Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?

Topic:  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
Author
Message
greencat
General User



Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 540

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 10:54:37 AM 
The Kent State conspiracy guy left out my favorite Athens urban legend.

Did you hear the one about how the Feds hired the mob to hijack a truck full of "ludes" from the "lude" factory in Columbus and dump countless thousands of "ludes" in Athens to keep the students all fvcked up so they wouldn't burn the school down after kids were shot in Kent? That "ludes" were going for .25 and the school had to call off classes and just end the term by giving everybody whatever grade they had at that point in time.

The townies who lived above Swanky's(?) used to talk about it and their version never varied.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 10:54:40 AM 
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.

Here's a quote from the methodology section: "Of the 10,013 adults interviewed, 9,809 were invited to take part in the panel. A total of 5,338 agreed to participate and provided either a mailing address or an email address to which a welcome packet, a monetary incentive and future survey invitations could be sent. Panelists also receive a small monetary incentive after participating in each wave of the survey."

This means that the response rate is around 54 percent. This allows for a great deal of self-selection into the sample. They recognized this and tried to compensate for it by using various weighting factors. Using weighting factors is always a compromise and is an ad hoc attempt to compensate for a less than ideal sample.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,093

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 12:45:19 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.

Here's a quote from the methodology section: "Of the 10,013 adults interviewed, 9,809 were invited to take part in the panel. A total of 5,338 agreed to participate and provided either a mailing address or an email address to which a welcome packet, a monetary incentive and future survey invitations could be sent. Panelists also receive a small monetary incentive after participating in each wave of the survey."

This means that the response rate is around 54 percent. This allows for a great deal of self-selection into the sample. They recognized this and tried to compensate for it by using various weighting factors. Using weighting factors is always a compromise and is an ad hoc attempt to compensate for a less than ideal sample.


No matter, the 2014 survey only confirms past research and more recent surveys of Trump and Clinton voters. There's a whole body of research on the subject at this point.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 1:21:33 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.

Here's a quote from the methodology section: "Of the 10,013 adults interviewed, 9,809 were invited to take part in the panel. A total of 5,338 agreed to participate and provided either a mailing address or an email address to which a welcome packet, a monetary incentive and future survey invitations could be sent. Panelists also receive a small monetary incentive after participating in each wave of the survey."

This means that the response rate is around 54 percent. This allows for a great deal of self-selection into the sample. They recognized this and tried to compensate for it by using various weighting factors. Using weighting factors is always a compromise and is an ad hoc attempt to compensate for a less than ideal sample.


No matter, the 2014 survey only confirms past research and more recent surveys of Trump and Clinton voters. There's a whole body of research on the subject at this point.


All survey research these days has problems. Researchers are looking for new methodologies but no effective research paradigms have really emerged yet. This is not the best article on the subject, and the ending is kind of cheerleading for the pollster community, but it does highlight some of the problems that are making it more and more difficult to get accurate poll results in the 21st Century: https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/09/2...


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 1:35:06 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.

Here's a quote from the methodology section: "Of the 10,013 adults interviewed, 9,809 were invited to take part in the panel. A total of 5,338 agreed to participate and provided either a mailing address or an email address to which a welcome packet, a monetary incentive and future survey invitations could be sent. Panelists also receive a small monetary incentive after participating in each wave of the survey."

This means that the response rate is around 54 percent. This allows for a great deal of self-selection into the sample. They recognized this and tried to compensate for it by using various weighting factors. Using weighting factors is always a compromise and is an ad hoc attempt to compensate for a less than ideal sample.


No matter, the 2014 survey only confirms past research and more recent surveys of Trump and Clinton voters. There's a whole body of research on the subject at this point.


All survey research these days has problems. Researchers are looking for new methodologies but no effective research paradigms have really emerged yet. This is not the best article on the subject, and the ending is kind of cheerleading for the pollster community, but it does highlight some of the problems that are making it more and more difficult to get accurate poll results in the 21st Century: https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/09/2...


