A few questions to the Americans re: Presidential Elections 2016

[Syt]

... from a curious foreigner.

1. I understand that personal attacks and questioning your opponent's character is part of presidential campaigns. However, I have a feeling that in the past topics and issues still played a major role - this time, though, it seems that any political topics and issues have been completely sidelined. Is this a first or has it been this bad before?

2. Does the long, drawn out campaign trail (2 years from people throwing their hat into the ring to election day) reward attention grabbing candidates that are low on content and high on theatrics?

3. What do you reckon is the number of people who explicitly vote for a candidate, because they think they're the right person for the office vs. people voiting to keep the other candidate out? People have been joking that presidential elections are about choosing the lesser evil, but my outsider's impression is that it's not been this pronounced before.

4. What will be the conclusion the parties draw from this election? Will they make changes to the nomination and primary process? Will they consider going with more mainstream candidates that have a chance of negotiating bipartisan compromise on political issues? Or will the polarization of the American political landscape continue and possibly increase? I recall after the 2012 analysts agreed that Republicans need to approach e.g. Latin and Black voters, but it appears they chose the opposite.

[Eddie Teach]

I reckon your guesses are as good as mine.

[jimmy olsen]

Number 1 ain't new.

https://youtu.be/Y_zTN4BXvYI

[dps]

1)  As jimmy olsen said, this isn't anything new.  it might be more pronounced this time than normally, but 2016 probably isn't the worst it's ever been. 

2)  Hard to say. 

3)  I think that the Republican Party might consider changing some of the rules for its primaries, at least to the extent that the party itself and not the various state governments set the rules, because the RNC didn't want Trump and if, for example, delegates were awarded proportionately in all states instead of some of them using winner-take-all, there would have been a much better chance of blocking him from the nomination.  Keep in mind, though, that some of those rules are there to try to avoid having a brokered convention, which I think neither party ever wants to happen again.

The Democratic Party has little reason to change their rules because the DNC got the nominee they wanted (the party big-wigs love the Clintons' fund-raising abilities).

But as far as "going with more mainstream candidates" is concerned, that's really more up to the primary voters in each party than the national party organizations and big shots.

[Syt]

But as far as "going with more mainstream candidates" is concerned, that's really more up to the primary voters in each party than the national party organizations and big shots.

So there's only waiting for government to be so messed up and blocked that "I actually can get shit done" candidates become attractive?

[Valmy]

Number 1 ain't new.

https://youtu.be/Y_zTN4BXvYI

He didn't ask if it was new. In fact he stated he knew it was normal.

It is worse. But there is a good reason for that. Yes issues were a bigger part of previous campaigns, I mean you have been through at least three others on Languish before. But there is a reason issues ceased to be a major part of these campaigns. I didn't like the debates  in 2004, 2008, and 2012 for very different reasons than today. Those debates had candidates recycling boring talking points and not answering the question they were asked. People eventually tuned those out I think. Also they are rather hashed out by now. Everybody knows what talking points Republicans want to hear and what Democrats want to hear. So the only thing interesting is the personal attacks and man are they getting out of control. To the point that I am a little worried the loser might have to flee the country or some shit. I mean Hillary is basically called a criminal and Trump is basically a KKK rapist at this point. Crazy.

But remember it is the zingers like Lloyd Bentsen insulting Dan Quayle that tend to be remembered not whatever brilliant policy wonkish statements that were made. Hell some people still remember the 'Mama mama where's my pa?' line the Republicans used to chant at Grover Cleveland about his illegitimate child. So we probably eventually got the election we deserved.

But remember issues did play a pretty big role in the Democratic primary. That was actually a normal primary without a reality TV star who really knew how to play to the TV audience.

2. Does the long, drawn out campaign trail (2 years from people throwing their hat into the ring to election day) reward attention grabbing candidates that are low on content and high on theatrics?

I think so. Few people who are gifted administrators or managers is likely to prosper in such an environment, or want to put up with such an extended and stressful process. The long campaign trail made lots of sense back in the day before the internet and all that but really all I need are about 20 minutes to look at each candidates' platform and read a few quotes before I can decide who I am going to vote for. I think most other people are the same. We could easily compact the whole process, Primaries plus general election, into about an eight week span and would be better for it IMO. But this is not likely to change anytime soon.

A big issue people might want to think about is how politically vulnerable this makes us internationally. Obama has been a powerless lame duck on the world stage for fully half his term because of this election. That is the only reason I have any hope it might one day change.

3. What do you reckon is the number of people who explicitly vote for a candidate, because they think they're the right person for the office vs. people voiting to keep the other candidate out? People have been joking that presidential elections are about choosing the lesser evil, but my outsider's impression is that it's not been this pronounced before.

