"The Daily Show": Week of 11/3/14

[marceline]

 

I don't think Obama was giving legitimacy to people who weren't voting. I think he mentioned it to point out that republicans better not throwing "mandate" around.

I like that interpretation better. Thank you. You've saved me a bit of stomach lining.

[dubbel zout]

It's laziness, apathy and an inability to think critically or long-term.

 

I have to disagree. When you have to decide which candidate's level of sleaze is acceptable, sometimes not voting is preferable. I'm envious of people who can vote on the issues. That's more often a luxury for me as a NYC voter, not the norm.

 

However, if the reason you don't vote is because you can't be arsed to go to your polling place, then yeah, you're a lazy jackass.

Edited November 6, 2014 by dubbel zout

[ABay]

John Cleese said one of the most brilliant things I'd ever heard back in...I'm going to say the '80s. An interviewer, maybe Dick Cavett, asked him: "Don't you worry that people will take offense at some of the things you do? ", maybe in reference to Life of Brian. And Cleese replied: "There are those people one wishes to offend."

 

No waffling, no "it's all in fun". Fantastic.

[ganesh]

Obama has been screwed since he got elected. He can't just get pissed off and call bs on anyone because he'll be destroyed as the angry black man. That's why they all know they can get away with "Obama isn't standing up to Putin; he's weak, blah blah." They can't beat him on actual issues, so they make everyone hate him. And no one says anything. 

 

When you have to decide which candidate's level of sleaze is acceptable, sometimes not voting is preferable.

 

That's why I think it's better to go out and vote third party than for either candidate if possible. The time is really ripe for one to gain traction imo. 

[ChelseaNH]

When you have to decide which candidate's level of sleaze is acceptable, sometimes not voting is preferable.

 

As far as I know, they don't make you vote in every race in order to count your ballot.  Unless you're saying that every race is between two or more unregenerate sleazeballs, in which case I would think about moving.

[CouchPotatoNoLife]

Unfortunately, based on anecdotal evidence I have to say I am pretty sure a large portion of the blame for poor turnout of the young is based on apathy and laziness.

 

Its only anecdotal, but I know people that blew off the election to play WoW, smoke pot, get drunk, etc.

 

old white people aren't in love with/inspired by their candidates either. they show up anyways. The most important thing in life is to show up and try. my generation doesnt get that. Unless shit is perfect we find excuses not to care.

 

because of the laziness of young people dems will never be able to implement real progressive change. Every midterm is guaranteed win for the GOP :(

[Sharpie66]

It wasn't at just the federal level that the Dems got smashed--as of 2015, Dems will control fewer state legislatures than they have since the Civil War. Get ready for more voter suppression, anti-abortion, and "experimental" measures, along with other conservative ideas (see: Kansas) in your local friendly state capitol.

[marceline]

I have to disagree. When you have to decide which candidate's level of sleaze is acceptable, sometimes not voting is preferable.

 

Except that people who don't vote and claim it's about the candidates also don't vote on issues. They don't vote on school levies or ballot initiatives. This election saw votes on the minimum wage, gun control, cannabis legalization and a whole host of local issues that these same deadbeats can't be bothered to vote on. Even if you choose not to vote for candidates, there's no excuse for not going to the polls at all. In my city, we had a vote on banning red light cameras because people worked to put it on the ballot. That's how real change comes about. Not by sitting at home pretending to be too good for politics.

 

Sorry, I know I'm off topic but, damn it, there just is no legitimate excuse for not voting at all even if you hate the two-party system because there's more at stake than just Dem vs. Rep and even then, not voting doesn't damage the two-party system, it REWARDS it.

[ruby24]

I think figuring out how to let people vote online would go a long way towards solving the problem of low Democratic turnout.

Edited November 6, 2014 by ruby24

[CouchPotatoNoLife]

Exactly. I cherry pick what I vote on; if there's a race with two candidates indistinguishable from each other, or equally unappealing, I don't pick a "lesser of evils" choice - I pass it by entirely. There are other candidates and issues on the ballot I will have strong feelings about, and accordingly record a selection on the ballot.

