James Carville Has A Point
James Carville is getting a lot of online grief today because of an interview he did with the PBS NewsHour last night. He was one of three political experts who were asked by Judy Woodruff about what the off-off-year elections meant for politics moving forward. But while Carville was (as usual) rather blunt and insensitive in what he said, he does have a point worth defending.
This isn't even the first time I have defended Carville for making almost exactly the same point, in fact. Earlier in the year, Carville got some heat for an interview he did with Vox. Here was my summation of the three points Carville made:
The biggest overarching point Carville makes is that the right way to craft a modern political message is to base your argument in emotion, not reason. More specifically, he derides what he calls "faculty lounge politics," or using the language from the ivory tower rather than speaking to people in the language they use. And finally, he makes what seems to me to be an almost-permanent complaint about Democrats -- they just don't fight as hard as Republicans, and that's why they lose a lot of messaging battles they really should win.
Yesterday, Carville returned to the second argument, the one about the language that progressives use versus the language the voters themselves use. Here is what he had to say (what got him so much pushback online), in full, from the transcript of the interview:
Well, what went wrong is this stupid wokeness.
All right? Don't just look at Virginia and New Jersey. Look at Long Island, look at Buffalo, look at Minneapolis. Even look at Seattle, Washington. I mean, this "defund the police" lunacy, this "take Abraham Lincoln's name off of schools," that -- people see that.
And it's just -- really have a suppressive effect all across the country to Democrats. Some of these people need to go to a woke detox center or something. They're expressing language that people just don't use. And there's a backlash and a frustration at that.
And you're right. Suburbanites in Northern Virginia, suburbanites in Northern New Jersey pulled away a little bit. [Glenn] Youngkin never ran any ads against Biden. And I think what he did is just let the Democrats pull the pin and watch the grenade go off on them.
And we have got to change this and not be about changing dictionaries and change laws. And these faculty lounge people that sit around mulling about I don't know what are -- they're not working. Look what happened in Buffalo, again, Seattle. I think the Republicans may have won a city attorney's race in Seattle. The "autonomous zone" -- who could even think of something that stupid?
And they're suppressing our vote. And I have got news for you. You're hurting the party. You're hurting the very people that you want to help.
And Terry [McAuliffe] got caught up. He's a good friend of mine. He's a good guy. He got caught up in something national, and we have got to change this internally, in my view.
Woodruff then asked Carville how much of a difference it would make -- looking ahead to the 2022 midterms -- if Democrats managed to pass Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan in Congress. Carville briefly answered, and then returned to his main point:
Well, I think it can make an enormous difference.
And, by the way, it seems to me and a lot of other people that the virus numbers are really getting better. There's a ton of pent-up demand in this economy. I'm just not one of these people that thinks that we're necessarily doomed in 2022.
We could have a roaring economy. This Build Back Better is going to give people a lot of confidence. And as long as we talk about things that are relevant to people and understand what they're going through in their lives and get rid of this left-wing nonsense, this claptrap I hear, I think we can be fine.
But we have got to stop. We have got to get off of this. These people have got to understand they're not popular around the country. People don't like them. And they're voting because that's the only way that they can express themselves and how much they disagree with this.
And, again, I go back. And it's not just Virginia and New Jersey. It's literally everywhere, up to and including Seattle. And there's a real lesson here. And it can be corrected. But they have got -- these people have to understand, no one -- you're not popular. People don't want to ride in the car with you. They don't want to ride next to you in the subway.
You're annoying people. And they got to understand that. It's very important.
And for the sake of completeness, here is the final segment of Carville's appearance, after being asked whether President Biden "is not a drag for Democrats."
Well, look, he probably was somewhat, but I don't think so.
Youngkin never mentioned President Biden. He just let the Democrats sit there and light themselves up. And, literally, Terry just got caught up in it.
But I don't -- I think he can be -- if they get this through, they have got a lot of good things in it, and they have got to sell it. If they don't -- some Democrat -- every Democrat wants to be a policy maven. No one wants to be a salesperson.