Well we have never had a candidate quite like Trump before. But I am a particularly bad person to ask this since I actually thought the Clintons were the people we needed to be back in power. 16 years of amateur hour in the White House was getting a bit stale. I thought some seasoned political operators might be what we needed. And the fact Hillary seemed to support my free trade/international alliances beliefs was also good. So there was probably only one or two candidates on the Republican side I would have voted for over her I think.

4. What will be the conclusion the parties draw from this election? Will they make changes to the nomination and primary process? Will they consider going with more mainstream candidates that have a chance of negotiating bipartisan compromise on political issues? Or will the polarization of the American political landscape continue and possibly increase? I recall after the 2012 analysts agreed that Republicans need to approach e.g. Latin and Black voters, but it appears they chose the opposite.

I see things getting worse before they get better. The radical sides of both parties are going to seize the machinery. Clinton will probably be the last centrist for awhile. Hope I am wrong. The Bernie Sanders fans and the Trump populists are coming and the party system as we know it is going to be broken.

[garbon]

It is worse. But there is a good reason for that. Yes issues were a bigger part of previous campaigns, I mean you have been through at least three others on Languish before. But there is a reason issues ceased to be a major part of these campaigns. I didn't like the debates  in 2004, 2008, and 2012 for very different reasons than today. Those debates had candidates recycling boring talking points and not answering the question they were asked. People eventually tuned those out I think. Also they are rather hashed out by now. Everybody knows what talking points Republicans want to hear and what Democrats want to hear. So the only thing interesting is the personal attacks and man are they getting out of control

I'm not sure that is fair. The talking points are evolving. The plight of African Americans was never such a strong issue before - same as this anti-trade deals/free trade stance. Meanwhile culture war items like abortion and gay marriage are seeing much fewer mentions in policy discussions.

I think so. Few people who are gifted administrators or managers is likely to prosper in such an environment, or want to put up with such an extended and stressful process. The long campaign trail made lots of sense back in the day before the internet and all that but really all I need are about 20 minutes to look at each candidates' platform and read a few quotes before I can decide who I am going to vote for. I think most other people are the same. We could easily compact the whole process, Primaries plus general election, into about an eight week span and would be better for it IMO. But this is not likely to change anytime soon.

Actually I have to take issue with this to. Before Trump, who were big, theatrical candidates?

[Valmy]

I'm not sure that is fair. The talking points are evolving. The plight of African Americans was never such a strong issue before - same as this anti-trade deals/free trade stance. Meanwhile culture war items like abortion and gay marriage are seeing much fewer mentions in policy discussions.

Perhaps. Though I think if guys like Pence were running things the gay marriage/abortion thing would return as a big issue.

[garbon]

I'm not sure that is fair. The talking points are evolving. The plight of African Americans was never such a strong issue before - same as this anti-trade deals/free trade stance. Meanwhile culture war items like abortion and gay marriage are seeing much fewer mentions in policy discussions.

Perhaps. Though I think if guys like Pence were running things the gay marriage/abortion thing would return as a big issue.

So people who haven't survived a primary in recent elections?

[Valmy]

Actually I have to take issue with this to. Before Trump, who were big, theatrical candidates?

Obama.

But even before him we were getting polished political products more than superstars with tons of results behind them.

[Valmy]

So people who haven't survived a primary in recent elections?

I am not sure what you are referring to. How many elections back has this been true?

[garbon]

So people who haven't survived a primary in recent elections?

I am not sure what you are referring to. How many elections back has this been true?

At least the last few. The strong evangelicals haven't been doing so well.

[garbon]

Actually I have to take issue with this to. Before Trump, who were big, theatrical candidates?

Obama.

But even before him we were getting polished political products more than superstars with tons of results behind them.

I might have disliked the man and thought (still think) he'd have been much better had he waited to build relationships in Washington, but I don't really see how that's true. Unlike Trump he actually had policies. Many might have been 'chocolate milk in drinking fountains' but they actually were thought out unlike notions that 'Obamacare is going to be repealed and we are going to create the best health system (unspecified)'.

[Valmy]

At least the last few. The strong evangelicals haven't been doing so well.

Mitt was not exactly an evangelical, being a vile heathen Mormon and all, but I thought those issues were still things in 2012. Ah well it is has been awhile.

[Valmy]

I might have disliked the man and thought (still think) he'd have been much better had he waited to build relationships in Washington, but I don't really see how that's true. Unlike Trump he actually had policies. Many might have been 'chocolate milk in drinking fountains' but they actually were thought out unlike notions that 'Obamacare is going to be repealed and we are going to create the best health system (unspecified)'.

He certainly was big and theatrical though. He was an incredibly gifted campaigner for that reason.