The problem with that is the republican base does so. take someone like Mark Pryor, obviously no where close to a liberal's dream senator. But what if he was the guy that kept the senate under democratic control? Now that the GOP controls the senate they can appoint the committee chairmen.

Eg. McCain for the senate armed services committee, who will make the US more hawkish and war more possible

Eg. Jim Inhofe who is almost certainly the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Will basically doom this planet, because he considers global warming the "great hoax in human history" 

 

Some times you need to hold your nose and vote.

Also IMO this makes it harder for politicians to take progressive positions knowing the progressive base is unreliable 

[CouchPotatoNoLife]

If I need to hold my nose to vote, I shouldn't be voting.

The time to get rid of conservative dems is in the primaries, once that is over people that care about the democratic party need to fall in line and support the party, because no matter how bad the dem is the GOP candidate is worse.

 

The people who vote GOP dont love their candidates. they often just hate them less than the democrat. They vote anyways. 

 

If liberals in this country refuse to battle is no wonder that a mostly left leaning country has such right wing policies.

[dubbel zout]

I didn't mean that not being able to choose between two candidates equals not voting at all. My mistake for being unclear.

Edited November 6, 2014 by dubbel zout

[marceline]

The problem with that is the republican base does so. take someone like Mark Pryor, obviously no where close to a liberal's dream senator. But what if he was the guy that kept the senate under democratic control? Now that the GOP controls the senate they can appoint the committee chairmen.

Eg. McCain for the senate armed services committee, who will make the US more hawkish and war more possible

Eg. Jim Inhofe who is almost certainly the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Will basically doom this planet, because he considers global warming the "great hoax in human history" 

 

Some times you need to hold your nose and vote.

Also IMO this makes it harder for politicians to take progressive positions knowing the progressive base is unreliable 

 

Exactly. I know too many liberals who don't want to vote unless they can find a candidate that embodies everything they want. That's unrealistic. Obviously, I have dealbreaker issues but I'm not going to throw out a candidate who I agree with 60 percent of the time just because it's not 100 percent.

[Fremde Frau]

I live in a district where there is rarely any difference between the local Democrats and Republicans. They're all trying to appeal to the same conservative base, so policies are rarely qualitatively different, and genuinely progressive people have no chance in hell. In addition to that, there are far too many cases where the only option is the incumbent. So, I'm often indifferent to the candidates themselves, but I take every chance I can to vote on the issues. Not that it makes any immediate difference, but I always think, "This time, maybe..." One day, it will make a difference. I can believe that if only because society does change over time, as power dynamics shift between generations. (Ever since Jason's Russia series, I also have in the back of my mind that quote from Angel.)

 

That said, I do think that people who feel completely unrepresented by policies and politicians aren't being unreasonable to refrain from voting as a matter of principle. If they've voted before but nothing ever changes for them no matter who is in office and which party has power, what should compel them to continue participating? This is a big failure of a two party system. On another note, I also have ambivalent feelings about this idea that celebrities need to explicitly tell people to vote, because people who need to be explicitly instructed to vote probably haven't taken the time and effort to make an informed vote.

[possibilities]

Dems run more conservative because they think that's what the people want. When liberals opt out of voting, then only conservatives vote, and it becomes a run to the right for all candidates, trying to capture the mood of the electorate. Even if liberals are opting out because the candidates are not liberal enough, the parties both assume that the conservatives won because running conservative is the winning formula. I completely understand the disgust with some of the candidates. In my 20s I opted out or voted third party for a while, because I was so repulsed by my 2-party options. But I began to see that the more we did that, the more conservative the candidates became on both sides, and the LESS I was getting what I wanted from the results.

 

When Dems win, they become emboldened to run more liberal candidates. When they lose, they start to run more conservatively and to pander to the right.