I don't doubt that surveys/polling faces new and unique troubles, but are do you doubt the conclusion that survey found? Fox News is clearly the dominant news source for conservatives, by orders of magnitude. Are you trying to argue otherwise or just quibbling with the extent to which it's the dominant news source?
Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,093

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 1:53:36 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.



Also, the Washington Times has a total circulation of less than 60,000. It is surely influential in the conservative policy world, but it is hardly a source of news for average general conservative voter. Most do not even know it exists.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 2:12:25 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.



Also, the Washington Times has a total circulation of less than 60,000. It is surely influential in the conservative policy world, but it is hardly a source of news for average general conservative voter. Most do not even know it exists.


That figure does not include it's Weekly Edition which many conservatives subscribe to. It is a compilation of the best stories from the previous week. Also, the WashTimes has a fairly extensive online subscription profile. I was not able to find any figures for either of these, but I suspect each alone is more than the daily subscriptions in the Washington D.C. area.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 2:29:30 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.

Here's a quote from the methodology section: "Of the 10,013 adults interviewed, 9,809 were invited to take part in the panel. A total of 5,338 agreed to participate and provided either a mailing address or an email address to which a welcome packet, a monetary incentive and future survey invitations could be sent. Panelists also receive a small monetary incentive after participating in each wave of the survey."

This means that the response rate is around 54 percent. This allows for a great deal of self-selection into the sample. They recognized this and tried to compensate for it by using various weighting factors. Using weighting factors is always a compromise and is an ad hoc attempt to compensate for a less than ideal sample.


No matter, the 2014 survey only confirms past research and more recent surveys of Trump and Clinton voters. There's a whole body of research on the subject at this point.


All survey research these days has problems. Researchers are looking for new methodologies but no effective research paradigms have really emerged yet. This is not the best article on the subject, and the ending is kind of cheerleading for the pollster community, but it does highlight some of the problems that are making it more and more difficult to get accurate poll results in the 21st Century: https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/09/2...


I don't doubt that surveys/polling faces new and unique troubles, but are do you doubt the conclusion that survey found? Fox News is clearly the dominant news source for conservatives, by orders of magnitude. Are you trying to argue otherwise or just quibbling with the extent to which it's the dominant news source?


What I'm arguing is that I suspect that they underrepresented educated conservatives. From anecdotal observation, this is a group that for the most part tries to lie low and shies away from participating in surveys and avoids being too outspoken in public, for fear of being ostracized by their peers. They are a group that does, in general, expose themselves to multiple sources of information, including those on the left-side of the spectrum.

Now, this is just an hypothesis on my part, but the point is that without good methodology it can't be either proven or disproven.

I've also theorized that this is the group that put Trump over the top in the presidential election. They just were not included in sufficient numbers in the samples drawn by most pollsters. And, this was not the fault of the researchers, per se, because in my anecdotal observations they avoided being included in any election poll like it was the plague.

So, if my theory is correct, what this and other similar studies are sampling is a full range of liberals/progressives/radicals/socialists/left-leaning libertarians against a somewhat bifurcated sampling of conservatives/traditionalists/reactionaries/right-leaning libertarians.

Last Edited: 7/30/2018 2:40:05 PM by OhioCatFan


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 2:45:37 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.

Here's a quote from the methodology section: "Of the 10,013 adults interviewed, 9,809 were invited to take part in the panel. A total of 5,338 agreed to participate and provided either a mailing address or an email address to which a welcome packet, a monetary incentive and future survey invitations could be sent. Panelists also receive a small monetary incentive after participating in each wave of the survey."

This means that the response rate is around 54 percent. This allows for a great deal of self-selection into the sample. They recognized this and tried to compensate for it by using various weighting factors. Using weighting factors is always a compromise and is an ad hoc attempt to compensate for a less than ideal sample.


No matter, the 2014 survey only confirms past research and more recent surveys of Trump and Clinton voters. There's a whole body of research on the subject at this point.


All survey research these days has problems. Researchers are looking for new methodologies but no effective research paradigms have really emerged yet. This is not the best article on the subject, and the ending is kind of cheerleading for the pollster community, but it does highlight some of the problems that are making it more and more difficult to get accurate poll results in the 21st Century: https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/09/2...