Well, you got to get out there and sell your product and tell people what's in it and quit worrying about being in the policy shop or being some self-important bureaucrat. That's what I think.
Carville didn't even point to the strongest example from this week's elections to make his main case. Minneapolis voted this week on a referendum to "defund the police." Minneapolis, of course, was Ground Zero to the Black Lives Matter movement of last year, since that's where George Floyd was killed by a police officer.
Here's how that election went:
City Question Two would have amended the Minneapolis charter to allow the police department to be replaced by a Department of Public Safety. The new agency would have taken a "comprehensive public health approach" to public safety, including dispatching mental health workers to certain calls and more investment in violence prevention efforts.
The measure also would have removed decades-old language from the city charter requiring a minimum number of police officers based on its population. The new department "could include" police officers "if necessary" -- wording that potentially doomed the measure among residents concerned about rising violent crime in the city, even as supporters argued the city would still have armed police because state law requires them to respond in certain circumstances.
People on both sides of the fight had predicted results would be close, but with 99 percent of precincts reporting late Tuesday, 56 percent of voters had rejected the measure -- a disappointing result for supporters of the initiative, who blamed "disinformation" and "fearmongering" for the loss.
But maybe it was just badly-written and not completely thought through? That certainly was the impression of at least one Black voter quoted for the article:
Across town in North Minneapolis, the heart of the city's Black community, which has been hard hit by rising violence, voters said they strongly supported reform but were uneasy about what replacing the police department would mean, pointing to the lack of specifics about what would happen next.
"It's a no-win situation," said Nicole Dillard, who voted against the policing question. Dillard, who is Black, said she was no fan of Minneapolis police, but she worried the ballot measure was a backdoor effort to simply abolish the police, which was untenable in a neighborhood where gun violence has killed and wounded dozens of people this year. "We need someone to call, and if it's not police, who will it be?" Dillard said. "We already don't have enough police on the street."
Hopefully, this will end any Democratic attempts to use the slogan "defund the police" pretty much everywhere. It's always been a bad slogan. Police reform is a worthy idea, but the slogan itself is just horrible. Which I wrote about (in the "Talking Points" section, at the end), back when it was first introduced:
"Defund the police" is a really bad slogan. There, we said it.
We cannot argue that proponents of the idea aren't fighting for the right cause, because we too believe in that general cause. We agree that policing in American needs massive realignment. We are even sympathetic to the concept of moving police funding from doing things like buying military-grade equipment and weapons to social services instead. But we still say it's a very bad political slogan to champion.
Admittedly, as a slogan, it is short and sweet. Only three words. Memorable. Those are all big points in its favor. But the key problem lies in the fact that it is not exactly easily-defined -- except by those who oppose it.
What does "defund the police" mean? Well, you get different answers if you ask different people. It is nebulous, even to the people who are using it. But to its detractors it means one thing and one thing only: "completely remove all police and replace them with nothing more than social workers." Some people using the phrase even actually agree with this interpretation:
For some activists, such as those behind the movement "8toabolition," defunding the police is part of a larger effort to redefine society.
"The end goal of these reforms is not to create better, friendlier, or more community-oriented police or prisons," the group's website reads. "Instead, we hope to build toward a society without police or prisons, where communities are equipped to provide for their safety and wellbeing."
What this means is that other people and groups using the slogan who aren't this radical have to continually define exactly what they mean by it, while opponents don't have to bother with explanations. "Defunding" means "getting rid of" to a whole lot of people, plain and simple. And when you have to define a political slogan because the first impression it leaves is the wrong one, it is a bad slogan almost by definition.
So far, while a heartening majority of Americans support the protests and what the protesters are saying, this particular slogan polls pretty badly. An ABC/Ipsos poll just out shows 64 percent of the public against defunding the police, and even when nuanced by asking about "reducing the budget of the police department in your community, even if that means fewer police officers, if the money is shifted to programs related to health, housing, and education," it didn't help much -- 60 percent were against that, too.