 

Whatever people do, one of the candidates running is going to win. So even if the difference is only slight, leaning into that slight difference will eventually steer the whole behemoth more and more in the desired direction. Opting out just reinforces the status quo or even the drift towards the opposite of what the people dropping out desire. If the only people voting are the ones who love the candidates, we are defaulting all the power to the people who are satisfied with the crap we're rejecting.

 

We have to be pragmatic about our choices.

Edited November 6, 2014 by possibilities

[Fremde Frau]

In other news: Chris Cuomo likes him some Jon Stewart voting controversy, and Reza Aslan thinks that's gross.

 

I needed a laugh.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Fremde Frau

[ruby24]

I just read that turnout was even worse than they thought, running under 37%. Can you believe that? Worst number since like 1940.

 

Sorry, but that's not a mandate from the country. That message tells Republicans they do best when no one votes, which means they're going to keep trying to pass voter ID laws and restrictions, doing everything possible to stop people from voting.

 

Here's the only solution I can think of - it's time to let people vote online. I guarantee you the mere thought of online voting, on your phone, etc. will terrify the Republicans, but there's no reason we can't vote online if we can do anything else online, like banking, applications, paying bills, etc.

 

It's time to fight for online voting.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

Or we suppress the senior citizen vote by having the liberal media schedule an all-day NCIS marathon on election day.

[ganesh]

I've never voted in a voting booth. I've always registered for vote by mail. My ballot comes way in advance and on the Sunday before, I go through everything and fill out the ballot. I walk over to the polling station on election day morning and drop it in the box. 

 

I think if this was the default option more people would vote. Having the ballot come in the mail and having it sit there on your table might make people want to do it more. I even registered online. 

 

One of the problems for young people too is that a lot might be away at college and can't get home to physically vote, assuming their address is their parents' house. 

[formerlyfreedom]

Let's go ahead and get back to discussing this week's episodes. If you want to continue the conversation, go ahead and take it to the PM function.

 

Thank you!

[possibilities]

Students can vote by absentee ballot. I did that when I went away to school, before I settled into voting in my new state.

 

ETA: oops-- sorry, stacey-- I didn't see your message before i posted my follow-up.

Edited November 7, 2014 by possibilities

[Victor the Crab]

Personally, I'll go with zombies to describe the Republicans' resurgence. At least Jon isn't buying the whole bipartisan bullshit both sides are spewing. And McConnell subtly describing themselves as good to Obama's evil can go fuck off to hell.

[stillshimpy]

Well, what a freaking delightful week it hasn't been for my personal political leanings.  Argh.  However, listening to President Obama on NPR the day after has been slowly but surely adding balm to my soul.   John Cleese finished the job and I feel a lot less like finding something exceptionally tall to leap from now, so there's that.  

 

Also, Jordan Klepper is consistently cracking my butt up and I didn't guess that would be the case from his first appearance.  I love it when things just keep getting better.  

 

Go team.  I was sincerely just bummed the hell out  (because...yeah, you know why....) and now I feel far more chipper.  Nice lift heading into the weekend.  

Edited November 7, 2014 by stillshimpy

[Fremde Frau]

What with the continued critique and condemnation of that throwaway voting joke exacerbated by the Republicans' triumph this week, I feel as though I'm getting a very small taste of what it must have been like to be a fan of Jon's back after the 2010 midterms.

 

I appreciated Jon's caustic tone on that second segment last night. That and Jordan's segment on "Hope and Change" were my favorite moments of the show this week, outside of the joyful Cleese interview.

 

It's also good to have confirmation that McConnell is literally a tortoise.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Fremde Frau

[attica]

Jordan Klepper is consistently cracking my butt up

 

Shimpy, pumpkin, I'm pretty sure your butt came that way. (No disrespect to JK.) ;)

 

eta: I especially loved the spanking (to continue the butt-aphore) Jon gave Dems who ran away from a populist message. Look to Al Franken, who originally won his seat with a whisper-thin margin, but held it this time by a buttload by sticking to his liberal-ass guns. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by attica

[stillshimpy]

Shimpy, pumpkin, I'm pretty sure your butt came that way.

