The Next Hurrah

Lower the voting age to 17

by emptypockets

I've tossed around this notion twice in passing recently, but let me take a minute to lay it out with a little (very little) more substance.

Why is the voting age 18?

The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 during the Vietnam War, when individuals too young to vote were being drafted. Although several states had already lowered the voting age, the highest minimum voting age was set nationally by the 26th Amendment, reading "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Note that it doesn't say no one younger than 18 shouldn't be allowed to vote -- just that no one older than 18 can be denied the right to vote.

Why lower the voting age now?

Ideologically, simply because I think 17 is old enough. The child-adult boundary is increasingly drawn at 16: the federal chld labor laws apply to those 16 and under, the age of sexual consent in most states is 16 or 17, and the military's minimum enlistment age is 17 (though that does require parental consent, and the minimum combat age is 18). In recent years the army has been aggresively recruiting in high schools -- in some cases, VERY aggressively. In fact, No Child Left Behind said that high schools were unable to keep military recruiters away from students without forfeiting federal funds. I think that if you can drive, work, have sex, and join the army, you are grown-up enough to vote.

Politically, because it is a win for Democrats across the board. What's more, we are approaching perfect storm conditions for this kind of movement. There are about 4 million 17-year-olds in the US, who are overwhelmingly Democratic. Young people are being drawn into politics like never before through the Obama campaign. We are heading into an election where a major defining contrast is between youth and age. We have a Republican party wrapping itself in "support the troops," who will find themselves taking a stand against the rights of the youngest military personnel. At the state level, Democratic governors are in the majority for the first time since 1992, and half of our Democratic governors control states that Bush won in 2004. Even if we can't reasonably lower the voting age before November -- and, frankly, I don't think we can -- a campaign to do so at the national and at the state level would further energize the youth movement, would underscore the differences between the parties, would put Republicans in an uncomfortable position, and would lay the groundwork for real change in coming years.

How would we do it?

I can imagine two ways. First, Congress could either pass a Constitutional amendment or a law lowering the voting age to 17. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can't set the voting age for state elections (that's why the current voting age is set by a Constitutional amendment), so if Congress passes a law it would need to be written so that 17-year-olds could vote in federal elections but not on state ballots, a recipe for confusion at the polls. One way around this might be to treat 17-year-olds nationally similar to the way Americans abroad are treated, who can vote in presidential elections but not on state matters. I have no idea how this would work.

The second approach is a series of state-level laws or ballot initiatives. This approach has the advantage of keeping the movement local, building local activism, getting young people learning the political system from the bottom-up. And, as noted above, Democrats control the governorships of 14 red states, and swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Lowering the voting age in a few swing states alone could have as much impact on the election as a national measure might.

Summary

Lowering the voting age to 17 would add a few million Democrats to the rolls, capitalize on the youth-powered movement that Obama has begun, and put Republicans in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the youngest enlisted military personnel should not be allowed to vote.

Participatory budgeting

by emptypockets

It's hard to believe that Bush's proposed budget is what anyone wants. For example, he suggests cutting half the federal funds for public broadcasting, while he spends the same amount ($200 million) in Iraq every 12 hours.

Unfortunately, as ordinary taxpayers, we don't have that much influence over the final budget. If we want to see more money put into biomedical research or the arts we can vote every couple years, we can try to lobby Congress, or we can give to charitable groups and bypass the government entirely. Maybe there ought to be a more direct method.

Suppose we try something new. Take the budget -- Bush's proposal is over $3 trillion -- and make a 0.1% across-the-board cut, reducing every agency's funding by one penny out of every 10 dollars. Take the resulting $3 billion and put it into a Taxpayer-Directed Spending fund. And let the people decide where that money should go.

Obama won caucuses, Clinton won primaries

by emptypockets

Among the most astute next-day analyses of Super Tuesday that I've seen is this one from the Votemaster at electoral-vote.com. He provides the following tables, which speak volumes:

The asterisks are caucus states; the non-asterisks are primary states.

Let's Host a Debate

by emptypockets

I groaned when I heard Clinton had accepted an invitation to a Fox News Channel debate, because it is a huge distraction from what had threatened to become a substantive, engaging primary. I'm not personally among those who really care one way or the other whether a debate is held on Fox -- the discussion, to me, feels like a battle between media interests (and, yes, if you have a blog you're a media interest) and I can't reconcile it with the boasts of how Democrats are poised to put the reddest of red counties into play -- but I do see an opportunity here.

The very simple idea arose when I heard a soundbite from Clinton while flipping among election reports last night. I haven't been able to find it online, but here's my best paraphrase [this is not a quote]: We want to have a debate every week for the next four weeks, and at this point we're accepting all invitations.

Well, that sounds open! That sounds lovely! And that sounds like a great idea.

