Why Voter Disenfranchisement is Usually Conducted by Republicans

Most cases of voter disenfranchisement have been conducted by Republicans against those who are likely to vote Democrat. The reasons for this are myriad, but are mostly grounded in the fact that a lot of dialogue from Republican leaders demonizes many liberal voters as freeloaders, or as people who are only voting based on things like race. When people start to believe those things about fellow citizens and their reasons for voting, it becomes easy disregard their right to vote. With remarks such as Romney’s statements about 47% of the country being freeloaders who will vote for Obama no matter what (Washington Post), it is easy to see how some Republicans can justify voter disenfranchisement.

Who is Targeted and What are the Methods?

Voter disenfranchisement is often directed at minorities. One of the biggest reasons is that minorities have historically voted Democrat, so statistically speaking, preventing minority votes means that the democratic candidate is losing more votes than the republican candidate (The Atlantic). One example of initiatives targeting the voting rights of the poor and minorities is the recent push for strict voter ID laws. In the past 10 years there have only been 50 charges of voter fraud across all types of elections in the United States (The Atlantic) – this hardly represents a clear and present danger our democratic system, yet many republicans at the state level are pushing harder than ever to require ID’s at voting booths. This disproportionately affects poor communities, where people often do not have the time or money to register for the identification that would be required to vote. With voter ID laws popping up in the legislatures of many states, it could have a significant effect on a close presidential election.

There have also been cases of “get out the vote” initiatives partaking in voter disenfranchisement. For example, in the 2012 election, a man who was distributing and collecting voter registration forms for a firm hired by the Republican Party in Virginia was caught and charged with throwing out Democrat voter forms (CBS News). He had sorted through all the forms he collected, and threw out only the ones who registered as Democrats. Had he been successful, those voters who thought they had registered would have been unable to vote when they showed up at the booths on Election Day.

The post Voter Disenfranchisement Might Decide the 2016 Presidential Election appeared first on 2016 Election.

US Drone Doctrine

North Korea

The “War on Religion”

The post Top 3 Issues for Republicans in 2016 appeared first on 2016 Election.

Target Younger Voters

Improve Minority Relations

The post How Republicans Should Address Their Shrinking Voter Base appeared first on 2016 Election.

Will Sequestration and Austerity Hurt The Economy?

This is an important question that both parties face as the effects of budget cuts amounting to $85 billion this year take effect. A majority of economists believe that sequestration will cut government spending by enough to send the US economy back into recession. If true the odds become interesting for who gets blame. Since Republican refused to face another tax increase, the blame may fall on them. The continuance of their party of “NO” strategy could further alienate voters and strengthen the President’s support base. If that happens look for Democrats down ticket to benefit. A broken congress will be a strong talking point for democrats looking to regain control of the House in 2016.

What If Sequestration Ends Up Being A Good Idea After All?

To be fair, markets reached record highs on March 5. This seems to be Wall Streets vote on the effects of sequestration. If it doesn’t hurt the economy it can still be a big win for Democrats. The reason is one brought up by Ezra Klein in his wonkblog. That fact is that the president’s deals including sequestration, will represent $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. This is important because many economists agree that this target amount will help stabilize US debt. For Democrats, it strengthens their credentials as supporting reduced debt and controlled spending. It also takes away the Republicans’ biggest talking point. (Which still lost them the White House)

What A Win Means in Either Scenario

Sequestration can yield a bigger return in advancing policy for the White House and Democrats in congress. The more effective the President and his party appear the more support and leverage they have to pursue other policy goals. This means the president and the Democratic party can start the important work of building their case for the 2014 and 2016 elections. Either way this is just one step among several Democrats must take to safely win the upcoming election and new political fights such as immigration and other issues may shape the political landscape in a more direct manner.

The post Can Sequestration Help the Democrats in 2016? appeared first on 2016 Election.

The post 5 Things From Hillary Clinton’s Past That Might Hurt Her Chances appeared first on 2016 Election.

The time is right for Dennis Rodman to make a run at the 2016 US Presidential Election.  He may have spent zero years in political office but Rodman has averaged over thirteen rebounds per game and won five NBA championships during his illustrious career.  That’s five more NBA championships than Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Elizabeth Warren, Paul Ryan, and Joe Biden combined.   Although his dominance at rebounding may not help him in the sphere of politics, his recent trip to North Korea highlights his diplomatic talents.  He is a man that has shown his ability to handle tough situations by persevering through heartbreak with the likes of Madonna and Carmen Electra.  He has proven that he is versatile by winning Celebrity Mole in 2004, joining up with Hulk Hogan in the nWo, as well as serving as commissioner of the Lingerie Football League.  More recently, he has shown his impressive business acumen on Celebrity Apprentice.

