Merged Is no one concerned that Gov. Paul LePage is crazy?

[Myron Proudfoot]

Comes with the territory of actually being a "big tent" party.

I would argue that it also comes with having fewer members with an authoritarian personality. Authoritarians like to follow authority, feel safer accepting the opinions of their "superiors", and, put simply, follow orders better.

I've been an election officer for the past 10-12 years in my county and I have noticed that it's the republican reps that are the most rules-driven-- "Why does your voter registration say "John Paul Smith but your driver's license says "John P. Smith? They have to say the same thing!" A few personal examples are not proof of course, but it does fit the historical model. Historically, authoritarians are found on both the hard left and the hard right, but the hard left is very tiny in the US, so they're really concentrated among republicans.

There is a great study available online as a pdf on the authoritarian personality. I'll have to see if I can find it to link to it here.

 

[BenBurch]

I'd love to see that study.

 

[Trakar]

I'd love to see that study.

It is along the lines of:

"Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientations" - http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0025552

"Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals" - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699930802110007#.U7jlW7dOVxA

"Are You Easily Disgusted? You May Be a Conservative What your disgust sensitivity says about your politics." Published on March 4, 2012 by Gregg Murray, Ph.D. in Caveman Politics - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-you-easily-disgusted-you-may-be-conservative

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I'd love to see that study.

found it!

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

 

[BenBurch]

TYVM

 

[Foolmewunz]

Let's hear the apologists explain this one away.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/mai...e-accused-of-racist-remarks-during-town-hall/

Since when did Raw Story become so politically correct as to refer to this as "accused".

And you gotta love the spokesperson's explanation (which we'll hear here shortly): Where'd he mention blacks, huh? He wasn't talking about black people. (I paraphrase)

He didn't? Is that why he dredged up the White Citizens Council traditional warning about "them" impregnating our white wimminfoke".

 

[The Don]

As the governor, presumably he was successful in the gubernatorial election in Maine. Does this mean that his views represent, or are at least tolerable to, a majority of those that chose to vote in that election ?

Even if people weren't sufficiently politically engaged to know what they were getting when they put an 'X' next to his name (or whatever the mechanics of voting in Maine are), did a majority of Republicans in Maine feel that his views fairly represent those of the Republican Party in Maine.

For me, the shocking thing isn't that there are people out there who hold these views but that they manage to get elected to a major public office. To me this means that solely or in some combination:

• The other candidate(s) was even worse
• People are voting along party lines (though this doesn't explain his success in the primary) and have no idea who they are voting for
• Or, and this is the worst (but IMO possibly the most likely explanation), that there are enough people in Maine who either support his views, or don't disagree with them vehemently enough, to get him elected

It's not a problem unique to the U.S. We see the same in the UK where George Galloway managed to find enough people in Bradford West to support his anti-Semitic, extremist views to get himself elected and we have seats so safe for one party or another that it doesn't matter who stands as long as they have the right colour rosette.

 

[Aepervius]

As the governor, presumably he was successful in the gubernatorial election in Maine. Does this mean that his views represent, or are at least tolerable to, a majority of those that chose to vote in that election ?

Naw. It could also mean the circumscription and voting county were sausage-ed and massacred enough to give a majority to a party when in reality it has a population minority.

ETA: e.g. let us say you have 600 people 350 vote dems and 250 vote rep. You got 3 circumscription. If those are chosen at random you would expect on average to have dems winner. But if you slice it so : 110 reps + 105 dems , another district with 110 reps + 105 dem the last one 5 reps + 240 dems you got 3 roughly same sized districts and yet by representation count you got 2 reps and 1 dem so reps take all. See gerrymandering.

both party do it. But the most egregious example I saw were reps.

 

[The Don]

Naw. It could also mean the circumscription and voting county were sausage-ed and massacred enough to give a majority to a party when in reality it has a population minority.

ETA: e.g. let us say you have 600 people 350 vote dems and 250 vote rep. You got 3 circumscription. If those are chosen at random you would expect on average to have dems winner. But if you slice it so : 110 reps + 105 dems , another district with 110 reps + 105 dem the last one 5 reps + 240 dems you got 3 roughly same sized districts and yet by representation count you got 2 reps and 1 dem so reps take all. See gerrymandering.

both party do it. But the most egregious example I saw were reps.

