“Who ARE those guys?”
No.
CNN this morning showed a reporter asking giggling college students and others to identify photos of Tim Kaine and Mile Pence. Many of them couldn’t and the ignoramuses and the reporters had a good laugh about it. Then a CNN panel and Carol Costello, beaming themselves, discussed the phenomenon, which isn’t remotely funny. Why are so many Americans ignorant about their own elections and government? Why do those Americans think their ignorance is amusing? Why does CNN encourage such ignorance by refusing to present it as the disgrace to democracy that it is?
Apparent, according to a survey, a full third of potential voters can’t identify either Vice Presidential candidate. That’s nice. One reason, of course, is that the news media has spent so little time focusing on either of them. Huh. Yet Sarah Palin’s candidacy was covered as a threat to the civilized world by these very same organizations. Well, that’s because her running mate was so much older than the 2016 can..actually, McCain wasn’t significantly older was he? How can the qualifications of VPs be so irrelevant now, but so newsworthy then?
I’ll stop being coy. The answer is that journalists have no integrity.
On to the main question, however: why would anyone feel the need to watch tonight’s debate? If someone has recognized that Donald Trump is irredeemably incompetent and untrustworthy, would the fact that his running mate thrashes Tim Kaine make Trump a more responsible choice? If another voter detests Hillary Clinton so much that he or she is willing to subject the nation to the leadership of an unstable narcissist who has no coherent policy positions, will the brilliant performance of Tim Kaine cause a change of heart? No, of course not.
What about that group of voters still at the coin-flipping stage: heads, greedy, corrupt and dishonest opportunist who has been unimpressive in all her former positions, whose major qualification is that she’s a woman; tails, unqualified, boorish and ignorant con-artist with the self-control of a 12-year-old whose sole qualification is that he’s a rich celebrity?
Some of this pathetic group might use tonight’s debate as the equivalent of that coin flip, but it does not mean that it is rational to do so. One responsibly chooses between two candidates based on what the two candidates have to offer, not according to a factor unrelated to that comparison. A debate between candidate spouses or children would be just as relevant, and in this case, far more entertaining. Wouldn’t you love to see Bill debate Melania, if only to see if he could resist hitting on her?
Ethics Alarms 
My husband keeps saying that he’s voting for Tim Kaine. I don’t blame him.
Tim Kaine’s not running for President, unless your husband knows something we don’t…
Regardless of who is running for President, none of us are going to be voting for any of them (unless someone is one of the 538 members of the electoral college). We vote for electors, who vote for president. Those electors are under no obligation to vote in any particular way.
This reminds me of those little steering wheel toys that kids have in cars. They happily sit in the back seat turning that wheel, oblivious to the fact that it is not connected to any controls, just as voters happily go down to the voting booth thinking that their vote is influencing policy. The steering wheel is not connected people.
*538 members… there should be a way to edit a comment.
Tell it to WordPress. I have no control over it, except after the fact. And there is a way: it’s called “proofreading before publishing, and making fixes.”
I just fixed yours.
Or, in the alternative, I could pay to have my own platform, and either charge for the blog with a paywall, or accept ads, or fill it with Amazon commercials like Instapundit, or hector you for contributions like NPR.
There are always trade-offs.
“We vote for electors, who vote for president. Those electors are under no obligation to vote in any particular way.”
Sure they are. It’s just not a legal obligation. It is an ethical one, and so far, it has worked just fine.
Ehh, I’d take exception to the idea that it is working just fine. I mean, reports on faithless electors (those who are actually pledged to support specific candidates) include things like a Minnesota elector voting for “John Ewards” as a presidential candidate in 2004… presumably a misspelling of John Edwards, who was actually the vice presidential candidate of John Kerry.
Or in 2000, where an elector who was pleged for Al Gore refused to cast any vote at all, as a protest action over Washington DC not having congressional representation.
Overall, if you total them up, you come to 179 instances of electors breaking their pledges over the history of the electoral college (note that this count only includes electors who are actually bound in how they are supposed to vote. Its hard to say how the unbound electors affect things).
And while 29 states do have laws that can supposedly penalize faithless electors, NONE of those laws have EVER been enforced.
a wikipedia link, for those interested in specifics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors
Check out the federalist paper specifically discussing the Electoral college,. The Founders envisioned electors not being bound to the popular vote as a check against their passions.
And what was the practical and substantive impact of those rogue electors? Zilch. Anomalous glitched that never interferes with the efficient functioning of a system is not even a flaw.
And what was the practical and substantive impact of those rogue electors? Zilch. Anomalous glitched that never interferes with the efficient functioning of a system is not even a flaw.
Opponents of voter ID would say the same thing about in-person voter fraud. So why is it that electors who break their pledges are part a system that “works just fine,” while in-person voter fraud is a serious problem in desperate need of remedy?
Because one is a programmed *feature* of the constitutional system – check out the federalist papers on the Electoral College. The other one undermines the constitutional system. Pretending that non citizens voting doesn’t undermine the system is a truly undefendable hill to die on.
Just because the kid in the back seat turns the toy wheel to the right and the car goes right, does not mean that the kid made the car turn. Coloration is not causation. The fact remains that the electorate does not vote for the president, and the electors can vote whichever way they choose. This has happened in 1796, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1820, 1828, 1832, 1836, 1872, 1892, 1896, 1912, 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 2000 and 2004.
You can say that it has worked so far just fine, but that is kind of meaningless isn’t it? I could say that no one named Trump has ever been elected president so far, does that mean that no one named Trump could ever be elected president?
“It’s just not a legal obligation. It is an ethical one” — Are you having a laugh here? You are willing to concede that the candidates and political parties are and will always act in an ethical manner? How many times have you called out both candidates and both parties for unethical behavior? And now you are coming back with, they have an ethical obligation to act in a way that everyone thinks is fair, even though there is no legal obligation for them to act in such a way?
How did that work out when Hillary was ethically bound to make sure her work related emails were available to FOIA requests, but not legally bound to do so?
How does it work out when media outlets have an ethical obligation to present a fair and unbiased presentation of the days events, but no legal obligation? You must be enjoying all that meaningful relevant information you have been getting from CNN/MSNBC and FOX right?
How does it work out when the president has an ethical obligation to protect and defend the constitution and be truthful with the people of this country? Can you recall any times he might have come up to a podium and spewed out some (lets be generous here) intentional misrepresentations?
If having an ethical obligation is sufficient, then why do we even have a legal system? I mean, we all have an ethical obligation to not kill one another right? So if that is the case, why do we need a law?
“This has happened in 1796, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1820, 1828, 1832, 1836, 1872, 1892, 1896, 1912, 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 2000 and 2004.”
No, it didn’t. A few electors in each case violated their obligations, knowing that their votes would be symbolic only, and perhaps give some fodder to comments like yours.
“You can say that it has worked so far just fine, but that is kind of meaningless isn’t it? I could say that no one named Trump has ever been elected president so far, does that mean that no one named Trump could ever be elected president?”
No. The fact that system has worked as it was designed to work for over 200 years is strong evidence that it works
“It’s just not a legal obligation. It is an ethical one” — Are you having a laugh here? You are willing to concede that the candidates and political parties are and will always act in an ethical manner?”
How does correctly stating that it is an ethical obligation amount to “conceding that the candidates and political parties are and will always act in an ethical manner?” That’s a non-sequitur. I stated what the obligation was. No more, no less.
“If having an ethical obligation is sufficient, then why do we even have a legal system?”
Here’s a suggestion: why don’t you do a little reading on the blog before asking questions I have answered repeatedly and thoroughly? Laws step in when ethics fail.Most people don’t need laws not to kill people, and it is dubious that laws themselves stop many murders: ethics and morality are the main factors. Since very few electors have shown a willingness to violate their ethical obligations to vote as the system obligates them to, then the ethical duties are sufficient. Good.
“Those electors are under no obligation to vote in any particular way.”
Faithless elector laws are certainly a good motivator though…
Your vote does influence policy, via the House. And now via the Senate (a bastardized version of the House since 1910s).
Precisely as it was meant to be (except the Senate of course)
When he pushes the lever/button/whatever for the democrat nominees for POTUS and VPOTUS, he is voting for the one out of 4 that he can stomach.
Rationalization.
I think that the only reason to watch the debate is to determine who the best choice to become president should Hillary or Trump die in office. Otherwise, there is the forlorn hope that one of them will have a Dan Quayle moment which would be great for entertainment value.
…or should one of them be impeached.
No president will ever be impeached, convicted and turned out of office. Not as long as the country is, and the major parties are, so terribly polarized.
Well, Bill Clinton was impeached in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice. Unfortunately they were not enough votes to impeach him in the Senate. Whether there would be enough votes in both the House and the Senate to impeach Hillary or Trump if they were to commit impeachable offenses is anyone’s guess at this point.
Nobody’s getting convicted of impeachment absent a total political breakdown. An assassination leads removal by impeachment on the likelihood scale by miles and miles.
That’s a horrible thought.
Impeachment is always a possibility but conviction is not. Politicians and their parties and enablers are too brazen these days. No party will ever let its president get convicted, no matter what he or she does. You could have a president giving away every state secret and they wouldn’t get convicted.
Oh, I think Trump is capable of much worse than that. Arresting Federal Judges for example. Putting political opponents in jail under antiterrorism laws. Lots of things that are legal but unconstitutional.
