Republican campaign consultant Scott Tranter
When it comes to voter-suppression techniques, Republicans generally maintain a certain pretense, at least in public. They argue that measures such as voter-ID laws aren't about blocking Americans' access to their own elections, but rather, about preventing imaginary fraud. The defense isn't compelling, but GOP officials generally repeat it with a straight face.
Once in a great while, however, a Republican will slip and tell the truth.
Republican campaign consultant Scott Tranter appeared on a panel Monday hosted by the Pew Center on the States to discuss the long lines and voter ID controversies that plagued the 2012 election. In his comments, Tranter seemed to imply that he believed these issues were helpful to Republicans and should be pursued for that reason.
"A lot of us are campaign officials -- or campaign professionals -- and we want to do everything we can to help our side. Sometimes we think that's voter ID, sometimes we think that's longer lines -- whatever it may be," Tranter said with a laugh.
In fairness, I have not yet seen the full context, but the Huffington Post talked to Michael McDonald, head of the non-partisan George Mason University Election Project, who was in the room and heard everything Tranter said. Asked how he reacted to Tranter's comments, McDonald said, "I couldn't believe that they were said." He added that those around him shared similar looks, with attendees surprised by what they'd heard.
What's more, note that Tranter, though hardly a household name, is not an obscure, outside-the-establishment figure: his firm did "data consulting" for Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, and he's served as a consultant for John McCain's 2008 campaign and the NRSC.
And according to this Republican campaign professional, Republicans "sometimes" want to make voting more difficult, on purpose, "to help our side" win elections. Tranter said this out loud, on camera, in front of a room full of political professionals.
The next time GOP officials insist their voter-suppression tactics are about nothing more than protecting the integrity of elections, keep Tranter's jaw-dropping candor in mind.
Leave a Comment:
Yeah, stealing elections is as American as Boss Tweed!
Anyone purposely contracting the vote is as unAmerican as they come, and should be tarred and feathered and run out of town, his state, and our nation! -Kevo
Un-American? There are competing values there, right? Honestly- we have to examine what is wrong with guys like Chuck ("I'd run over my own grandmother for the president") Colson of the 1970s thought what they were doing was the height of Americanism. Because that sort of nullification of norms of fairness is not so uncommon, especially among the Elites. Chris Hayes talks about this erosion of norms in his book Twilight of the Elites.
You remember that part of Patton, where George C Scott has his character talk about Americanism?
I am a big believer in the idea that how we win is important because it defines who were are- and that this Being is the only thing truly important. People ought to win on principle, and both Romney and Obama struggled with it. As it has come out after the campaign- even Romney had some sense of principle. His campaigners were frustrated that their candidate refused to make the smart play- to immediately disavow his comments about the 47%. But Romney refused. They were his words and what he believed- it was part of his overall theme of "No Apologies". It is debatable what was truly in the heart of a Colson or a Romney. Many Republicans feel that the President is craven, and surrounds himself with hypocritical Chicago machine style politicos. For them, the president's sincerity is debatable.
I don't think it is just my liberal bias speaking when I hear something different from the politician Barack Obama. When he accepted the Nobel Peace prize, he gave a surprising speech- making a case for war. There was no political upside to this. None. So when the president talks about his feeling that he must be grounded in being authentic when he speaks, it is not just a Stanislavski political technique for appearing convincing. He really did think it was necessary to explain to the world that his problem was not with the idea of war itself, but the idea of stupid wars. He was not the starry eyed idealist that many hoped him to be, and he did not wish to participate in promoting that illusion.
But promoting illusions is what campaigns are about. The idea is to get your supporters to see the best in your candidate, and the worst in the opponent. A debate is not about an honest and rational competition between ideas, but a sports match- political pugilism- where the contest is which candidate can leave the stage appearing to be a winner. The techniques are actually much simpler than those of a real debate. It is the art of belittling and deft turns of phrase learned and practiced for both play and boardroom warfare among quick witted friends and competitors. The key mission is to get up on top of the wave and give every appearance of infallibility while the opponent is dismissed as not even worthy of attention.