 

Or did it? (dun-dun-dun *dramatic flash of lightning for extra corny flourish*) 

 

Nah, you have me there.  At least I fervently hope, because it's something I never inquired about specifically. 

 

 

 

(No disrespect to JK.) ;)

 

No worries, on my planet that's how we say "hello" :-)  (by joking, that is, not by disrespecting Jordan Klepper...)

Edited November 7, 2014 by stillshimpy

[Hanahope]

Possibilities, excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly.  I may not always like the winning dem candidate from the primary, but i'll vote for them in the general.

 

Jon was echoing my disheart over the election.  I hope Obama really does stick to his guns to do what he want without congress, rather than have a drink with McConnell.  I'm just flabbergasted that some states chose Reps for govenors as well, I mean did they like the fact that all the other red states rejected additional Medicaid funds and state exchanges because it was linked to Obamacare?  Has no one seen what happened in Kansas?  Though frankly, I wouldn't have known had I not watch certain shows.

 

I just don't get why the Dems were so wishy-washy on their achievements instead of shouting them from the rooftops.  Why concede it all to the Reps and their lies?

[dubbel zout]

I just don't get why the Dems were so wishy-washy on their achievements instead of shouting them from the rooftops.

 

I wish Jon would ask the next Dem he has on his show this. The Dems have admitted that the Reps are highly disciplined when it comes to their talking points. Why not emulate that? It would at least put up a counterpoint.

[alexvillage]

Obama should go Independent and do whatever he can about the things he can. Then he can flip the finger on everyone. He does not have to be the punching bag for his party while trying to please the republicans. He does not have to be a lame duck President. 

[ganesh]

I wish Jon would ask the next Dem he has on his show this. The Dems have admitted that the Reps are highly disciplined when it comes to their talking points. Why not emulate that? It would at least put up a counterpoint.

 

It's not even talking points. There's actual facts to use. I'd said before that I'd very much like to hear from the DNC chair as the how they thought their strategy would work or what it actually was. I mean, they aren't stupid, the party in power always loses seats, so did they just not bother? 

 

The kind of funny thing is, when you get to that 10-15 year point where you look back at the past recent presidencies, Obama is probably going to come out looking good. If another democrat is elected after him, one can seriously make the argument for a Reagan-like realignment. 

[Hanahope]

Its totally correct that the Dems seemed to be too worried about not pissing off the people that weren't going to vote for them anyway, that they ended up pissing off the people that may have voted for them, if they weren't so pissed off.

[Fremde Frau]

I think part of the problem is probably how the media covers midterm elections and non-presidential politicians in general. Everyone (or most everyone) cares about the presidential elections. And the way that the media frames (and allows politicians to frame) debates over big issues such as healthcare, immigration reform, marriage equality, ISIS, Ebola, wars, etc., always makes it seem as though it's the President alone in a fight against the opposing party. I can't recall whether or not it was that way when Bush was in office, but certainly now with the GOP dictating the dialogue and the media sensationalizing everything--as well as how the Democrats have tucked their tails in and acted as far removed from Obama as possible--there is no sense of overall urgency being expressed to the general public about midterm elections. Unless one is informed and/or interested in politics already, the only issues at stake in these elections might seem to be whether this or that politician will remain in office or get ousted. It seems very localized and minimally important to the general public--to take a hyperbolic example, like the difference between referring to a war or genocide by name or marginalizing it as an "ethnic conflict." There is no urgency expressed that these are building blocks for present and future legislation.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Fremde Frau

[ruby24]

That's very true- this is why I honestly think parliamentary systems are more effective in terms of communicating to the public exactly which party is going to be governing. You elect a PM and his party and they govern the country.