I can easily see a bipartisan approach if, say Trump threatens to nuke Mexico City if they refuse to “pay for the wall”. Would that provoke a mutiny? It would have to be by gravity bombs, the targeting of the rest is far more difficult to change rapidly from the menu of options.
The order would be legal, and under Trump, not unthinkable. Under Pence? Not happening. I may detest the man as a heartless Theocrat, but is “wrong within normal bounds” apparently.
Clinton, you’re right, impeached probably, convicted never, “wrong within normal bounds” again, no matter what. Assassination is a far greater risk.
The US would survive a Pence presidency. Roe vs Wade, Obergefell vs Hodges, Lawrence vs Texas definitely and possibly Loving vs Virginia would go, as would Miranda, though that’s been eviscerated anyway, almost a dead issue.
But the US would still be the US, largely unchanged for Straight White Christian Men, no worse than say, 1950.
And death from illness leads assassination. Which of these two candidates looks more like a candidate for an early dirt nap?
Are we laying odds or setting up a pool? I’ll buy a square for Trump loses his temper one too many times and bursts a blood vessel in his brain.
I’ll by one that Hilary collapses after too strenuous an inauguration. I hope the papers don’t leave out the detail that she messes herself.
[Reply to Jack Oct 4 at 5:35 pm]
The American presidency is headed for another assassination. It isn’t a question of if, but of when, with the remaining question being who the assassin(s) will be. Powers external to the Executive Branch – domestic and foreign – are virtually certain to rise up in sufficient anger and resolve to carry out the hit, eventually. The alternative is a puppet president. It has always taken a special kind of crazy brave to seek and hold the office of POTUS. We may soon see the dawn of an era when U.S. presidents come and go like so many Mexican village police chiefs. It seems we are already in the preliminary or prerequisite era, where only the most corrupt and compromised survive.
How about Mexican presidents? Beginning of the 20th century they were a VERY bad insurance risk.
[Reply to Other Bill Oct 4 at 1:27 pm]
“No president will ever be impeached, convicted and turned out of office. Not as long as the country is, and the major parties are, so terribly polarized.”
You’re underestimating something. Sure, the major parties are polarized. But, they don’t lack for savvy to exploit the pandemic and impassioned alienation and distrust that most Americans feel toward the government. That alienation and distrust will be exploitable, at least for as long as most Americans have adequate freedom to dissent and air grievances.
Donald has set himself as the anti-establishment zealot. Therefore Donald, if elected (I am more confident every day that he won’t be), would be the perfect whipping-boy for a bipartisan impeachment effort.
Donald would very likely be impeached, and early in his term. Hillary might only have to beat back an attempt at impeachment, possibly after midterm elections.
We’re doomed.
Is it bad that my likelihood of voting for Hillary is positively correlated with her poor health? I will be watching the VP debates, but I know enough about Kaine to like him already…
Not bad, just desperate.
Yet Sarah Palin’s candidacy was covered as a threat to the civilized world by these very same organizations. Well, that’s because her running mate was so much older than the 2016 can..actually, McCain wasn’t significantly older was he? How can the qualifications of VPs be so irrelevant now, but so newsworthy then?
I’ll stop being coy. The answer is that journalists have no integrity.
I’ve always thought the answer was that Sarah Palin sought out the spotlight in a way no previous vice presidential candidate had. Most VPs go the Kaine/Pence route of staying in the background for the most part. Even Biden, with all his stupid statements, never took the spotlight from Obama. Palin was given the superstar treatment by the McCain campaign and was treated as a jolt of excitement into his seemingly tired campaign. We forget how much positive press Palin got at first because it only took a few weeks for America to discover that she was an incoherent idiot, but at first she was rather polished.
“I’ve always thought the answer was that Sarah Palin sought out the spotlight in a way no previous vice presidential candidate had.”
What? How did Palin do anything every other candidate for the job has done? She campaigned.t isn’t her fault that the news media pounced because she dared to be 1) conservative 2) a female 3) attractive and 4) charismatic. That’s like saying that the news media obsessively covered Obama because he was doing something different. No he wasn’t. He was campaigning. He was covered excessively because 1) he’s black and 2) the news media wanted to elect him, just as they wanted to destroy Palin as part of the strategy to accomplish that.
I have a confession. I can be a political junkie at times and even I got bored 30 mins into the debate and decided to go play The Talos Principal instead of watching.
I have to say that I don’t feel the Vice Presidential debates matter nearly as much as their record and positions. A Presidential debate tells you important things about temperament and mental agility, but these aren’t necessarily traits needed in the Vice President, who primarily acts as the Darth Vader to the President’s Emperor barring catastrophe. I have to say that Mike Pence’s positions would be scary going into the president’s ear.
Is There Any Reason For A Responsible Voter To Watch The Vice Presidential Candidates’ Debate?
Yes. If it gets in the way of them engaging in something unethical…