Born in New Jersey and revered in the states of Illinois and Michigan, he would likely carry those states handily in an election.  He would finance his presidential run with money from large multinational hair dye companies as well as his winnings from Celebrity Mole.   Once elected President of the United States, there is no doubt he would work, along with Vice President Hulk Hogan, to end North Korea’s quest for a nuclear bomb.   A vote for Rodman/Hogan 2016 would be a vote for a safer world.

Filed under satire

Photo via open sports / flickr

The post The Case for Rodman in 2016 appeared first on 2016 Election.

Rubio Uncomfortable In High Pressure Situations

Marco Rubio’s response to the State of the Union Address was his official début on the national stage. Even with viewership down from previous addresses, he still had an audience of millions. Such chances to communicate your policies and vision are rare and difficult to make on your own. Rubio’s water-gate showed that he has trouble dealing with high pressure situations. If he has difficulty with a response to the State of The Union, what about a nationally televised debate during the primaries or worse, the general election? A water-gate moment on such a crucial stage cripples or ends campaigns. Even worse is the poor contrast. The President is already known for his oratorical skills, but it is basic political speaking 101 to be able to get through a speech without such awkward moments. The optics only heightened the president’s stature and weakened Rubio’s position as a serious policy maker from the opposition.

Rubio’s Speech Was Not Innovative

Rubio’s delivery was emotional and compassionate, but it fell short due to rehashing the same talking points of the previous election. A serious response would accept the political reality. The same party positions he repeated failed to win back the presidency last year. A serious change agent would focus on popular issues like supporting a minimum wage, common sense debt reduction, and an immigration policy that works for everyone. Rubio already took a step in the right direction by urging the passage of comprehensive immigration reform, but his speech showed the inability to be a serious spokesperson on the issue. Building credibility is an important part of politics and Rubio’s performance diminished it by not providing a serious-minded answer and properly using his personal American story. Instead the speech was a canned response that didn’t seriously address the actual State of the Union’s key points. Even worse it provided serious contradictions. Rubio talks about reducing the need for government in people’s lives, but talked about how government programs like Pell grants allowed him to go to college. He didn’t recognize the contradictions in his own life, let alone overall policy.

The Republican Party Isn’t Changing Fast Enough

The Republican party has more conservative adherents than ever and they act as if Romney won last November. This attitude is dangerous for a party seeking to stay on the national stage of politics. More dangerous is the pressure it puts on candidates for national office to conform rather than appeal to mainstream opinion. Rubio can be a credible partner on the right for immigration reform as a living example and ambassador. However his own party may limit his effectiveness at working across party lines, a major requirement needed to play in major league politics. A perfect example is the rival Tea Party response made by fellow Senator, Rand Paul.

A Small Gaffe Points To Major Weaknesses

Overall, we see that at best, Rubio has more to learn about national level politics. And its pressures. At worst, he showed he lacks the seriousness and preparation to be a major actor in Washington in the coming years.

The post Rubio’s Water-Gate Proves He’s Not Ready for 2016 appeared first on 2016 Election.

1. Claims To The Throne

Even in the Democratic Party, seniority and experience play a role in deciding the major players. The president’s victory over the powerful Clinton political organization is a modern miracle of politics, and repetition of such a phenomenon is rare and unlikely. So the first people to look at are the obvious suspects. This means Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to start. Secretary Clinton was President Obama’s fiercest rival in the Democratic Primaries and ended up a key player on his cabinet. Her experience as a New York Senator, First Lady, and Secretary of State make her a strong candidate for taking up leadership of the Party. Joe Biden is another potential successor. Historical precedent points to vice presidents having a higher chance at getting the presidency than any other politician. Their job is to prepare for the event that the president can’t fulfill his duties. In addition, Joe Biden is one the of the most active vice presidents in recent memory, helping to shape economic policy, foreign affairs, and key domestic legislation like gun control. Combine that with his record as a Senate veteran, and it gives him a strong card entering 2016.

2. Will There Be A Deep Bench In 2016?

Another factor is how many serious contenders will appear for the 2015-2016 election season. There are already strong potential candidates including governors, senators, and representatives. Even as current speculation points to Secretary Clinton as the candidate to beat, several possible candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren, Anne Klobuchar, Governor Cuomo, and Mayor Cory Booker show that serious, talented candidates exist. The real field will depend on whether these potential candidates choose to run two years from now.