I didn't think this was a factor in a gubernatorial election where it was "first past the post" and didn't rely on districting.

In the case of Paul LePage, he got the most votes in the 2014 election (though not an absolute majority due to there being an independent candidate).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_2014

Over 48% of the people who bothered to vote in the gubernatorial election voted for him and he was selected unopposed in the primary. Clearly IMO Paul LePage represents the views of the vast majority of Maine Republican Party members and was the most popular candidate in the election.

Mainers, and in particular Republican Mainers are clearly supportive of Paul LePage and are happy to support (or at least tolerate) his views.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I didn't think this was a factor in a gubernatorial election where it was "first past the post" and didn't rely on districting.

In the case of Paul LePage, he got the most votes in the 2014 election (though not an absolute majority due to there being an independent candidate).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_2014

Over 48% of the people who bothered to vote in the gubernatorial election voted for him and he was selected unopposed in the primary. Clearly IMO Paul LePage represents the views of the vast majority of Maine Republican Party members and was the most popular candidate in the election.

Mainers, and in particular Republican Mainers are clearly supportive of Paul LePage and are happy to support (or at least tolerate) his views.

The reason someone runs unopposed in the primaries may have nothing to do with the party resoundingly supporting them. It can equally be that no one feels they have a chance to turn them over. And since LePage was already the Tea Party guy, the chance of a maverick running were very slim.

And LePage did improve from 38 to 48 per cent. But the fact is that had two Democrats (one posing as an independent) not been running against him, he would've been elected in neither year. So the support shows that 48% of the state was willing to vote for him; not that they support him. How much of that was Bravo Tea Party! and how much was simply voting the party line can be argued. New England Republicans are rock hard in their support quite often. The GOP up thataway hasn't become the complete pariah that it has in other areas. They just wound up with a miscreant nominated by the far right.

 

[Puppycow]

FWIW, in September LePage's approval rating in Maine was only 32%, vs. 55% disapproval.

http://pollways.bangordailynews.com/2015/10/16/maine-politics/third-approve-lepage/

I'm guessing it will be even lower next time they poll, but I couldn't find anything more recent.


BTW, both David Duke and Chris Christie are defending the Governor:

Chris Christie defends LePage, says Maine governor apologized

David Duke Defends LePage: It’s Not White Men Defiling White Women!

Oooh, "defiling"! Well. What else would we expect from Duke.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Christie should be ashamed of himself but Duke's comments are appropriate. I grew up in the segregated south and this is precisely the language (LePage's comment) of the bigots of that era.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I'm guessing you have read nothing about the other side. I don't agree with all those ranchers' views, but even Lou Dobbs, formerly with CNN and now with FBN, agrees that the federal prosecution against the two jailed ranchers was an outrage and that the ranchers have many valid complaints about federal land management policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRLF2O-1EkM

It's interesting how liberals always claim to be for the little guy, the underdog, etc.--yeah, except when it's the federal government stepping all over the little guy.

 

[Hutch]

I'm guessing you have read nothing about the other side. I don't agree with all those ranchers' views, but even Lou Dobbs, formerly with CNN and now with FBN, agrees that the federal prosecution against the two jailed ranchers was an outrage and that the ranchers have many valid complaints about federal land management policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRLF2O-1EkM

It's interesting how liberals always claim to be for the little guy, the underdog, etc.--yeah, except when it's the federal government stepping all over the little guy.

It's even more interesting when conservatives post in the wrong thread and completely miss the topic of the thread...

 

[Trakar]

It's interesting how liberals always claim to be for the little guy, the underdog, etc.--...

Got any support for this? I've never heard of this.

Of course I understand "liberal" to be a term for right leaning, corporatist, establishment stooges so that may be why your statement seems oxymoronic to me.

 

[Senex]

I had no idea. I googled this article that tries to explain how mild mannered Maine got into this situation. It is concerning.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm guessing you have read nothing about the other side. I don't agree with all those ranchers' views, but even Lou Dobbs, formerly with CNN and now with FBN, agrees that the federal prosecution against the two jailed ranchers was an outrage and that the ranchers have many valid complaints about federal land management policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRLF2O-1EkM

It's interesting how liberals always claim to be for the little guy, the underdog, etc.--yeah, except when it's the federal government stepping all over the little guy.

How dare they have a minimum sentence for victimless crimes like arson! That is only for serious crimes like marijuana possession.