As the election results from Minneapolis show, this idea hasn't gotten much more popular in the meantime, either. It still sounds like a pretty crazy idea to most people. Which is exactly the point Carville was trying to make.
You can call James Carville an old White guy who is out of touch. That's probably true to some degree or another (the "out of touch" part -- he's definitely an old White guy). You can even argue that "being woke" wasn't an especially pivotal point in the Virginia governor's race, as Carville tried to claim. But, as usual, when you cut through his curmudgeonly language, he does have a point.
Even Al Sharpton seemed to agree, to a certain extent:
The Rev. Al Sharpton said the election results validated concerns that some pushing for change have gone too far, alienating moderates and independents with talk of violent protests or proposals to defund police departments. The movement is at a tenuous spot, he said, needing to convince activists to tone down their rhetoric and become more pragmatic.
"We're going to have engage more methodically and strategically in the process, because we could lose it all," he said. "We've got to really bring everybody together and understand that this is a wake-up call and those really committed to voting rights and police reform need to deal with it in a practical way."
When Republicans go looking for ways to demonize Democrats, they usually shy away from the actual policies Democrats favor and are trying to enact (Republicans shy away from this conversation because they know full well how popular most of the Democratic ideas are). Instead, they look for emotional issues which will annoy voters and even (at times) enrage them. Or scare them. "Defund the police" was tailor-made to be demonized by the opposition. And it's certainly not the only part of the new Democratic lexicon that is vulnerable to such ridicule and political attacks.
So while I don't fully agree with everything Carville said, I do have to defend his big-picture point. The ivory-tower language works against Democrats who aren't running for office in the most liberal coastal or metropolitan districts. What works against them is not supporting Build Back Better, or even any of the components of the Biden agenda. Those are all not just defensible but will in fact be strong campaign themes for almost all Democratic candidates next year (assuming the bill ever passes, of course).
Hopefully, at least, the big defeat in Minneapolis -- where the movement really got underway -- of the "defund the police" slogan will give the Democratic Party all the political cover it needs to move beyond it and leave it behind. Because as I have always maintained, it's just a bad political slogan, and it's now time to leave it by the wayside forever. Democrats should continue to strongly support reforming policing practices in America, and they should propose actual legislation to accomplish this at both the local and national levels. But not by continuing to use a proven loser of a slogan. James Carville is definitely right about that.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
FPC,
You led off yesterday's column with, Obviously, Democrats need to do something different over the next year if they're going to have any chance at all in the midterm elections. That was the overwhelming message from last night's dismal election returns.
I cant let this go. (starting 12:25)
Rachel Maddow points out that all the Democratic handwringing makes NO sense, as EVERY first term President going back to Bush the Elder has lost BOTH the VA and NJ Governorship races to the other party!
That is, by ONLY losing VA Joe Biden did something not accomplished since Saint Ronnie!
I shall now read this new column.
I reread Carvill's responses and can't find a single sentence in there to disagree with. What about you, CW?
And, lest you forget Don Harris, here's your chance to man up or shut up.
James Carville Has A Point
I got this theory that this is the reason he dang near always wears a hat. ;)
Democrats - Worst Campaigners Ever.
Please be more precise, Elizabeth. It's the Corporatist Dems that are holding Murica back, not Bernie and Elizabeth and AOC.
@kick,
hmm, carville... does he come from... france?
as opposed to "france"
MtnCaddy
3
I reread Carvill's responses and can't find a single sentence in there to disagree with.
Me neither.
The Democratic Party needs to stop speaking in complicated terms and using "woke" words like "communities of color" and begin talking like most of America does.
Democrats need to define their opponents by their least flattering members in the same way Republicans do:
* Searching for child abusers? Look no further than the Party of Grand Old Pedophiles: Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, Roy Moore, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan who turned a blind eye to nearly 300 young victims of rape and abuse at Ohio State, and Donald Trump, of course.