I don't doubt that surveys/polling faces new and unique troubles, but are do you doubt the conclusion that survey found? Fox News is clearly the dominant news source for conservatives, by orders of magnitude. Are you trying to argue otherwise or just quibbling with the extent to which it's the dominant news source?


What I'm arguing is that I suspect that they underrepresented educated conservatives. From anecdotal observation, this is a group that for the most part tries to lie low and shies away from participating in surveys and avoids being too outspoken in public, for fear of being ostracized by their peers. They are a group that does, in general, expose themselves to multiple sources of information, including those on the left-side of the spectrum.

Now, this is just an hypothesis on my part, but the point is that without good methodology it can't be either proven or disproven.

I've also theorized that this is the group that put Trump over the top in the presidential election. They just were not included in sufficient numbers in the samples drawn by most pollsters. And, this was not the fault of the researchers, per se, because in my anecdotal observations they avoided being included in any election poll like it was the plague.

So, if my theory is correct, what this and other similar studies are sampling is a full range of liberals/progressives/radicals/socialists/left-leaning libertarians against a somewhat bifurcated sampling of conservatives/traditionalists/reactionaries/right-leaning libertarians.



I see. That makes sense. Though, I think the idea that educated conservatives fear being ostracized by their peers is a funny one. Conservatives seem to have embraced a persecution complex over the last few years which is very odd given that they, you know, control every branch of the government and belong to a party that claims to be representative of 'real America'.

My theory on it, honestly, is that there are very valid reasons to be ashamed by conservative policy these days. Educated conservatives are forced to support -- even if only by proxy -- a party that's gone completely awry and policy positions that they recognize themselves as indefensible. I think that's the core reason they lay so low -- it's because they are, on some level, ashamed of the party they support. The boogeyman of leftist PC crusaders gone awry is just a nice way for them to pretend otherwise. I think this is particularly true of single issue voters, whether that issue is tax policy or more religious in grounding.

And I don't necessarily disagree, honestly. Supporting Trump should be embarrassing. He's embarrassing. Many of his policies are embarrassing. I understand the instinct not to share that support.

Just my two cents.

Last Edited: 7/30/2018 2:55:22 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
greencat
General User



Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 540

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 2:48:11 PM 
quote
"I've also theorized that this is the group that put Trump over the top in the presidential election. They just were not included in sufficient numbers in the samples drawn by most pollsters."

Maybe not exactly. Polls were done on a national popular vote model.

HRC won the popular vote by 2.1% which = nearly 3 million votes

Bloomberg and Reuters both had HRC by 3%. Many said 4%.

This accidental gerrymandering known as the electoral college has to end in our lifetime. Why should a person in Wyoming have his vote count 3 times as much as a person in California?
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 2:56:35 PM 
greencat wrote:
quote
"I've also theorized that this is the group that put Trump over the top in the presidential election. They just were not included in sufficient numbers in the samples drawn by most pollsters."

Maybe not exactly. Polls were done on a national popular vote model.

HRC won the popular vote by 2.1% which = nearly 3 million votes

Bloomberg and Reuters both had HRC by 3%. Many said 4%.

This accidental gerrymandering known as the electoral college has to end in our lifetime. Why should a person in Wyoming have his vote count 3 times as much as a person in California?


I'm obviously talking about the polls that modeled the electoral college. They were for the most part wrong.

Good luck in ending the Electoral College. You are going to get those small states to vote for a Constitutional amendment? We would not have a United States without the Electoral College. It was a concession to the small states to join the Union. Likewise, we have one house of Congress that is population-based, and another that is geographically based. The concept of one-person-one-vote is nowhere in the Constitution. It was a Warren Court invention to justify breaking up state legislatures, particularly in the South, so as to advance Civil Rights. It was a laudable goal, but the tool was a sledgehammer that made a mockery of the Constitution. In essence, they said that it was unconstitutional for the states to organize their governments in the same way as the national government. The Constitution implies exactly the opposite. We do not live in a true democracy; we live in a Republic. Short of another Civil War, this ain't going to change in your life time.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,093

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 3:11:39 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
greencat wrote:
quote
"I've also theorized that this is the group that put Trump over the top in the presidential election. They just were not included in sufficient numbers in the samples drawn by most pollsters."

