St. Louis City
Prop One loses, got 61% but needed two-thirds.
I hope Paul McKee has closet full of boxes of tissues.
St. Louis City
Prop One loses, got 61% but needed two-thirds.
I hope Paul McKee has closet full of boxes of tissues.
That would be this gentleman:
As in the canceled hologram concert. BTW, he tried to hold it in Gary, Indiana, but they shut it down there, too.
Though the next election isn’t until 2019, unless there’s a special election before then for some reason. By then, Mr. Keef will probably be in prison. Or he’ll just lose interest, or he’ll be totally forgotten; rappers don’t have a long shelf life these days, or sometimes, even a long real life.
North City and North County
U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay is one of the most veteran politicians in Missouri, but when it comes to raising money for re-election, he’s also one of the least prolific.
He doesn’t need a dime.
It’s not on purpose, Clay said in an interview, but more of a “structural problem” that speaks to how the campaign money game in Washington is played. And he says he’s proven he can raise less money than an opponent and still win.
Because almost all of the blacks on the Missouri side of the St. Louis area are drawn into his district. That’s even more so in this decade’s version of his district, as Missouri went down from nine to eight Congressional districts.
According to Federal Election Commission reports, Clay’s was second-lowest amount of cash on hand among Missouri’s 10 congressional members as of July 1, with Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Kansas City, showing roughly $142,000.
Beaver Cleaver is another one that doesn’t need a dime, for much the same reason. Though his MO-5 has a lot more whites in it than Clay’s MO-1, Cleaver only won last year 52-45, and that was faced with a red wave that will probably never be topped. But it means that Cleaver may not win his biennial races with landslide margins like Clay does, he still does win, in spite of my prediction when the map was finalized in 2011 that Cleaver’s new MO-5 could really put him at severe risk of losing if the red wave was tall enough.
Clay says he has trouble raising money from Political Action Committees because he represents a “safe” Democratic seat, even though he serves on the Financial Services Committee, whose members often get showered with financial donations from the banking and other financial industries.
“How come they’re not bribing me?” Because you’re not smart enough to be of value to the people who hand out bribes, Lazy.
“The money has never been an issue, it is how you use it. And I think I use it in a most effective way because I still believe in old-fashioned politics. I know I have to mix technology in there, but we still go door-to-door, we still touch people, we do phone banking, all of that.” —Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis.
No, your people don’t even go door to door. You just rely on them remembering that you’re black and that your last name is Clay and therefore also the same as your eponymous father who held MO-1 for 32 years.
In contrast, Dick Gephardt was one the fund raising champions when he represented St. Louis and vicinity in Congress, but he’s another one who never needed a dime of it. Not necessarily because of the district, but because of the local media fawning over him and giving him unbeatable name recognition. Of course, Gephardt’s district no longer exists, and you know why.
New York City
Nate Cohn, writing in the NYT, on the ramifications for the U.S. House if SCOTUS both finds for Evenwel and applies their rationale to all district-drawn politics. I slightly disagree with a few things, but I won’t nitpick, and he would have done well to expound on how a ruling for Evenwel would also marginally diminish black political power, because of the lower median age of blacks meaning a higher percentage of them are under 18 and therefore wouldn’t be counted for apportionment and redistricting purposes.
Way down in the paragraph count, he has this startling confession:
The turnout rate among adult citizen Hispanics in these same areas is quite low.
I hope he said this before he was Mirandized. Otherwise, Carlos Slim is going to call him into his office and read him the Riot Act. Because the party line is ZOMG GREAT HISPANIC VOTER TIDAL WAVE LOL~!!!!!1. Carlos Slim’s newspaper is supposed to be spreading the propaganda that the Hispanic vote is that big, that crucial, exercises that much leverage, and is that powerful, in order to cower politicians (esp. Republicans) into throwing the borders wide open (even more than they already are), so that there are whole lots of Mexicans on both sides of the fiction that we used to call a border, but one that still serves Carlos Slim’s business interests, as his wealth odometer rolls up every time someone makes a phone call or wires money between the two countries.
Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote
That’s no surprise to me.
This is, somewhat:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that one-out-of-three Likely U.S. Voters (35%) now believes that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote if they can prove they live in this country and pay taxes. Sixty percent (60%) disagree, while five percent (5%) are undecided.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.
The bigger disappointment is that a fifth of Republicans and almost a third of independents agree. But then again, it’s really not a surprise. Because if we’re told that voting as a means to determining who determines public policy is sacrosanct, and we have to deploy National Endowment for Democracy propaganda soft power and sometimes even invade the world military hard power to make sure the rest of the world basks in such “glory,” then how can we morally refuse the franchise to people who are just missing a little bit of documentation? Colonel Sanders wants you to eat more fried chicken, not the same or less. Likewise, democracies want more voters, not the same or fewer.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case challenging how Texas sets up state legislative districts. Texas currently counts everyone in the state, including illegal immigrants, before carving up districts of proportional population size, but the challenge argues that only eligible voters should be counted because the current system creates some districts with much larger numbers of eligible voters than others.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters agree with the legal challenge and say states should only count eligible voters when setting the size of legislative districts for voting purposes. Just 23% favor the current system in Texas that counts all residents including illegal immigrants. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.