* Don't like crime and criminals: MAGAA
Mobsters Aren't Governing America Anymore.
Let's keep it that way.
I know you get the idea, MC. You're pretty good at telling it like it is. :)
nypoet22
8
hmm, carville... does he come from... france?
Yes, sir:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrUOFs-hZ-M&t=85s
nypoet22
9
as opposed to "france"
Heh. I didn't see this before I responded with [11]. Yep, you nailed it! :)
[11]
Thanks, Madame Kick, I study this shit intensely (40 hours in a week is below average) and I do try..
I wonder when fuckhead Don Harris is gonna show his face? The moment he does I'm on it like white on rice.
On tonight's episode of "The Boor From Planet Dore ".
We can expect another scintillating dung burner episode....
Blah, blah, your wrong.
Blah, blah, your part of the problem if you don't talk about me.
Some worthless prattle about a supposed political party that has some non serious name that no serious reform movement would use.
Some more non related prattle about another political party that also has some non serious name.
A lecture about how we should all run like lemmings to some cobweb on the internet and give a guy, who is not set up to be a legitimate electoral advocacy org, our personal information and that we should not worry about the fact that he does not disclose what will happen with said information nor does he have a disclaimer about not using the information for commercial gain...like "everyone else" that is legitimate.
Some sort of blather about how the one dumbman "movement" will change the way politics and elections work, All while blissfully ignoring the fact if you write yourself in, in a majority of the country your vote is not counted thus ensuring that the guy with the most counted ballots wins.
Another blah, blah, why aren't you talking about me yet.
A request for a clue...
A screech about injecting electoral bleach in your veins.
Brought to you by sancti... Try a steaming hot mug of sanctimonious judgment For those times when you need to really just show how under educated you are.
Bashi (14)
Uh...wut?
Either I was sleep posting or you are mentioning the wrong critic. Not that I disagree with the criticism...
Or are you just calling everything bullshit in order to avoid having to address it?
MtnCaddy,
Gratuitous name-calling is so juvenile ... especially when it is directed at members of this blog.
What should be our theme for Sunday night!?
Can we do anything here to liven up this, ah, conversation?
Don Harris
15
Why haven't I gotten anywhere with OD?
One reason is people don't know about it.
That's your problem and no one else's. The people you've spammed repeatedly on this forum have already told you why it won't work, and all those reasons are factual.
Another is that it challenges the conventional wisdom on how to approach politics.
It challenges nothing! Write in candidates are only allowed in a handful of states, making your "idea" unworkable in the vast majority of states. This ain't rocket science, Don. Your shit isn't possible in the vast majority of America. You have this page on your website wherein Americans must pledge to write in their own names... which is not possible. Might as well pledge to survive without breathing oxygen; it's not possible.
These things take time to catch on as people must reconsider the approach they are used to and are being told is how it gets done.
It doesn't get done if write-in candidates aren't allowed in the vast majority of states. Not rocket science.
But now I have made some progress (see the Ralph Nader Radio Hour).
You got brushed off by Nader and just called it "progress." That's delusion... not progress.
How is that not doing more of what hasn't worked for decades?
You have to admit your shit hasn't worked for almost a decade, now has it? When you prattle on and on about more of what hasn't worked, just keep in mind that your spamming of this forum and your "idea" fits that description perfectly.
The big money politicians will not pass any 100% public financing of elections because the big money interests have no interest in 100% public financing of elections and getting rid of Citizens United suffers the same flaw and would take decades to get done as it would require a constitutional amendment.
I wouldn't shit on this plan if I were you because there's a difference between this plan and yours: It's achievable no matter how difficult it would be. Your idea to vote for yourself isn't achievable and cannot be accomplished in the vast majority of states; it's not possible at all.
You seem to not understand the very parts of CW's mission statement you quote. One Demand is all about the hypocrisy and foibles emanating from Washington, D.C. and has been ignored by the MSM.