Maybe not exactly. Polls were done on a national popular vote model.

HRC won the popular vote by 2.1% which = nearly 3 million votes

Bloomberg and Reuters both had HRC by 3%. Many said 4%.

This accidental gerrymandering known as the electoral college has to end in our lifetime. Why should a person in Wyoming have his vote count 3 times as much as a person in California?


I'm obviously talking about the polls that modeled the electoral college. They were for the most part wrong.

Good luck in ending the Electoral College. You are going to get those small states to vote for a Constitutional amendment? We would not have a United States without the Electoral College. It was a concession to the small states to join the Union. Likewise, we have one house of Congress that is population-based, and another that is geographically based. The concept of one-person-one-vote is nowhere in the Constitution. It was a Warren Court invention to justify breaking up state legislatures, particularly in the South, so as to advance Civil Rights. It was a laudable goal, but the tool was a sledgehammer that made a mockery of the Constitution. In essence, they said that it was unconstitutional for the states to organize their governments in the same way as the national government. The Constitution implies exactly the opposite. We do not live in a true democracy; we live in a Republic. Short of another Civil War, this ain't going to change in your life time.


Nah. I have no doubt it will change in my lifetime (unless Trump makes himself dictator, an outcome that we have to unfortunately consider). Eleven states and DC have already adopted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That means we're two-third of the way there. If states totaling 98 more EVs sign on then we will have a national popular vote in practice.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,093

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 3:14:45 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, there are some strange things about that 2014 survey. First, the largest conservative newspaper in the country, The Washington Times, is not included. Second, the methodology is somewhat questionable.



Also, the Washington Times has a total circulation of less than 60,000. It is surely influential in the conservative policy world, but it is hardly a source of news for average general conservative voter. Most do not even know it exists.


That figure does not include it's Weekly Edition which many conservatives subscribe to. It is a compilation of the best stories from the previous week. Also, the WashTimes has a fairly extensive online subscription profile. I was not able to find any figures for either of these, but I suspect each alone is more than the daily subscriptions in the Washington D.C. area.


I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I think you live in a conservative intellectual bubble and, as a result, you overestimate the influence of conservative intellectualism and the presence of conservative intellectuals in the GOP. The average Republican voter has no concept of the intellectual basis of conservative principles and does not read the Washington Times, the National Review, or the Weekly Standard.

Last Edited: 7/30/2018 3:15:12 PM by DelBobcat


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 3:19:19 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
greencat wrote:
quote
"I've also theorized that this is the group that put Trump over the top in the presidential election. They just were not included in sufficient numbers in the samples drawn by most pollsters."

Maybe not exactly. Polls were done on a national popular vote model.

HRC won the popular vote by 2.1% which = nearly 3 million votes

Bloomberg and Reuters both had HRC by 3%. Many said 4%.

This accidental gerrymandering known as the electoral college has to end in our lifetime. Why should a person in Wyoming have his vote count 3 times as much as a person in California?


I'm obviously talking about the polls that modeled the electoral college. They were for the most part wrong.

Good luck in ending the Electoral College. You are going to get those small states to vote for a Constitutional amendment? We would not have a United States without the Electoral College. It was a concession to the small states to join the Union. Likewise, we have one house of Congress that is population-based, and another that is geographically based. The concept of one-person-one-vote is nowhere in the Constitution. It was a Warren Court invention to justify breaking up state legislatures, particularly in the South, so as to advance Civil Rights. It was a laudable goal, but the tool was a sledgehammer that made a mockery of the Constitution. In essence, they said that it was unconstitutional for the states to organize their governments in the same way as the national government. The Constitution implies exactly the opposite. We do not live in a true democracy; we live in a Republic. Short of another Civil War, this ain't going to change in your life time.


Nah. I have no doubt it will change in my lifetime (unless Trump makes himself dictator, an outcome that we have to unfortunately consider). Eleven states and DC have already adopted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That means we're two-third of the way there. If states totaling 98 more EVs sign on then we will have a national popular vote in practice.