Because America loves a winner.
And Americans- even liberals- hate a loser.
I still think it will be an interesting page for the history books one hundred years from now, to learn what Obama's thinking was for the first debate. The popular meme is that he had an off night, but honestly I think this utterly missed what Obama's intentions were. How quickly we forget Obama's often repeated phrase on 2011- "That's a debate I am ready to have". After the election, Obama's praise of Romney's work at the Olympics was not superficial- it was clear that he had studied his approach and his ideas. He was ready to debate a Romney who would not show up. Perhaps with better poll numbers, Romney would have taken up the President on his offer. Perhaps the often repeated warnings that Romney had been practicing zingers was the sincere warning that this would be a spectacle of appearances, not the height of public debate that the founders hoped for- where an electorate honestly weighed the intellectual merit of two competing sets of ideas.
Descending to wiretaps, voter suppression and break-ins is a deep violation of norms, but let's not fool ourselves. Many of us completely accept the idea that it is fair game to "win" a debate not on merit of the ideas but on appearances- the shameless debate night posturing as an advocate of positions Romney had for the last 6 years denied.
The president's rebuttal was simple but the spectacle of the moment was decided by the entertainment industry observers commenting on the moment. This was a night where MSNBC commentators lost site of the essentials of the ideas of the debate in order to report on the drama of the appearances.
Democracy is about informed consent of the electorate. Defeat of any link of the process is equivalent to an attack on democracy. Certainly, Colson broke the law and there is no legal equivalency between that and Governor Scott's refusal to extend the number of voting days. There is a threshold where these tactics become illegal- such as when onerous ID laws become equivalent to a poll tax. What I am talking about is the wide range of options open to campaigners that are permissible by our laws, but not by common sense norms of fair play.
Much more attention is paid by campaigners to defeat the other part of the process- not the actual act of voting, but defeating the electorate's ability to understand clearly the positions of their opponent, and the unappetizing characteristics of their candidate's positions. They understand all to well the meaning of Twain's saying that education is the path between cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty. To much consideration of Obama's positions can lead to misery and uncertainty. Much better to get your candidate to zing the opponent with the winning reduction of Romney into a caricature. I think Obama cared to win this way would be a false victory. What he wanted was a real contest with what Romney really believed. He was confident he could win that battle, and that America would be better if both sides would honestly understand what each of them believed, and make the choice based on which ideas they thought were better.
I personally have my doubts Romney ever sincerely believed in the merit of such a Lincoln Douglas type debate of ideas. The high school popular boy who bullied the student who violated norms is still inhabiting Mitt Romney's body. Even if he believed otherwise, Romney's advisors knew they could not permit it. The night was his last chance, and so the routine had to be an Etch-A-Sketch presentation that promoted an image of a highly competent moderate who was an acceptable alternative leader to the incumbent.
The MSNBC coverage ought to have been the absurdity of Romney's Etch-A-Sketch reworkings of his positions. Yet Obama's focus on the facts about what Romney was saying was not the subject of the coverage. Instead they became lost in the twittering of miserable uncertainty. We were treated of sports casting punditry on the replays of the memorable moments of the spectacle.
The first debate was an interesting moment in the perversion of democracy. My belief is that Obama intentionally risked going out hoping to engage Romney in a Douglas type debate. He was ahead and could afford the risk of ignoring Axelrod and Plouffe. What shocked Axelrod was the reaction of "friends in the media"... "MSNBC was relentless that night. And Andrew Sullivan... was on a suicide watch after that debate."
It was true. I was astounded by the choice of focus- as if they were critiquing the style of a fellow performer rather than the ideas of the two candidates- the substance of the debate. Matthews commented on the missed opportunities for zingers- as if this were about punches in a boxing match.
That is the sort of defeat of informed opinion that is so corrupt about American politics. But it is as accepted as common practice in the US, and we reserve our outrage for comparitively ineffective techniques such as voter suppression.
Idea suppression is far far more effective, and ought to be regarded as equally un-American. This is not about hero worship or performances of sporting demi gods. It is about understanding what their ideas really are, and what they propose to do- warts and all- in all the boring detail that entails.
Obama cleared the bar, but it was too high a threshold for the mass media.
A sad hour for America.
John: Thanks for taking the time to post. On the first debate, I'm with you on that. It appeared our Prez Obama was taken slightly aback on Romney's 'zingers' and decided not to call Romney on his lies and half truths. The President's demeanor is not one of a knock 'em out but more of a velvet glove approach, even now. I opine his tactic is one of showing that reasoning wins over physicalness, which is contrary to too many, as seen on MSNBC.
The U.S. was founded on violence, not christianity as is spouted. WE are a might is right country. WE killed to have and continue to do so, whether it's bodies, ideas or thoughts. There is so much in your post it needs reading a number of times. One thing I'm certain, only if Americans unite can WE have any semblance of civility. Dividing us only encourages fear, mistrust and hate. Unfortunately, the body is only as good as its head, and the elected repub/tparty in Congress - as the other side's head, elicits and encourages a continuation of this destruction.
Sir! Sir! What about the Scary Black Man in Philadelphia?
(AKA "both sides do it!)
These guys are feeling confident enough to tell the truth because they know that with single party Republican control of 24 state legislatures and governors, they can make the election playing field pretty damned difficult starting in 2014. It used to just be the 11 states of the old Confederacy that had done this, 24 states is enough to swing things Republican even if it is Hillary running in 2016. This is not a joking matter (which is why I replied to your post, Day - your humor makes a similar point so I'll just be obvious here).
barring a few slips by repubs, voter suppression is just another example of hypocrisy by the repub party, CALLING DEMOCRATS OUT, for things they, AND ONLY THEY are doing themselves.
they are/have been UNEMBARASSABLE in their attempts to win elections and demonize President Obama. they will stoop to any level if they think they can win, or make President Obama look bad.
This isn't news.
The question is what to do about it.
There's no "law" but this surely qualifies as a "high crime and misdemeanor".
Wouldn't this be considered a felony level conspiracy?
I sent an email to the state senator of Ohio, whathisname Coccino. I said, "You should be ashamed of yourself. In the democratic process, fair and honest elections are the cornerstone of our whole system. Instead you are trying to take electoral votes away from blue counties and giving them to the larger red counties. " Etc etc etc. I cannot believe that these people are doing these things. I used to believe that our democratic process was sacred in this country and everybody wanted the same thing. A fair election. I also told Coccino ," If your ideas were as good as you think they are, how come you have to cheat?" I was so angry.
I did the same, and to PA, IN, etc.
What is lost in the weeds here is what the implications of political maneuvering like this are and why the GOP can't avoid attempting to get away with things like this.
First: it points to a well established fact of American politics: There are more Democrats than Republicans. To allow the democrats to come to the polls in force without some kind of defensive strategy (legality and ethical concerns not withstanding) is to accept defeat and inevitable irrelevance.
Second: It points to the fact that Republican policies and ideology just aren't as popular as they want them to be. Look at what happened when their last slate of candidates were allowed to say what they thought. They displayed thinking that is not only well outside the mainstream of American politics but American culture at large.
Third: It highlights the fact that a lot of their philosophical "Talking points" are fabricated nonsense if not bold faced lies that they know not to be true and that they will say absolutely anything to stay in the game.
To be fair I have said before and I maintain that a strong, thoughtful and well reasoned opposition is essential to government in this country but in it's current incarnation the Republican party is not that group.
Well said. They know that they have to cheat to win with current policies, and yet seem to think that doubling down or putting a face up front (Marco, SEE! we got one too! Rubio) will solve the problem
I'm trying to remember when the last time a Republican did something for "the good of the people."
Lately, whenever they've revealed their true motive at has ended up being good for the people. Not why they did it, but the result nonetheless.
Most recent one I can think of is Eisenhower's speech warning of the military-industrial complex:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
It's just sad to compare today's Republicans to this.
Like your alias
It's been well over 30 years and maybe as long as since before Nixon was in office.
The last 'good' thing the republicans did was when Nixon resigned instead of waiting to get impeached.
The party of the red and white certainly have problems with black, blue, yellow and brown. Green is still up for consideration since it can mean cash too. but that green is not enough to overrule the other colors. Pink is bailing from red and white too, so here is wishing them transparency as they turn gray and go away.
This was mentioned last night on TRMS. I just finished reading it and it is essential for understanding this stuff:
Rick Perlstein, “The Long Con: Mail-Order Conservatism,” The Baffler No. 21
http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con/print
An amazing read. No wonder I never got rich. I have been doing it wrong.
Is there some way we could make Federal laws (number of machines per voter, one week of voting allowed, including Sunday, and so on) that affect all Federal elections?
Would states want to spend the money to have their vote on a different day without these safeguards to bother with? Or something like that?
Would someone who knows comment, please?
Barbara Boxer introduced a bill last week to establish Federal standards for elections. From her website:
http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/120512.cfm
I recommend this report from the Congressional Research Service on the broad authority granted Congress to regulate elections to the House. http://infousa.state.gov/government/elections/docs/rl30747.pdf. This authority gives Congress indirect jurisdiction over the conduct of Presidential elections, though Congress could not, say, change the structure of the Electoral College. Jurisdiction over Senate elections is more murky because the Senate was not directly elected until 1913.
http://politicsbythenumbers.org/
Is this like when the Detroit councilwoman was being honest when she said that President Obama needed to give them some "bacon" because they helped get him elected? She wanted "quid pro quo" leadership. Obama had promised them something if they elected him.
Yel, Obama saying -- giving someone something...is the codeword which mean, help. Help is nice when you need it, like Health Care and SS. Help is something the GOP knows nothing about unless you give them help by giving them money. They are always begging for money...look at Wall Street. But not too worry because if you are not in the one percent you sure are not going to get any help from the GOP. Unless you help by getting sick and dying. Not being able to vote is always a kind of help Republicans love.
Yea, because it is not like Republicans ever win elections or anything. How did that 1% get 47% more to vote for the Republican Presidential candidate? Just because you believe something, doesn't make it a fact. Republican states actually give more to charity than Democrat states.
(Source)
All politicians promise stuff to get elected. Democrats are supported by certain constituencies and Republicans are supported by certain constituencies. Example: Democrats get elected by the elderly because Democrats support Social Security and Medicare. Republicans get elected by rich people because they promise to cut services and entitlements to the elderly and line the pockets of the rich with the savings from those cuts.
That's vastly different than outright cheating to get elected, i.e., voter suppression, ID laws.
Just helping you make that distinction.
Iexnatevja, you are sooo wrong. The older the voter, the more likely they are to vote Republican. Romney won the race among voters 45-65 and those 65 and older. I can provide a reference if you'd like, but I invite you to source your case first.
My guess, no response and/or no source.
The focus for the past elections has been on the federal level and the state elections have been ignored. Big mistake as we are seeing happen in a great number of states. The teapubs campaign on one thing and do the opposite when they are elected. They are always saying "the American people want", but the problem is, they think the rich and big business are "the American people" and the rest of us are slackers, lazy and dependant on government handouts and therefore, not Americans.
I'm amazed these teapubs can't wait to invade another country (which of course, they and their families won't fight in) and first thing on their list of nation building is to let the people vote there, yet they fight so hard to stop the vote in the country they claim to love so much. They claim to love the Constitution yet are always talking about changing it. They always cry about freedom of religion, yet are always trying to shove "their" religion down our throats.
The teapubs hate America, hate the Constitution, and hate democracy. If they didn't, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to change it all. Waving a flag in one hand and the Constitution in the other doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a hypocrite. Pay attention people!
Benen,
CONTEXT?
really?
what kind of CONTEXT would you need?
the quote speaks for itself.
When a republicans uses the word; context, what they really mean is, I don't ever use fact checkers for I get all my talking points from Fox News.
This is a crime and there should be punishment.
Jakes: Punishment? Vote at every election.
I use to rant and rave about how Republicans are and of how badly they treat everyone, even the poor of their own party. But now I only use one word when I now talk about the GOP. Evil.
Well, it is possible because the republicans are being blamed for voter obstruction, he might have said that tongue in cheek. Not saying I believe that, just that that is how it could be taken out of context.
There is no news here. On several occasions Republican state officials have said the same thing.
The attempted theft of the election was obvious to most. The question is, why isn't the Justice Dept. or some dept. prosecuting this? Call it treason, sedition whatever, just do something about it.
State's rights v. federal interference. In a number of cases the DOJ did take it to court.
They lost the presidential race anyway...now that's something to laugh about.
As inconvenient as it is for sports fans, there is a distinction between NeoCons, who are willing to do anything, even run a guy who should have been charged with perjury by DOJ, and others who are registered R.
Not all the R's wanted the vulture, especially with his bully-pulpit friendship with the most imperialist entity the U.S. government (not just executive branch) hangs out with and throws weapons to. In fairness to that entity, U.S. corruption may well have happened first, going back beyond Eisenhower. Nonetheless, the two frat boys would have made a terror team even for their alleged followers. I do not think their hubris is good even for their family and friends, if looked at over a long term.
Bus-loads of other R's got "lost" on the way to the convention to vote on "rules" than then got changed from where they were at the beginning of the "game." I somewhat understand the impulse to scream team cheers and name-call the opposition by making them look all the same, but it does detract, over time, from dealing with substantive issues.
They know we know but they don't care that we know as long as they can get away with it. The important thing is not being in the right, but winning. Sad - and dangerous for the democratic process.
jv: Yes, it brings out emotions, but the reality is WE must be watchful, more discerning, ready for action. Millions from both sides hit the internet and WE did bring out the vote, estimated voter count at 127Million. As the days pass and the 113th Congress enter the realm, it'll give us a broader picture of exactly why the very wealthy have focused on destroying the largest segment of the population, the working, middle class; why the repub/tparty are so handsomely being paid to continue their destructive path. Vote at every election - they ALL count.
This would be a great story if anyone cared about this guy. What is he, 25? He was paid $3,000 in a billion dollar campaign? I bet there were dog walkers who made more than that off the Romney campaign. Let's not act like Tea Partiers who found the smoking gun when we found basically nothing at all. Rachel, you are better than this!
Pursuing voter suppression and standing with and on the intimidation factors of disenfranchisement will do in the TEA-Republican party in 2014! The election sent a definitive message - get it done! President Obama will, this time, tear them a new one by holding their feet to the fire over the Debt ceiling, Payroll tax extension for the middle class and the immigration bill in the Senate. It is now up to the public to get involved and send your Senators and Representatives an email, text, letter and call their offices.
Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Representatives http://www.house.gov/representatives/
Come on, you know you want to! Contact your Senator and Representative and tell them they work for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9TjVsQa57c
Republicans cannot win Presidential elections without voter suppression so Tranter's comments are not surprising. Too bad for them that their tactics didn't work on November 6th. As the demographics continue to change, I expect Republicans to become more desperate. The majority of Americans are not buying their arguments and Hilary Clinton may be our next President.
Would the people over voter registrations and rules admit this NO, Would the governors of these states admit it -NO. Would the person who sat there and admitted this - NO.
There would be another excuse and reason for him not really meaning what he said. Again why would anyone want to believe the Republicans?? If one statement doesn't work they just change and hope the next version works. Thank heaven people pay attention to this.
If people paid attention, Romney never would have received 47% of the votes. WE have work to do.
The only surprise is he said it out loud. You want to help your side? Come up with a platform that doesn't alienate everyone except rich white men and a budget that was created using a calculator. (and no, I am not related to Ronald Reagan)