Instead of whetting our knives, why not invite Clinton and Obama to debate on the terms of the progressive blogosphere? The owners of the most-trafficked 3 or 4 sites can moderate. An outstanding list of questions was drafted last week by mcjoan over at dailykos in her What I want to know post. I'm sure we can think of other ways to bring a debate live on-line in a manner that hasn't been seen before. And, if Clinton is indeed accepting invitations from all comers, surely she will not embrace Fox and refuse us?

I've got an auditorium packed full of scientists I could volunteer, and I can make some lemonade or something. Anyone else willing to chip in?

A flash of grey flannel, a whiff of BenGay...

by Kagro X

When is an Internet-based, third party organizing effort a Very Serious Idea?

When David "Wild Man" Broder f*cking well tells you it is. That's when. You lowly moron.

Until plans for this meeting were disclosed, the most concrete public move toward any kind of independent candidacy was by Unity08, a group planning an online nominating convention to pick either an independent candidate or a ticket combining a Republican and a Democrat. The sponsors, an eclectic mix of consultants who have worked for candidates including Jimmy Carter (D) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), have not aligned with a specific prospect.

Now, some people with high-level political and governmental credentials are moving to put muscle behind the effort.

What meeting, you ask? Why, the Big Bipartisan Serious Person's Kumbaya Love-In for America, of course.

Little George in the big city

by emptypockets

Next Tuesday, President Bush will swing into town to address the United Nations. I'm thinking of going over to join the protests outside. I have a few questions.

First, what should my sign say?

Second, who is the major organizer and how well-organized are they likely to be? The groups I've found so far are Stop Bush Sept 25 and The World Can't Wait. Any experience with either of these groups?

And finally -- and most importantly -- do these protests still do anything? Surely, I'm not hoping to affect Bush's decisions. I've never attended a protest before, partly because I only recently felt any need to engage politics, and partly because I've mostly lived in places where most everyone else thought about like I did -- Democratic strongholds -- so I didn't feel a strong need to try to sway the opinions of my neighbors, either. Yet somehow this year things feel different. It feels more important. Maybe it's because Democrats have some power, so progress is possible -- yet we're not seeing much progress. Maybe it makes me feel like speaking out is more important now than it felt to me in the past.

In an age where we have more democracy of opinions -- where anyone with an internet connection can express their opinion more easily, to a wider audience, than ever before -- is standing in the street still relevant?

"At 56 years old says he is done with political consulting"

by emptywheel

I've laid out some possible reasons for Rove's resignation here. But I'd like to do a close reading of the WSJ story associated with the announcement, partly because I think it so fascinating that Rove would feel the need to pitch his own successes and failures on his way out the door.

The Investigations

Far and away the most interesting comment in the article, though, is this self-assessment from Rove:

His biggest error, Mr. Rove says, was in not working soon enough to replace Republicans tainted by scandal.

Consider the logic: Rove believes that if he just got those who were mired in scandal to step down before the scandal broke, then he might have been able to save the Republican majority. This, from a guy stepping down before--Josh Bolten has dictated--everyone must commit to stay through the next election. That's not definitive proof, of course, but Rove logic would suggest that Rove may well be imminently tainted by scandal. And Rove doesn't deny he's stepping down because of scandal. Instead he throws incendiary words out there like "mob" and "Mark of Rove," without ever denying that there may be is merit to the allegations. (Speaking of which, check out this link from pseudonymous in nc, which suggests there are hundreds of pages of papers relating to the Don Siegelman case at DOJ.)

What about those who say he's leaving to avoid Congressional scrutiny? "I know they'll say that," he says, "But I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob." He also knows he'll continue to be a target, even from afar, since belief in his influence over every Administration decision has become, well, faith-based.

"I'm a myth. There's the Mark of Rove," he says, with a bemused air. "I read about some of the things I'm supposed to have done, and I have to try not to laugh." He says the real target is Mr. Bush, whom many Democrats have never accepted as a legitimate president and "never will."

I especially like the way Rove admits that "the real target is Mr. Bush," not because Rove observes the banality that many people believe he was not elected. But because, as I've suggested, Bush may well be the target.

Bush the Uniter

Bush truly has united the American people--united them in opposition.

Check this link to a map (h/t to dreaminonempty at Open Left) that shows Bush's popularity state by state.  There is only one state where Bush enjoys an approval rating over 50%, and that is Utah, with two (Idaho and Wyoming) where it is 46-50%.  It is 35% or below in every populous state except Texas.  His popularity in New England is so low that these states are green not blue, from 14% in New Hampshire (bye bye, John Sununu) to 20% in Maine.  And some of these polls are months old, while Bush's popularity has tanked over the last 6 months. 

The post is long, and correlates Bush's popularity plus fundrasing differentials with electoral success in the 2006 midterms.  But it's worth reading.  The gist of it is unmistakeable.  If the Dems' lead in fundraising and infrastructure continues, it is hard to imagine any Demcratic Senate or House seat being vulnerable, and it is within the realm of possibility that the Dems could take up to 8, even 10 Senate seats (AK, CO, ME, MN, NC, NH, NM, OR, TX, VA , maybe even, with the right candidate, if there is one, KS, KY, or OK).  And another 20 plus House seats--from AZ, CA, FL, IL, NM, NY, OH, PA, and other states that are in the 35 and below zone, and even some from the blue areas of NC and VA.

And I'm pleased to see that it vindicates the idea of spreading money around, especially early money, to make many more seats competitive, instead of concentrating on a few "target" races that quickly become satruated, ignoring other seats until it is almost or is too late.  It appears to take half as much as the GOP and at least $500,000 to be within the victory margin, but lots of money did not guarantee success--just the opposite.  Several challengers who reached parity or outspent incumbents lost--in CT-04, NM-01 and PA-06, for example, and some with between one tenth and one half as much won. 

Past performance is no guarantee of future success, but there is much more in these figures to hearten Democrats than Republicans.  And it makes it all the more necessary for Dems in Congress to stand up to Bush and not cave in to some chimera of "bipartisanship" when a generational victory is with our grasp.

The Irresistible Force And The Immovable Object

By Mimikatz

The drama that will play out over the rest of the year is the meeting of the irresistible force of public opinion and the immovable objects Bush and Cheney, as of this moment still surrounded by a circle of steadfast  Republicans, all of them in collective denial about things in Iraq.

But the public is not.  According to the CBS poll,

HOW IS THE WAR GOING?

Well
22%
Badly
77%

Fewer than one in five thinks that the troop increase is helping to improve the situation in Iraq, while about half think the war is actually creating more terrorists.

The poll has bad news for President Bush, too. His job approval rating slipped to 27 percent, his lowest number ever in a CBS News poll — 3 points less than last month and 1 point below his previous low of 28 percent in January. His disapproval rating is also at an all-time high of 65 percent.

And there is other evidence as well.  From Think Progress:

According to an analysis of public opinion polls by American Progress fellow Ruy Teixeira, 54 percent of Americans believe that the situation in Iraq has gotten worse and only 29 percent believe that the United States is winning the war on terrorism.

And what does the public think we should do about this situation?

U.S. TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ SHOULD

Increase
11%
Keep the same number
17%
Decrease
26%
Remove all troops
40%

From the CBS Poll. that is 66% who think we should decrease troop levels or withdraw all the troops.  Sure Senator Lugar has backtracked on his earlier statements that things aren't going too well, indicating that he won't do anything to challenge Bush/Cheney.  But he's not up for reelection.  Senator John Sununu, in New Hampshire, is, and he can't he heartened by a poll that has him losing to Jean Shaheen, former governor and as yet undeclared candidate by 57% to 29%.  And with even a Fox Poll showing that Americans trust the Democrats by more than 3 percentage points over the GOP in handling an "all-out war with Muslim radicals," it can't be a happy Fourth for the Bush/Cheney regime and the GOP. 

When Congress returns, the Dems will renew their own offensive against Bush/Cheney in light of the surge in public opinion away from Bush.  What will happen?  Watch it unfold this summer.

Some Questions

by emptywheel

Paul Kiel has an important post on vote caging that raises one big question for me.

Kiel's post quotes the RNC spokesperson as connecting the vote caging activities in Florida with allegations about ACORN registration drives.

In response to Palast’s story, the Republican spokeswoman denied in a statement that the list had been generated in order to challenge voters. But she went on to argue that Jacksonville “has been affected by massive fraud efforts this year as a result of the work of ACORN, a third party organization supporting the Kerry campaign and the Democrats.”

One of the wonderful prevarications offered by Brad Schlozman is that the ACORN investigation--which in MO found almost nothing and was self-reported--is national.

You'll recall that Brad Schlozman indicted 4 former ACORN workers (one of whose name he got wrong) for submitting fraudulent voter reg information. Well, he strongly suggested that the indictments were not part of a national investigation (a few Senators hammered him on this point--suggesting that, since the investigation was not national, it shouldn't have been filed before the election). But, at the same time, Schlozman indicated over and over again that the investigation is national.

Does anyone get the feeling that a specious investigation into ACORN is serving as the basis for caging nationwide? Anyone have details of specious ACORN investigations in their local area? I know DeVos crony Secretary of State Land, in MI, has caging all set to go for 2008 (seriously). Is one of the new USAs in MI trumping up an investigation against ACORN to justify the caging?