All this will do is exaggerate the influence even more of the state's that don't buy into it. And, it appears to be ripe for a legal challenge if it ever went into effect. Some legal scholars feel that a state does not have the Constitutional right to make its electoral votes subject to the votes of citizens of other states. This is an attempt to amend the Constitution without actually going through the steps necessary to amend the Constitution. My guess is that the Supreme Court would throw this out, if and when enough states actually pass the necessary legislation.

I think this is kind of like the Article 5 Convention Initiative on the right that has just a handful of state's that have approved it, with no chance I think of ever actually being successful. However, the Balanced Budget Article 5 initiative now has 28 states that have approved it, with only six more needed. This one has an outside chance. The difference here is that these folks are actually following the Constitution, which provides for this method, never actually used before, to amend the Constitution.

Last Edited: 7/30/2018 3:40:36 PM by OhioCatFan


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,093

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 5:41:33 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
greencat wrote:
quote
"I've also theorized that this is the group that put Trump over the top in the presidential election. They just were not included in sufficient numbers in the samples drawn by most pollsters."

Maybe not exactly. Polls were done on a national popular vote model.

HRC won the popular vote by 2.1% which = nearly 3 million votes

Bloomberg and Reuters both had HRC by 3%. Many said 4%.

This accidental gerrymandering known as the electoral college has to end in our lifetime. Why should a person in Wyoming have his vote count 3 times as much as a person in California?


I'm obviously talking about the polls that modeled the electoral college. They were for the most part wrong.

Good luck in ending the Electoral College. You are going to get those small states to vote for a Constitutional amendment? We would not have a United States without the Electoral College. It was a concession to the small states to join the Union. Likewise, we have one house of Congress that is population-based, and another that is geographically based. The concept of one-person-one-vote is nowhere in the Constitution. It was a Warren Court invention to justify breaking up state legislatures, particularly in the South, so as to advance Civil Rights. It was a laudable goal, but the tool was a sledgehammer that made a mockery of the Constitution. In essence, they said that it was unconstitutional for the states to organize their governments in the same way as the national government. The Constitution implies exactly the opposite. We do not live in a true democracy; we live in a Republic. Short of another Civil War, this ain't going to change in your life time.


Nah. I have no doubt it will change in my lifetime (unless Trump makes himself dictator, an outcome that we have to unfortunately consider). Eleven states and DC have already adopted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That means we're two-third of the way there. If states totaling 98 more EVs sign on then we will have a national popular vote in practice.


All this will do is exaggerate the influence even more of the state's that don't buy into it. And, it appears to be ripe for a legal challenge if it ever went into effect. Some legal scholars feel that a state does not have the Constitutional right to make its electoral votes subject to the votes of citizens of other states. This is an attempt to amend the Constitution without actually going through the steps necessary to amend the Constitution. My guess is that the Supreme Court would throw this out, if and when enough states actually pass the necessary legislation.


First off, no it wouldn't exaggerate the influence of other states. Once a majority of states agree to give their votes to the winner of the popular vote then the winner of the popular vote will become President. In what way would that exaggerate the influence of those other states?

Second off, on what grounds would it be unconstitutional? I've actually never heard this argument from anyone on the left or the right so you'll have to elaborate for me.
Every state is allowed to allocate its votes as it sees fit under the Constitution. If they choose to allocate them to the winner of the national popular vote then that is their business. Surely a defender of a limited federal government and states' rights such as yourself would be supportive of states choosing how to allocate their votes, right? It would be pretty intellectually inconsistent to argue otherwise.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/30/2018 8:08:44 PM 
Del, note that I said some legal scholars, not all, thought this initiative is unconstitutional. Not knowing this, perhaps it is you who are living in a bubble. There are actually very good arguments that this effort may be unconstitutional. Here's one legal scholar who argues that it would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional if the requisite number of states voted to join the effort (not an easy thing in and of itself): https://tinyurl.com/y9csod9k

Also, please don't try to put my political philosophy into some little ticky-tacky box. (You may be too young to understand the ticky-tacky reference. Hint: It's from a protest song of the 1960s.) I'm not a real strong state's rights guy. I do believe that the pendulum has swung a little too strongly in favor of the Federal government, but it is a balance and it has changed over the years as the Constitution has some level of flexibility on this issue.