 

The way our government works now we can elect a Democrat in the next election and Republicans will still have the House, so that the person we elected won't even be able to govern! That's a completely broken system. Even in 2012, 1 million more people voted for Democrats in the House and they could not win a majority because of gerrymandering.

 

I think that's wrong. The concept of divided government is outdated. The point of it certainly was not for one party to obstruct everything the person who won was elected to do, but that's all we 're going to get from now on.

[ganesh]

I think divided government is ok. It's awful now because Obama is a muslim who will declare sharia law. I mean, he got elected and people went off the chain. Reagan had one of the most liberal politicians as Speaker for his entire presidency and they enacted lots of stuff, including raising taxes. So it's possible. 

 

I can't recall an elected official on record saying "our job is to make this a one term president." How do you not call them out on it. It's unethical in the least and a violation of the oath of their office at worst. 

 

The problem, as Jon pointed out, is that they only do anything meaningful on "March 27th." 

 

The problem is the elections themselves; waiting to enacting laws till after the election. The #1 job of politicians is getting re elected so the actual time in Congress is smaller and smaller. The problem is the unlimited amount of money that goes into elections. 

 

When the UK calls an election, it's like, "we're having the election next month. Go." 

 

Govern the country like you're supposed to. If you do a good job, you'll get reelected. If not, too bad. You can try again if you want.

 

There should be a legal minimum time Congress should be in session. 

[ruby24]

Well, that Reagan bipartisanship that you're talking about was 30 years ago now, and if it only works when a Republican is president, because Democrats ARE willing to compromise, but a Democratic president can never pass anything because the Republican congress is completely nihilistic (something for which they are never punished for electorally), I'm sorry but that's just not fair.

 

I don't believe in divided government anymore, I think if most people think electing the President is the most important thing and that's the only time they're going to vote, then they ought to get what they voted for. That should mean we elect the President and the Congress should be whatever party the President belongs to. Then we know exactly who to credit and who to blame for the policies they pass, and they can actually do what the majority of people (not the tiny minority that votes in mid-terms) elected them to do.

[Grommet]

I agree that Jordan K. Is getting better and better. He and Jessica are the best new kids in a long time.

Pussy crats is spot on.

[Victor the Crab]

I just got around to watching Tuesday's episode, and the Stack had me laughing out loud the most. Especially with Jordan suffering on the bottom.

[trow125]

Just watched Thursday's show, and Jon is the first person I've seen this week bring up the fact that a mere two years ago the pundits were saying the same things about the GOP that they are now about the Dems. Heck, the Republicans released their "autopsy" (which I'm pretty sure was covered on TDS) only LAST YEAR. (Speaking of which, I guess it worked -- maybe the Democratic National Committee needs to do one for 2016?)

[Hanahope]

I can't recall an elected official on record saying "our job is to make this a one term president."

 

I  believe both TDS and TCR have McConnell saying this on video about Obama.

[ganesh]

Real Time too. I'm sure all the news outlets reported it. 

[ruby24]

Just watched Thursday's show, and Jon is the first person I've seen this week bring up the fact that a mere two years ago the pundits were saying the same things about the GOP that they are now about the Dems. Heck, the Republicans released their "autopsy" (which I'm pretty sure was covered on TDS) only LAST YEAR. (Speaking of which, I guess it worked -- maybe the Democratic National Committee needs to do one for 2016?)

The only problem was voter turnout. Or I guess you could say the Dems have a bigger problem reaching old white people than they used to (gee- I wonder if that problem lessens when we don't have a black president anymore), but that doesn't change the Republicans problem of reaching EVERYONE else- women, minorities, young people, etc.

 

I say make online voting available to everyone and see what that does to the mid-term turnout problem for Democrats.

[alexvillage]

Bernie Sanders is proposing making election day a holiday. 

 

The voter turnout was pathetic for a place where people talk so loudly about their rights. We sound like a bunch of bratty kids, wanting all of sour rights and no duties. Of course, I am excluding the ones who had their voting rights suppressed. 