Incorrect. It's a pile of unachievable and outdated prattle on a website that hasn't been updated for multiple years, contained an idea that isn't achievable by voters in the vast majority of states.
You also seem to not understand CW said he would respect all commenters opinions.
I missed the part where your "idea" and the steps to achieve it were an opinion. You want a pledge that people write in their own names for every candidate that takes a whopping $201 from a single donor. The vast majority of voters in America cannot do that for every candidate who refuses to meet your purity test. That's not an opinion; that is anYou requesting bullshit isn't an opinion. It's a fact
In my opinion CW should write about One Demand or at least address why he won't. Ignoring my opinion is not respectful.
How exactly am I contradicting myself when I say that just because they do some things the same that they are not exactly the same? You are interpreting my statement incorrectly when you claim I say they are exactly the same when I point out where they are the same.
Again you don't seem to understand or are just pretending to not understand in order to troll.
So we agree the the Establishment Deathocrats are controlled by big money.
We disagree apparently that Bernie, AOC, etc. are not part of the Deathocrat Establishment even though they take big money.
If you don't want them to be controlled by big money why do you keep voting for them?
That approach has not worked for decades.
AGAIN you make the false claim that I am not addressing any shortcomings raised about One Demand.
No one has raised legitimate objections.
I have repeatedly addressed the bullshit objections such as the nonsense in Bashi (14) of the write in votes not being counted.
The result has been that it is repeated claiming it has never been addressed. That is trolling.
Here's your chance to man up instead running away as you have done repeatedly.
^^^^^ HOW DID THAT POST PREMATURELY? ^^^^^
I missed the part where your "idea" and the steps to achieve it were an opinion. You want a pledge that people write in their own names for every candidate that takes a whopping $201 from a single donor. The vast majority of voters in America cannot do that for every candidate who refuses to meet your purity test. That's not an opinion; that is a FACT. Regardless of whether CW respects anyone's opinion or not, that doesn't mean he has to agree to something that is not possible in the vast majority of states.
In my opinion CW should write about One Demand or at least address why he won't. Ignoring my opinion is not respectful.
Lying isn't respectful either, and your characterization that he has ignored your "opinion" is a lie. He's addressed you on multiple occasions. You didn't like his answer; too damn bad. In my opinion, CW should yellow card you like he said he would if you wouldn't stop with your monomania (which is a fact).
Again you don't seem to understand or are just pretending to not understand in order to troll.
You are the board troll who can't seem to grasp the concept that if you're going to troll this forum repeatedly with the same redundant monomania, you're going to get a lot of opinions from people telling you to STFU already. Years and years of this redundant shit out of you that never varies is enough. You've failed. No one here owes you a damn thing, but you'll likely get responses if you continue to troll this forum. If you don't like people's opinions, don't troll the forum repeatedly with the same bullshit.
We disagree apparently that Bernie, AOC, etc. are not part of the Deathocrat Establishment even though they take big money.
If you don't want them to be controlled by big money why do you keep voting for them?
Write in candidates are not allowed in the state he lives so he votes for someone on his ballot instead of throwing away what little power he has. Not rocket science.
That approach has not worked for decades.
Voting hasn't worked for decades? Duh. If you believe that voting for a valid candidate doesn't work, then perhaps you really can imagine how stupid it would be to not vote for a valid candidate at all and just throw away your vote.
AGAIN you make the false claim that I am not addressing any shortcomings raised about One Demand.
That isn't a false claim. Over all these years, you've never acknowledged that your "idea" isn't possible in the vast majority of states and changed nothing about it except the name. Spamming this forum repeatedly will never change the shortcomings of your bullshit; it's not workable.
Every federal politician in America takes thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money far in excess of your $200 purity test... so according to your "big money" definition, they're already owned by the "Big Money" taxpayers of America whom provide them six-figure salaries, yet for some reason you believe they shouldn't be allowed to take more than $200 from a donor!? It's laughable considering they're already taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary.
No one has raised legitimate objections.