For instance, the Republican Party has probably swung the pendulum more in the favor of Federal control than the Democrats ever have, but it was for a good reason: mobilization to the fight the Rebellion of 1861. The Republican Party enacted a temporary income tax, put volunteer infantries in every northern state under federal control, issued the first national paper currency (Greenbacks) after abandoning the gold standard, issued all kinds of instruments of debit hithertofore never used, approved the first national banking system, gave birth to the Department of Agriculture to subsidize farmers, started a national cemetery system to bury the Union dead, started a Pension Bureau that later became the Veterans Administration, passed the Morrill Land Grant law that created with federal support a number of state universities, including the Evil Empiire! At any rate, you get the point, expanding the role of the Federal government is probably more the fault historically of the GOP than the Democrats. And, please don't give me a lecture saying that the Democrats are the Republicans of the 1860s. It's patently untrue, but I don't have time to disabuse you of this historical analogy that's popular among Democrats. All I'll say is do some reading about Lincoln's political philosophy, his reverence for the original meaning of the Constitution, and his thorough grounding in Biblical principles. Then read biographies of men like William Seward, Frederick Douglass, Robert Smalls, Salmon P. Chase, and women like Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman and Louisa May Alcott -- just to name a few.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/31/2018 3:00:17 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, note that I said some legal scholars, not all, thought this initiative is unconstitutional. Not knowing this, perhaps it is you who are living in a bubble. There are actually very good arguments that this effort may be unconstitutional. Here's one legal scholar who argues that it would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional if the requisite number of states voted to join the effort (not an easy thing in and of itself): https://tinyurl.com/y9csod9k

Also, please don't try to put my political philosophy into some little ticky-tacky box. (You may be too young to understand the ticky-tacky reference. Hint: It's from a protest song of the 1960s.) I'm not a real strong state's rights guy. I do believe that the pendulum has swung a little too strongly in favor of the Federal government, but it is a balance and it has changed over the years as the Constitution has some level of flexibility on this issue.

For instance, the Republican Party has probably swung the pendulum more in the favor of Federal control than the Democrats ever have, but it was for a good reason: mobilization to the fight the Rebellion of 1861. The Republican Party enacted a temporary income tax, put volunteer infantries in every northern state under federal control, issued the first national paper currency (Greenbacks) after abandoning the gold standard, issued all kinds of instruments of debit hithertofore never used, approved the first national banking system, gave birth to the Department of Agriculture to subsidize farmers, started a national cemetery system to bury the Union dead, started a Pension Bureau that later became the Veterans Administration, passed the Morrill Land Grant law that created with federal support a number of state universities, including the Evil Empiire! At any rate, you get the point, expanding the role of the Federal government is probably more the fault historically of the GOP than the Democrats. And, please don't give me a lecture saying that the Democrats are the Republicans of the 1860s. It's patently untrue, but I don't have time to disabuse you of this historical analogy that's popular among Democrats. All I'll say is do some reading about Lincoln's political philosophy, his reverence for the original meaning of the Constitution, and his thorough grounding in Biblical principles. Then read biographies of men like William Seward, Frederick Douglass, Robert Smalls, Salmon P. Chase, and women like Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman and Louisa May Alcott -- just to name a few.


I'm sure Frederick Douglass would be a huge supporter of the strategic disenfranchisement of black voters.

While we're recommending reading, you should do some reading about the political philosophies of the people you currently vote for. Because as much as you want to believe you're supporting the party of Lincoln, you're supporting the party of Donald Trump. And everything that stands for. That's who you are now, regardless of how you try to convince yourself otherwise.

That Republicans have to insist they own the politics of 1860 to maintain any sense of morality is telling. Wherever you gotta tell yourself, my man.