[Fremde Frau]

He's absolutely right. There's no reason at all not to make election day a federal holiday that is binding on all states. It's absurd that we have turned one religion's holy day into a national holiday, but we would leave something like election day to an employer's discretion.

[trow125]

Many of our elected officials consider the difficulty in voting to be not a bug but a feature of our "democracy." I think I learned from TDS during their trip to Austin that gun permits but not student IDs are acceptable voter identification in Texas.

 

There are many ways it could be easier for Americans to vote, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon. If anything, it'll get harder in the run-up to 2016.

[Latverian Diplomat]

Just watched Thursday's show, and Jon is the first person I've seen this week bring up the fact that a mere two years ago the pundits were saying the same things about the GOP that they are now about the Dems. Heck, the Republicans released their "autopsy" (which I'm pretty sure was covered on TDS) only LAST YEAR. (Speaking of which, I guess it worked -- maybe the Democratic National Committee needs to do one for 2016?)

They will say similar stuff about the Republicans in 2016. Turnout will look more like 2008/2016 and the Republicans will have a lot of Senate seats to defend. Control of the Senate is likely to flip back again (nothing to take for granted of course).

 

The only problem was voter turnout. Or I guess you could say the Dems have a bigger problem reaching old white people than they used to (gee- I wonder if that problem lessens when we don't have a black president anymore), but that doesn't change the Republicans problem of reaching EVERYONE else- women, minorities, young people, etc.

 

I say make online voting available to everyone and see what that does to the mid-term turnout problem for Democrats.

For recent midterms, the Democrats have tried to win the voters who will show up, instead of trying to get more of their voters to show up. It's not working, and Jon did a good job of showing why.

 

I don't think Internet voting will be feasible anytime soon, but WA and OR have mail in ballots for everyone. It's not a panacea, but it does seem to improve participation somewhat, 49% of registered WA voters voted, and it was a boring election for us (no really competitive federal races, no statewide races, only a few rather tame initiatives).

 

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html

[Hanahope]

I can't imagine that online voting is going happen any time soon, considering how stringent some states are with their in-person voter ID laws. On-line voting equals younger voters and generally the Reps aren't winning those.

[Wax Lion]

Obama has been screwed since he got elected. He can't just get pissed off and call bs on anyone because he'll be destroyed as the angry black man. That's why they all know they can get away with "Obama isn't standing up to Putin; he's weak, blah blah." They can't beat him on actual issues, so they make everyone hate him. And no one says anything. 

 

I wish Jon would ask the next Dem he has on his show this. The Dems have admitted that the Reps are highly disciplined when it comes to their talking points. Why not emulate that? It would at least put up a counterpoint.

 

 

Eh, I feel like Jon is more likely to talk to a dem who is ready with their accomplishment talking points and looking to challenge them with whatever angle makes those talking point seem disingenuous. Jon has talked about seeing all politicians as full of shit, even if they're on the right side.

 

 

I can't imagine that online voting is going happen any time soon, considering how stringent some states are with their in-person voter ID laws. On-line voting equals younger voters and generally the Reps aren't winning those.

 

Megyn Kelly was just scaremongering about a non-existent Colorado law that lets people print out their own ballots at home. (Which I don't see a problem with, we track who votes to ensure they only vote once.) I'm sure there will be claims that online voting can be hacked.

[peeayebee]

Loved the end of Jordan's piece. It actually seems like a viable solution to people getting shot by police.

 

I like Springsteen just fine, but that interview was excruciating to sit thru.

[solotrek]

I'm sure there will be claims that online voting can be hacked.

To be fair, I was discussing this with some CS friends, one whose PhD was basically about web security. The general consensus is that the question isn't if it can be hacked, but how easily and if they could be caught. Other than that, Megyn Kelly is generally an idiot anyways.

 

Wrong week peeayebee!

[trow125]

But wasn't there a lot of talk a few years ago that regular voting booths can be hacked? The company that made the voting machinery was a big Republican donor, if I recall correctly.