Lie... or you're even dumber than your bio claims.
I have repeatedly addressed the bullshit objections such as the nonsense in Bashi (14) of the write in votes not being counted.
Okay... so you're blind as well as dumber than your bio claims.
The result has been that it is repeated claiming it has never been addressed. That is trolling.
You are the troll.
Keep spamming and trolling the forum with your unworkable redundant bullshit and expect nothing less than the same. CW answered you; now he is ignoring you. I suspect CW doesn't respond to commenters like he used to because in the process of ignoring you, he's ignoring us.
Here's your chance to man up instead running away as you have done repeatedly.
Here's your chance to get a clue and eff off.
Elizabeth Miller
21
What should be our theme for Sunday night!?
Already told you: London.
Don Harris
28
Nonsense trolling.
Yes, you are still a troll.
All you did was repeat bullshit claims that have been debunked.
Incorrect. It is also your standard answer, as you've been informed by multiple other commenters multiple other times. It is impossible for you to debunk a fact. You can't debunk a fact; that's why it's called a fact and not an opinion. The FACT is that every federal politician already takes thousands and thousands of dollars from taxpayers in the form of their salary... so I cannot fathom why you believe refusing any donation over $200 proves anything when they're already routinely receiving far in excess by just accepting their six-figure salaries paid 100% by taxpayers. Those are facts.
Have you nothing real?
Yes, you genuinely are dumber than you admit in you bio.
How is public financing or a constitutional amendment achievable?
Dumber than you admit in your bio; you can stop proving it already, we get it!
* Public financing
It's achievable because there are already 14 states that provide some form of public financing option for campaigns. Each of these states require the candidate to accept public money for their campaign in exchange for a promise to limit how much the candidate spends on the election and how much they receive in donations from any one group or individual.
It's available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Is it mandatory? No. The SCOTUS decided in Buckley v. Valeo to strike down a provision of the Federal Election Commission mandating public financing for presidential elections, but it is still already available. So don't tell me it's not possible when it's available.
* Constitutional Amendment
How is an amendment to the Constitution possible? I'll check with the multiple constitutional amendments already ratified and get back to you. Duh! I'm not wasting my time explaining to you how a constitutional amendment is possible, you'll just have to take my word for it that there is a mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended.
No matter how many times you anyone else says write in votes are not counted to elect candidates in some states, enough citizens can cast write in votes in enough states to get this started as it does not require the write in votes to be counted for electing candidates as that is not the purpose of casting those write in votes and they can be counted for the purpose they are cast.
Liar. They are not counted at all and/or they don't exist on the ballot at all.
Can you seriously not grasp the fact that a write-in vote containing your own name is not possible in FORTY-TWO of the FIFTY states? It's not just that they're not counted, there is no space existing on the ballot wherein one can actually write in their own name unless they pay thousands of dollars to register and put it there. You choose a candidate from those listed; there is no write-in space existing on the ballot.
Pretending as if this makes your "idea" workable is delusional, and claiming repeatedly that it does is redundant and demonstrable ignorance. Your "idea" is only available to 16% of the states, which does not mean 16% of citizens since one of those states is teeny tiny Delaware and another is Wyoming with its smallest population in the United States.
Census population
04/01/2020
AL.. 5,024,279
DE.... 989,948
IA... 3,190,369
NH.. 1,377,529
NJ.. 9,288,994
OR.. 4,237,256
VT..... 643,077
WY.... 576,851
TOTAL 25,328,303
Census of 50 states: 330,759,736
Your total population in those 16% of states equals around 7.65% of the population in 2020. Are all of those 25 million persons eligible to vote? Of course not... because some of them aren't citizens and some of them are children and not of legal age to cast a vote. Not rocket science. So don't tell me it's enough people to make your bullshit viable when it's less than 7.65% of the total population, and not all of them are eligible to vote.
Stop the bullshit or go away.
You're the bullshitter... you are free to SFTU or be called out for your ignorance and lies. You choose.
London??
Don Harris
29
On the rest of your premature defecation:
That defecation you're seeing is due to your head residing permanently up your own asshole.
CW has not addressed One Demand multiple times.
Liar... yes, he has.
he pretended to address it only twice (when it was still called Voucher Vendetta), the last time was I think 2017 and what he addressed was not One Demand. he changed it to something else and argued against that instead.
Like I said, he addressed your bullshit on multiple occasions; too damn bad if you didn't like his multiple responses. He did nail it perfectly, though.
CW was wrong when he called me a troll just as the rest of you are wrong when you do it.
Opinions are like assholes. If you're not sure what an asshole is, here, let me help you:
* That thing you're head is shoved firmly up into is one.
* Check your mirror and you'll see one.
Elizabeth Miller
31
You remember asking what city? I responded London... twice.
So, Kick ... you are saying you'd like to feature bands from London ... England this Sunday night?
Great idea!
Don Harris
34
Hilarious.
No, I don't find your repetitive bullshit hilarious at all.
Public financing is available in 14 states?
But if you can't do it in all states at once then you can't do it- isn't that your bullshit claim on write in votes?
No, idiot. Your confusing your some of your bullshit with some of your other bullshit. You told MtnCaddy (whom you claimed was Bashi) that it wasn't impossible. Things that are already in existence and being implemented are by definition already possible. Your shit isn't being done anywhere. You should endeavor not to confuse your "idea" with things that are actually already implemented. Also, everything isn't about you or your bullshit; for instance, CW's columns aren't ever about you.
So it's been tried and not worked or are those 14 states free of big money in politics?
If I was trying to sell your type bullshit, I would already know the answer to this. The fact that you don't know is indicative of your primary problem.
It's also not the 100% public financing that Mtn Caddy mentioned.
I'm not surprised the point flew right over your tiny head, but the point I was making is that it was possible and your shit isn't possible.
You did not address who would pass that.
It's already passed in those 14 states, and that's what makes it possible.
Have you checked how long it takes (15-20 years at best) to get a constitutional amendment passed, ratified and implemented and you have not addressed who would pass it.
Lie or you're ignorant of the facts regarding amendment to the Constitution in the same manner you're ignorant of a shit-ton of the majority of the bullshit you post. A proposed amendment could be passed via two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress (Article V). The proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). The time limit for ratification is 7 years.
I can't help it if you're ignorant, but you sure can. Educate yourself and stop posting bullshit.
Once again you do a garbage dump around the write in votes being counted.
Sorry, asshat, write-in votes are only allowed in 8 states. They're not counted in 42 states at all no matter how many times you whine about it. The percentage of the population that could even do your ignorant pledge and keep it is likely around only 4% of the population because the 7.65% of the people who live in the states where it would be allowed aren't all eligible to vote because they're either underage or aren't citizens or aren't registered to vote at all because they don't vote even though they're eligible.
Those are the facts.
Your information proves me right.
Lie.
Eight states allow write in votes.
Prove it.
Thirty-three states do not count the votes as valid for electing a candidate. But it says that citizens can write in votes and the votes cast that are rendered invalid will be counted as invalid votes.
Lie... or are you blind or illiterate? It doesn't say that at all. It says:
What part of not counted is confusing to you? It says the votes won't be counted. They're not valid and not counted. Learn to comprehend English.
So they are counted for the purpose they were cast.
Dumb Ass: They are not counted. Not rocket science.
You are making a foll of yourself and do not provide anything positive or worthwhile with your comments.
You're illiterate as well as demonstrably effing ignorant.
Get lost.
Your mother makes a lot of sense. If I had an grown-ass man/asshole like you living in my house, I'd sure shit tell him the exact same thing.
Eff off.
Don,
We do Sunday night for everyone!
Hope you will decide to come, for a change. :)
Although, it is indeed time to focus on the Brits!
Don, I'm gonna play the full album of an American band I just now, this very minute, discovered!