Last Edited: 7/31/2018 10:46:40 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
bobcatsquared
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 2,420

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/31/2018 10:42:58 AM 
Love the type of back-and-forth (usually civil) discussions on BA exemplified in this thread. However, I hate the unnecessary use of quote boxes.

Last Edited: 7/31/2018 10:43:50 AM by bobcatsquared

Back to Top
  
finnOhio
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 532

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/31/2018 11:42:25 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:


And, please don't give me a lecture saying that the Democrats are the Republicans of the 1860s. It's patently untrue, but I don't have time to disabuse you of this historical analogy that's popular among Democrats. All I'll say is do some reading about Lincoln's political philosophy, his reverence for the original meaning of the Constitution, and his thorough grounding in Biblical principles. Then read biographies of men like William Seward, Frederick Douglass, Robert Smalls, Salmon P. Chase, and women like Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman and Louisa May Alcott -- just to name a few.


It's not patently untrue. It's subjective. The parties of 1860 are far different from that of 2018. That is the case of both parties. Just as the Democratic Party of 1916, or for that matter, 1932, is far removed from that of today. Really, the political parties started morphing truly during the 1950s and 1960s. The question then lies, what made the change? Many books have credited of course the civil rights movement, but also the politicization of Christians. While it is convenient to use the words conservative and liberal, the reality is that there are many levels at which the right is not conservative, and the left is not liberal. So, in wondering whether the Republicans of the 1860s would support more Republican or Democratic ideals of 2018, the question is really what does it mean to be a Republican today?

The fact that nearly 90% of self-identified Republicans support President Trump (https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval... ) signifies that being a Republican today means identifying with President Trump's beliefs and platform. This isn't the Republican platform of 2016, either. President Trump has not followed that very well. For example, the Republican platform stated: "Our national debt is a burden on our economy and families. The huge increase in the national debt demanded by and incurred during the current Administration has placed a significant burden on future generations. We must impose firm caps on future debt, accelerate the repayment of the trillions we now owe in order to reaffirm our principles of responsible and limited government, and remove the burdens we are placing on future generations." However, President Trump has suggested eliminating the debt ceiling. Even more jarring is that the Trump administration, according to the projected FY 2019 budget, is expected to raise the debt $8.282 trillion in four years, whereas the out-of-control debt from the Obama administration that led to the rise of the Tea Party, grew $8.588 trillion in eight years. Thus, the Trump debt will match the Obama debt in half the time.

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,093

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/31/2018 2:55:59 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del, note that I said some legal scholars, not all, thought this initiative is unconstitutional. Not knowing this, perhaps it is you who are living in a bubble. There are actually very good arguments that this effort may be unconstitutional. Here's one legal scholar who argues that it would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional if the requisite number of states voted to join the effort (not an easy thing in and of itself): https://tinyurl.com/y9csod9k


I appreciate the source, but I don't buy his arguments and neither do the vast majority of legal scholars. I actually find some of his arguments to be quite circular. But I guess we'll have to wait and see if it is ever enacted and let the courts sort it out.

OhioCatFan wrote:
Also, please don't try to put my political philosophy into some little ticky-tacky box. (You may be too young to understand the ticky-tacky reference. Hint: It's from a protest song of the 1960s.) I'm not a real strong state's rights guy. I do believe that the pendulum has swung a little too strongly in favor of the Federal government, but it is a balance and it has changed over the years as the Constitution has some level of flexibility on this issue.


My comment stemmed not from trying to put you in a box, but from your own arguments here over the years. You have firmly placed yourself in the states' rights category on every issue I can remember. If you would like to enlighten me on other contemporary policy preferences you have that don't fit this mold I'd be glad to hear them. Your stance on Lincoln's quelling of the Rebellion doesn't count as contemporary. Also, for what it's worth, I'm a big Pete Seeger fan and "little ticky-tacky box" is an expression that cuts across generations--even for those not familiar with the song.