3. How Republicans Define Front Runners

The 2016 Election will see Republican’s looking to weaken any strong candidates on the Democratic side. This means that a candidate who appears strong on paper gets taken down by a hidden scandal, controversial policy positions, or simple verbal gaffes. We already see the results of such mistakes with the reaction of Democrats to gaffes made by key figures during important moments such as the opposition response to the state of the Union. Interesting or compelling candidates like Jindal had presidential dreams killed by poor optics and other factors. The democratic nominee will be able to take these hits along with friendly fire from rivals in the primary process. A contender that can still keep going after such attacks and more importantly, preserve their own political narrative will win the nomination.

4. Can The Potential Nominee Keep The White House In Democratic Hands?

The big question of 2008 was if candidates were ready from day one. The new question may be whether the candidate is strong enough to protect the President’s electoral legacy. This will mean looking at which candidate is the best at preserving the electoral coalition built by President Obama and his now legendary campaign organization over two major election cycles. The candidate that best answers this question will have the strongest chance to become the Democratic Party’s Presidential Nominee.

The post 4 Factors That Will Decide the 2016 Democratic Nominee appeared first on 2016 Election.

I wonder if Sarah Palin could hear that meteorite from her house

— Aaron Levine (@AaronQ13Fox) February 15, 2013

Biden and Boehner’s ties should team up to fight crime in ’80s Miami.

— Alex Blagg (@alexblagg) February 13, 2013

Joe Biden always looks like he’s thinking about cinnamon buns. #SOTU

— Neal Brennan (@nealbrennan) February 13, 2013

Overheard some conservative Latino kids in a pool playing “Marco Rubio.”

— Conan O’Brien (@ConanOBrien) September 2, 2012

“It’s 3 AM. In the White House, a phone is ringing. But Marco Rubio is in the kitchen getting a glass of water…” #2016

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) February 13, 2013

If Rand Paul tries to deport Marco Rubio that will be the Tea Partyest response ever

— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) February 12, 2013

How can I not believe in a loving God when every time Paul Ryan is on camera ‘Eddie Munster’ trends on Twitter?

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) February 13, 2013

I didn’t actually read about Rahm Emmanuel’s mayoral disqualification in the news. I heard his swearing in the wind.

— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) January 25, 2011

PSA: Pitbull will be eligible to run for president in 2016.

— Luke Zimmermann (@lukezim) February 11, 2013

The post 9 Funny Tweets on the 2016 Election appeared first on 2016 Election.

However, what many fail to realize is that Elizabeth Warren is right where she needs to be and where she should stay. Not only does her talent lay in the nuts-and-bolts workings of financial policy, but also, she wields more influence as one of one-hundred rather than door-number-two. A look at history backs this up.

The vice-presidency is almost a constitutional after-thought. In order to force members of the electoral college to come together and cleanly elect a president, the rules mandated that the runner-up would become the veep. Think of the match-ups this would have created in the past decades. Clinton – Dole, Bush – Gore, and Obama – Romney. The founding fathers obviously didn’t put much stock in the office, hoping only that the number-two slot would be filled with someone of statesman character.

Consequently, the veep has two, and only two, legal duties. The first is to step forward if the president dies in office. The second it so cast the deciding vote in a senatorial tie. That’s it. Over the decades, two other roles has evolved. One is to be a force-multiplier for the president, occasionally acting as arm-twister-in-chief. The other is to be the president’s primary confidante. It is also a myth that the road to the White House is through the vice-presidency. The last veep to make it to the big dance was George Bush Sr., in 1988 and he was only there for one term. While not the “pitcher of warm spit,” opined by John Nance Garner, the vice-presidency is scarcely a bastion of power and influence.

Conversely, as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Elizabeth Warren has the power to be an agent of influence and change. Already, financial and market advocates, such as Dennis M. Kelleher are saying, “Wall Street put hundreds of millions of dollars into defeating Warren, Obama, and financial reform. They went all in. Today they have a much bigger problem.”

The Senate is an elite and powerful legislative body. From the committee system to the filibuster, a single senator can exert a disproportionate amount of influence on legislation. The Senate also has exclusive jurisdiction over treaties and confirmation of officials. With its six-year terms, senators have a longer time to consolidate power and establish their position. Even though Warren represents Massachusetts, the fourteenth most populous state, she wields the same power as California, a state six times the size. Finally, without term limits, a senator can influence legislation for decades.

So, given the out-size advantage of senator, the question should actually be, “Why would anyone want to leave?”

The post Why Elizabeth Warren Should Stay in the Senate appeared first on 2016 Election.