At first glance, the 66% who side with Evenwel in Evenwel v Abbott does not necessarily mathematically overlap with the 30% of those who want illegal aliens to vote, but they do add up to 96%, and experience has taught me that there has to be some overlap, maybe five to ten percent. Meaning those in the overlap think that illegal aliens should be able to vote but illegal aliens shouldn’t be counted as voters in apportionment and redistricting matters. Make that make sense.
It’s a little too late to protest. The election was Thursday, and the Tories won an absolute majority.
Feed Thursday’s results into some sort of proportional representation system, and you get UKIP with a lot more power and leverage. For instance, feed the popular vote into the D’Hondt System, which is what MEP elections use, and you have Tory at 256, UKIP at 83, for 339 combined and a majority if they coalesce.
There’s really no sugar coating this. Yesterday’s British elections were bad for our cause. I will probably be adding more to this post as I think of more brilliant observations.
How do you get to be the third place party in popular votes, more votes than the SNP and LD combined, yet come out of the night with only one seat, (losing one that they took in a byelection last fall), compared to the 64 combined that the SNP and LD have? It’s easy. Because of first past the post (“FPTP”). UKIP had a lot of very solid second and third place finishes, but they were mostly in constituencies (“const(s),” from here on out) that were solid Labour or solid Tory. I’m hesitant ever to use the weasel phrase “protest vote,” but that’s what most UKIP votes probably were, people who lived in safe consts for one of the other parties, who liked the UKIP well enough, and were reacting to bad news and bad circumstances by voting UKIP knowing their votes would not change Westminster (“WM”) calculus. There was a lot of worrying in Tory circles and in the arena of conventional political wisdom that UKIP would cost the Tories this whole shooting match. If anything, if one digs deep into the const results, I bet you’ll find that in Tory-Lab two-way marginals where the UKIP vote changed the winner, the UKIP vote swung more consts from Lab to Tory than the other way around. Meaning that UKIP was a net help, not a net hindrance, to the Tories.
An insurgent right-populist movement winds up redounding to the benefit of lamestream conservatives, and the right-pops get little to nothing out of it. Where have we seen that movie before? Right. Scratch out “UKIP” and insert “Tea Party Movement,” and scratch out “Tories” and insert “Republicans,” and it’s just about the same story.
But none of that changes the WM reality of only one seat, and one that doesn’t matter because the Tories have an outright majority. The Tories don’t need anybody’s help for anything now. As far as David Cameron is concerned, he has beat back the UKIP threat, which looked like almost an existential threat in the latter one-third of last year.
Otherwise, these are the exigencies of FPTP systems. The BNP did well in 2009 MEP elections but less well in the 2010 Parliamentary elections; UKIP was the star of the 2014 MEPs but disappointed yesterday. That’s because MEP elections use a proportional representation system such that voters don’t think they’re wasting their vote or changing parliamentary outcomes by voting for a “lesser” party instead of a major one. Douglas Carswell, who gave the only victory speech for UKIP last night, used the occasion to call for electoral reform. Something which, for very obvious reasons, will not happen any time in the next five years.
Nigel Farage has stepped down from party leadership. The conventional wisdom in UKIP circles is that someone who matriculated through UKIP and only UKIP needs to lead UKIP, as opposed to someone who defected from the Tories, Farage and Carswell being examples of the latter. Problem is, there may not be anyone in UKIP who can work it like Farage. I think he should reconsider. (Update: Party leadership rejected his resignation).
Now have an outright majority because they cleaned up almost everywhere in England and Wales outside of the notable big cities. In fact, London had some of the few bright spots for Labour swinging marginals away from Tories.
Special Ed Miliband is going to rue the day that he openly promised Muslim voters to make Islamophobia a damned near capital crime.
Some are thinking that Miliband being Jewish cost him somehow, that it meant that Labour’s support was less than the polling suggested, that some sorts of voters said they were voting Labour but never had any intention because of his being Jewish. Muslim voters, maybe, but I don’t see why Muslims wouldn’t vote Miliband, especially because of his Dhimmitude and pandering. Maybe a scant few working class whites abandoned Labour over anti-Semitism, but not enough to swing as much as one const. A lot of British Jews were upset that Miliband is openly anti-Israel and pro-invented people. That may have affected some media coverage, but that’s probably not enough by itself to change one const.
If Miliband’s ethnicity was a factor, it wasn’t that he is Jewish, it’s that he isn’t Scottish. The last two Labour Party PMs, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, are Scottish. Meaning that Labour cleaned up in Scotland when the party leader is Scottish. But not so much when that’s not the case. I’ll get to that below.
Another probable cause for Labour underperformance relative to the polls and to the party’s expectations coming into the election season is that like the American Democrat Party, the British Labour Party has become an identity politics coalition of the fringes. That is a big turnoff to working class whites, but it doesn’t turn them on to the Tories. This is where UKIP came in.