OhioCatFan wrote:
At any rate, you get the point, expanding the role of the Federal government is probably more the fault historically of the GOP than the Democrats. And, please don't give me a lecture saying that the Democrats are the Republicans of the 1860s. It's patently untrue, but I don't have time to disabuse you of this historical analogy that's popular among Democrats. All I'll say is do some reading about Lincoln's political philosophy, his reverence for the original meaning of the Constitution, and his thorough grounding in Biblical principles. Then read biographies of men like William Seward, Frederick Douglass, Robert Smalls, Salmon P. Chase, and women like Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman and Louisa May Alcott -- just to name a few.


I have read biographies of Lincoln, Douglass, Chase, Stowe, and Tubman. I feel that I have a firm understanding of their political and moral philosophies. But in 2018 I ask you: What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln and the Democrats are not the party of Breckenridge. If you're trying to argue otherwise I don't think this conversation will go far, because it means you're willing to forget over 100 years of history.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/31/2018 3:18:15 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:

I have read biographies of Lincoln, Douglass, Chase, Stowe, and Tubman. I feel that I have a firm understanding of their political and moral philosophies. But in 2018 I ask you: What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln and the Democrats are not the party of Breckenridge. If you're trying to argue otherwise I don't think this conversation will go far, because it means you're willing to forget over 100 years of history.


Basically OCF is trying to carve out the defining issue of Lincoln's time -- and the issue that completely altered the makeup of the major parties in the south in the 20th century -- in order to claim Lincoln, Douglass and others as members of his own tribe. It's patently silly.

Trying to argue with a straight face that Frederick Douglass would have belonged to the party of Jim Crow and Segregation is. . .something. The transition of Southern Democrats to the Republican party took place specifically because of their opposition to the Civil Rights act and their support of segregation. Ignoring that shift is intellectually dishonest. At best.

Like I said -- it takes an awful lot of mental gymnastics for members of today's GOP to feel like they occupy the moral high ground. This is just another example of that.

Further, he completely misstates the argument. The point isn't that Republicans of the past are the Democrats of today. It's that racist Democrats of the past became Republicans.

Which there's no real argument against. I mean, who does the KKK vote for these days? Whose supporters killed a lady in Charlottesville while carrying torches and shouting Nazi slogans?

In other words, yeah -- whatever. The GOP can claim Lincoln all they want. But who really cares if they're completely unwilling to reckon with the racism in their party currently? It's like bragging that your Dad's a famous architect while setting fire to his most famous building.

Last Edited: 7/31/2018 3:41:27 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
greencat
General User



Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 540

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 7/31/2018 8:12:28 PM 
quote:
"I mean, who does the KKK vote for these days?"

------------------------------------------------------

Let's see, shall we...

In at least five state and national races across the country, the Republican Party is dealing with an uncomfortable problem. Their party’s candidates are either a card-carrying Nazi, a Holocaust denier, a proud white supremacist, or all of the above.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walke...
Back to Top
  
greencat
General User



Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 540

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 8/5/2018 12:07:58 PM 
Seen at trump's "rally" the other day in the Olentangy Orange High Gym near Columbus.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj2NGn2U8AAFhf6.jpg

Somebody tell these rednecks that the average standard of living in Russia is below that in Mexico. They should move to Russia after the 2018 mid-terms since they love it so much. See how that works out for them.

#Inbreds

Last Edited: 8/5/2018 12:08:48 PM by greencat

Back to Top
  
yamaha45701
General User

Member Since: 3/6/2005
Location: The plains, OH
Post Count: 114

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 8/5/2018 12:51:06 PM 
Before these nice guys pack their bags to Russia, they might want to google 'alcoholism rates in Russia'. Not the most fun place in the world I have read.
Back to Top
  
greencat
General User



Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 540

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Has the state gone backwards since the Kent St. shooing days?
   Posted: 8/5/2018 4:02:55 PM 
yamaha45701 wrote:
Before these nice guys pack their bags to Russia, they might want to google 'alcoholism rates in Russia'. Not the most fun place in the world I have read.



Ask people who went to "Rock on the Range" this last time how the drunks in Columbus acted. Unless Hendrix and Jim Morrison return from the grave and co-headline, the ones I talked to won't be going again.

Did putin annex Columbus too?
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  26 - 50  of 55 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2019 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties