the count impossible, and is anyway generally a non-starter because the presumption that it's an innocent error is virtually impossible to overcome.

"Voter eligibility should be liberal. Denying the right to vote is something that was considered such a travesty that we passed Constitutional amemdments to make sure that doesn't happen."

Disenfranchising felons may very well be bad policy, and I'm opposed to it, but it ain't unconstitutional, and we absolutely did NOT pass constitutional amendments to prohibit it.

"Huh? What would have "boosted Bush's" totals?!?!?"

I already cited one example, if the networks hadn't Florida before the polls closed in the panhandle.

Frankly, Arne, I find your willingness to countenance malfeasance by elections officials if it's effects are to your liking disgusting.

I do not "assume" Bush won Florida. I conclude it on the basis of multiple counts, and a post election analysis of the ballots. Gore only 'won' in a counter factual hypothetical world where numerous events and election laws were different.

# posted by

Brett : 6:33 PM

Brett:

"It is my considered opinion that it is a far greater crime to illegally deny one citizen the right to vote than it is that ten illegal voters are let through. But that's just me...."

Indeed, that's just you. Wrongly purging presumptive opposition voters, wrongly permitting voting by voters presumptively on your side, they're both functionally equivalent ways of criminally manipulating the outcome of an election....

Fine. I hate corruption in politics. Prosecute them.

But you're forgetting who the right ot vote belongs to here.

Just like Dubya was a party with no standing to initiate Dubya v. Gore (he wasn't a Florida voter and had no colourable complaint of injury to himself), you concern yourself with the "rights" of the political parties to get their guys elected. Nonsense. The right to vote inheres in each and every voter, and when you deny that, you strike at the heart of democracy, regardless of who they vote for (and the second you start asking who they're voting for becuase of the harm it may bring to an 'aggrieved' candidate, you've missed the picture).

... Indeed, permitting an illegal vote by somebody who will vote for candidate X, and illegally disenfranchising somebody who'd vote for his opponent, are fungible crimes, the only difference is that the latter is more sneaky.

Not to the person who wasn't allowed to vote. Your answer is: "Well we also prevented someone else from voting, so it all evens out" or "We let someone else vote for you". A very pernicious approach, if I may say so....

[Arne]: "Not to mention, there is a cure for any actual felons illegally voting: Prosecute them for it."

BS. This can not alter the rigged election outcome, since ballot secrecy makes deleting the illegally cast votes from the count impossible, and is anyway generally a non-starter because the presumption that it's an innocent error is virtually impossible to overcome.

Nor is anyone brought back to life by a murder conviction. SFW? We still rely on the deterrent and punitive aspects of our laws, and eschew "prevetative detention".

[Arne]: "Voter eligibility should be liberal. Denying the right to vote is something that was considered such a travesty that we passed Constitutional amemdments to make sure that doesn't happen."

Disenfranchising felons may very well be bad policy, and I'm opposed to it, but it ain't unconstitutional, and we absolutely did NOT pass constitutional amendments to prohibit it.

You miss the point. I'm talking about disenfranchising legal voters (although I see no strong reason to prohibit felons from voting either, particularly seeing as we incarcerate the greatest percentage of citizens of any country, and mostly for drug-related offences.

[Arne]: "Huh? What would have "boosted Bush's" totals?!?!?"

I already cited one example, if the networks hadn't Florida before the polls closed in the panhandle.

Huh? What proof do you have that this had any effect? Furthermore, even if such happened, how can you compare the voluntary decision to not vote with the forced (and in many cases, surprise) disenfranchisement of legitimate voters that did want to vote?!?!?

Frankly, Arne, I find your willingness to countenance malfeasance by elections officials if it's effects are to your liking disgusting.

Your disquietude with hallucinations must be troubling. I suggest psychotropics to resolve that issue. Because I never said any such thing.

I do not "assume" Bush won Florida. I conclude it on the basis of multiple counts, and a post election analysis of the ballots. Gore only 'won' in a counter factual hypothetical world where numerous events and election laws were different.

Nonsense. See the consortium results (not to mention the other factors mentioned by Prof. Levinson above).

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:58 PM

"Furthermore, even if such happened, how can you compare the voluntary decision to not vote with the forced (and in many cases, surprise) disenfranchisement of legitimate voters that did want to vote?!?!?"

We're talking about a 'voluntary' decision that's the result of somebody being deceived into thinking the election is over.

What strikes me as absurd about the whole recount situation, of course, is the remarkable conviction that the ballots, which were never designed for that much manual handling, and which were leaving drifts of chads on the floors of the counting rooms, were still a reliable indication, out to that many places, of voter actions on election night.

To quote a Washington Times story,

Leaders of both projects have discovered the impossibility of replicating Election Day conditions. In the published Herald study, the newspapers relied on Florida counties to produce the exact undervotes from November, but hundreds of ballots were missing, either because chads had fallen out or machines read the ballots differently when they were separated for the recount.

In Palm Beach, the Herald reporters and BDO Seidman accountants were not shown undervotes from all precincts, according to the Palm Beach Post, which was simultaneously viewing the same ballots. In another case, they were shown portions of the same precinct twice without being told -- due to a bomb scare that caused a brief evacuation, the Palm Beach Post reported.

"We only had eight counties that could come up with the same number of ballots as they did on election night," said Mark Seibel, managing editor of the Herald. "In the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure it would change the result, but it's troubling to be missing that many."

It's amazing the faith some people place in those worn out bits of paper. In truth, by the time the last recount was being conducted, the noise level was far, far higher than the margin of victory on election night. The repeated recounts were, in effect, just an effort to keep rolling the dice until they came out "right".

# posted by

Brett : 7:59 PM

Brett:

[Arne]: "Furthermore, even if such happened, how can you compare the voluntary decision to not vote with the forced (and in many cases, surprise) disenfranchisement of legitimate voters that did want to vote?!?!?"

We're talking about a 'voluntary' decision that's the result of somebody being deceived into thinking the election is over.

No one told them to go home. What happened is the media had "called" the state (which is something they used to do even earlier, based on exit polls). Anyone in the pan-handle that wanted to vote could vote. Anyone that figured their vote was "useless" was welcome to that opinion.

In any case, this is a far cry from denying people at the polls their right to vote, when they wanted to.

It's all RW Mighty Wurlitzer noise, intended to throw up a "tu quoque" as some kind of a defence as to the real disenfranchisement that actually happened.

As for your other stuff, what does that have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?

And I'll assume you concede the other points I made that you didn't address....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:22 PM

Bad assumption, though I can understand why you'd want to make it.

You're assuming, based on (see my link) rather confused examinations of the ballots in a VERY close election, after they'd been extensively handled and damaged, that the count of the ballots immediately after they were cast, and in the best shape, was not accurate.

This is a rather dubious assumption, though I can understand your motive for making it. Motive does not, of course, equal justification. The best, the most reliable, evidence we have, says Bush won in Florida. Sandy's "But Gore would have won if the election laws and amendments I want were in place, therefor he DID win!" is laughable. You, on the other hand, are simply wrong.

# posted by

Brett : 6:53 AM

Brett:

Bad assumption, though I can understand why you'd want to make it.

You're assuming, based on (see my link) rather confused examinations of the ballots in a VERY close election, after they'd been extensively handled and damaged, that the count of the ballots immediately after they were cast, and in the best shape, was not accurate.

Nonsense. I made no such claim. But seeing as you're bringing up something I hadn't addressed, I'll say: It's known that machine counting has errors. There's errors in first counts, and errors in later counts. That's known (and was brought up in the first court case). There's reasons for this; one of which is partial chad displacement (the "hanging chads" issue), made worse by poorly maintained machines where the punched chads aren't cleared and which prevent the complete detachment of subsequent chads.

Sometimes, running the ballots through teh counting machines will cause a partially detached chad to fall off completely, making for a count of such. What has not been demonstrated (but which you imply) is that unpunched chads are falling out on rereading. That simply doesn't happen under normal circumstances. Running ballots numerous times may increase the accuracy of counting of chads that had been at least partially displaced, and most of these, we can reasonably assume, were intentionally punched.

But that's all kind of beside the point I was getting at.

FWIW, it was the most lenient (two corner and dimpled chads) standard that gave Dubya the greatest margin with the undervotes, and the strictest standards that gave Gore a theoretical 3 vote victory based on just the undervotes.

It was the overvotes that gave Gore the victory, and that wasn't included in the first media report on just the undervoted ballots. The subsequent consortium counts looked at the overvotes. The "legal" overvotes were for the most part not the punched card ballots, but rather optical ballots where in many cases the person wrote in the name as well as darkening the circle by the candidate's name.

This is a rather dubious assumption, though I can understand your motive for making it. Motive does not, of course, equal justification....

You are the one that's confused here.

... The best, the most reliable, evidence we have, says Bush won in Florida....

Nonsense.

... Sandy's "But Gore would have won if the election laws and amendments I want were in place, therefor he DID win!" is laughable.

No. I don't think Prof. Levinson said any such thing.

... You, on the other hand, are simply wrong.

Nonsense. I think that you are filled with misinformation here, and I think you need to examine the nature of your sources (and of your 'arguments'.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:21 PM