Five years and one month ago, Nick Clegg was the Obama-style darling and the toast of British politics and the British political media. Now, he’s out as LD leader, his party driven almost to the brink of extinction, from 56 seats to 8 seats, from 22% to 8%. It’s easy to think that left wing voters punished the LDs for going into a coalition with the Tories by swinging to Labour. Except there seemed to be as many LD to Tory swings in consts as there were LD to Labour swings in England and Wales, add to it a few LD to SNP swings in Scotland.
So I’m at a loss for a good explanation.
At one point last night, I tweeted (in not so many words, to keep under 140) that Scottish voters were demonstrating by voting SNP that they wish they could have a mulligan on the independence vote.
They might actually get just that, or get independence without a plebiscite, with their turning Scotland’s consts yellow. Or, to put it more accurately, with a Tory majority at WM even counting a country with Scotland, David Cameron is going to dictate Scotland’s terms of departure.
It’s the frustration of the night. Officially, Labour 52% UKIP 30%. That would seem pretty good, and it does represent an 8.2% swing from Labour to UKIP over five years ago. Except…there was a byelection in this const in 2012. The results were: Labour 52%, UKIP+BNP 30%. In 2010, the BNP candidate got 10% in this const. So UKIP’s “success” yesterday resulting in the swing was nothing more than BNP voters from three years ago switching to UKIP. Otherwise, no change, and Labour has not been punished for its criminal behavior in Rotherham, at least not on the WM level.
Everyone is so mad, so they go to vote, and get essentially more of the same.
1. Why were the polls so wrong? I keep reading a lot about “shy Tory syndrome,” sort of the British equivalent of the Bradley Effect. Some are comparing this to Likud and Republicans doing much better than the polling suggested they would in the most recent important elections in Israel and the United States, respectively. I’ve been saying since November that Republicans did better than polling suggested because polling couldn’t see how pathetically low non-white turnout would be, and I still think that’s partially true. Steve Sailer thinks it’s Shy Tory Syndrome, mainly because of the way the mainstream media-political culture were chimping out in 2014 over Donald Sterling, the Children’s Crusade, Ferguson and Hobby Lobby. The good news is that we will find out the real turnout numbers next month from the Census Bureau, so we’ll see how much lower non-white turnout played a role.
2. The consts that swung. I have to rethink some of my suppositions above. Not counting Scotland, we have 27 from LD to Tory, 12 from LD to Labour, 10 from Tory to Labour, 8 from Labour to Tory. So the LDs bled out way more to the Tories than to Labour. As far as Tory-Lab swings, the 10 that swung from Tory to Lab were mostly in London and a few in other big cities; incidentally, London was UKIP’s weakest region in England. The eight that swung from UKIP to Tory were in rural England, where UKIP was strongest. Proving my theory that UKIP was a net benefit to the Tories because UKIP swept up Labour votes swinging close Lab-held Tory-Lab marginals to the Tories.
The most inexplicable swings here are the 27 from LD to Tory. (UPDATE: Or, not so much; see below.)
3. When there’s a surprising result, there’s usually some measure of somebody coopting somebody else’s agenda going on. Don’t be surprised in the coming days if we find out that the Tories tried to coopt the UKIP agenda in certain places.
4. There’s also talk that the Tories ran a subterranean campaign in England and Wales against Scottish nationalism and identity, or even if they didn’t, certain things that SNP leaders and candidates said meant that English voters were going to think in those terms.
6. David Axelrod advised Labour, and he was said to be helping him in ways that he helped Obama win re-election in 2012. But I knew all along that would be a big flop, because the UK has very few elderly black women voters. The few they have live in safe Labour consts anyway. But just to show you what the Tories are made of, another former Obama hack, Jim Messina, was advising them.
They won a majority in the local council of Thanet, which contained one of the consts that Nigel Farage tried to win.
UKIP finished 2nd in 120 consts, and while there are 650 consts in the whole UK, there are 533 in England and 40 in Wales; if you back out London’s 73 consts, which for obvious reasons (*) is never going to be UKIP friendly territory, then UKIP finished in second in more than a fourth of the rest of England and Wales. UKIP was the top gainer in almost all English and Welsh consts.
(*) – Or maybe not so obvious to many of you, so let me fill in the blanks. London’s Labour consts are red (Labour’s color) because of racial minorities, as you can see in HBD Chick’s link above, not working-middle class whites. London’s Tory consts are full of very well to do people who benefit from European continental integration, globalism and mass immigration, but don’t like Labour’s fiscal and economic policies (think: Establishment Republicans in the United States). Neither group of London voters are much interested in UKIP’s keynote policies.
Conventional wisdom based on the traditional classism of British society and politics was that the BNP (back in the days when the BNP was viable) bled off of Labour while UKIP bled off the Tories. However, classism is breaking down in Britain, and proof of that is that UKIP bled fairly evenly from the Tories, Labour and the LDs. And, as it turns out, all the LD to Tory swings are not so inexplicable, because UKIP bled off so many LD votes in the southwest and other places that the Tories won by standing still.
After a few days of people actually drilling down the data, it doesn’t look quite so bad for UKIP.