2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Eddie Teach]

I have no idea who the Republican nominee will be.  I remember back in 2008 when the McCain campaign referring to Obama as a "celebrity".  Then he chose a running mate that would go on to be a reality TV star.  Now we are 8 years later and the two leading candidates in the Republican party are not even politicians.  They are full time celebrities. People who are famous for being famous.  If I were a Republican I'd go into hiding or something.  Maybe that's what happened to Derspeiss.

Ben Carson is a doctor. He's famous for running for President.

[Berkut]

Not sure which is worse - "President Trump" or "President Carson". 

The fact that this could be a question is indeed frightening.

I've always had nothing but contempt for the "If Person X gets elected, I am moving to Canada" crowd.

But...yeah. I am not moving to Canada because it would be inconvenient, but on the other hand, this is probably the first time in my life I've ever questioned the idea that maybe I am not super lucky to be an American, as opposed to a Canadian/Swede/Brit etc.

Maybe I am just getting old and crotchety. But it bother me that I live in a country that could even contemplate electing either of those two men.

[Caliga]

I'm a huge Donald Trump fan and I thought it was funny when he entered the race, but it scares the shit out of me how well he seems to be doing.  What the fuck is wrong with people?

[DGuller]

I'm starting to wonder whether the vaunted resistance to change built into the American system is in fact a bug and not a feature that leads to extremism.  People become more extreme when they don't have the real power to effect any changes.  It seems like all the parliamentary democracies are far more agile and responsive to the mood of the voters, and parties that get elected have the real power to implement their agenda, and have it succeed or fail on its own merits.

[Berkut]

I'm starting to wonder whether the vaunted resistance to change built into the American system is in fact a bug and not a feature that leads to extremism.  People become more extreme when they don't have the real power to effect any changes. 

That is actually an interesting idea.

I was talking about this last night with a friend - how the religious right has become so radicalized in America.

And to be fair, if you are a religious right nutjob, it has to be incredibly frustrating. On every issue, over time, they just lose, lose, lose, lose, lose. Forever.

Gay marriage. Science. Evolution. Religious participation, for that matter. It is just a never ending series of failures. Their victories are, in almost all cases, completely tactical. Minor battle wins while the war is decisively lost.

That has to get kind of infuriating, and I suspect leads to the "Fuck it, lets burn the entire thing down" kind of politics that you see the Tea Party embrace, where they are willing to (for example) allow the US government to actually default rather than give a nickel to Planned Parenthood - even if it is absolutely clear that this is NOT the will of the people.

I can't emphasize enough how alarming I find this idea - that it is acceptable, even demanded, that since some Tea Party candidate represents people who don't want to fund Planned Parenthood (which in and of itself is a valid political stance per se), it is reasonable for them to attempt to hold the actual governance of the nation in every realm hostage to try to force their minority viewpoint.

I mean, this is obviously not at all rational - if 15% of the population has the right to refuse to govern based on some issue, surely the 85% has that same right?

But this extremism, this crazy ass radicalism that is, in its form, no different from the most extreme version of any other ideological or religious radicalism (it just manifests in a different manner than overt violence), has come from somewhere. Our system of government seems to give them no outlet other than obstinacy.

[lustindarkness]

Not sure which is worse - "President Trump" or "President Carson". 

The fact that this could be a question is indeed frightening.

I've always had nothing but contempt for the "If Person X gets elected, I am moving to Canada" crowd.

But...yeah. I am not moving to Canada because it would be inconvenient, but on the other hand, this is probably the first time in my life I've ever questioned the idea that maybe I am not super lucky to be an American, as opposed to a Canadian/Swede/Brit etc.

Maybe I am just getting old and crotchety. But it bother me that I live in a country that could even contemplate electing either of those two men.

I understand perfectly how you feel. And it bothers me even more that I just can't stand Hillary, never did, never will. So, who do I vote for?

[Ed Anger]

I'm a huge Donald Trump fan and I thought it was funny when he entered the race, but it scares the shit out of me how well he seems to be doing.  What the fuck is wrong with people?

Relax

[Berkut]

Not sure which is worse - "President Trump" or "President Carson". 

The fact that this could be a question is indeed frightening.

I've always had nothing but contempt for the "If Person X gets elected, I am moving to Canada" crowd.

But...yeah. I am not moving to Canada because it would be inconvenient, but on the other hand, this is probably the first time in my life I've ever questioned the idea that maybe I am not super lucky to be an American, as opposed to a Canadian/Swede/Brit etc.

Maybe I am just getting old and crotchety. But it bother me that I live in a country that could even contemplate electing either of those two men.

I understand perfectly how you feel. And it bothers me even more that I just can't stand Hillary, never did, never will. So, who do I vote for?

Hillary, of course.

You may not like her, but she would be a perfectly reasonable President.

[Malthus]

I'm starting to wonder whether the vaunted resistance to change built into the American system is in fact a bug and not a feature that leads to extremism.  People become more extreme when they don't have the real power to effect any changes. 

That is actually an interesting idea.

I was talking about this last night with a friend - how the religious right has become so radicalized in America.

And to be fair, if you are a religious right nutjob, it has to be incredibly frustrating. On every issue, over time, they just lose, lose, lose, lose, lose. Forever.

Gay marriage. Science. Evolution. Religious participation, for that matter. It is just a never ending series of failures. Their victories are, in almost all cases, completely tactical. Minor battle wins while the war is decisively lost.

That has to get kind of infuriating, and I suspect leads to the "Fuck it, lets burn the entire thing down" kind of politics that you see the Tea Party embrace, where they are willing to (for example) allow the US government to actually default rather than give a nickel to Planned Parenthood - even if it is absolutely clear that this is NOT the will of the people.

I can't emphasize enough how alarming I find this idea - that it is acceptable, even demanded, that since some Tea Party candidate represents people who don't want to fund Planned Parenthood (which in and of itself is a valid political stance per se), it is reasonable for them to attempt to hold the actual governance of the nation in every realm hostage to try to force their minority viewpoint.

I mean, this is obviously not at all rational - if 15% of the population has the right to refuse to govern based on some issue, surely the 85% has that same right?

But this extremism, this crazy ass radicalism that is, in its form, no different from the most extreme version of any other ideological or religious radicalism (it just manifests in a different manner than overt violence), has come from somewhere. Our system of government seems to give them no outlet other than obstinacy.

The hard right has been losing those battles - and even worse - in Canada though. Even when the PM in power was originally from a breakaway hard-right "Reform" party, and was in power for a decade, they kept losing those same battles.

[Monoriu]

I'm a huge Donald Trump fan and I thought it was funny when he entered the race, but it scares the shit out of me how well he seems to be doing.  What the fuck is wrong with people?

They want to teach you a lesson in "be careful what you wish for" 

[Razgovory]

Religious right is to narrow.  They are furious about Mexicans in this country, but that's hardly a religious mandate.  They are cultural conservatives.  Cultural conservatives felt alienated by the Democratic party (mostly on civil rights) and hitched their wagons to the GOP back in the 1970's and 1980's.  The rest of the GOP welcomed them aboard, but really didn't care for the issues of the cultural conservatives.  They made promises to their new confederates, but showed little intention of actually doing much for them.  For instance the GOP leadership promised it would ban abortion, but knew fully well they didn't have that power.  Over the course of the 1980's and 1990's things like televangelists and talk radio caused them to become more religious and and in a constant state of agitation, but even electoral victories didn't give them the changes they wanted.  The "eastern Establishment" Republicans really just wanted the cultural conservative vote and not here from them for the next two years.  The cultural conservative thought his time had finally come with George W. Bush, but that turned out to be fiasco.  In 2008 Barack Obama was elected and economic bailouts occurred.  It became clear that Eastern Establishment not only didn't care what the cultural conservative wanted, (they had allowed a 'Black radical' to be elected), but their talk about limiting government had been bullshit as well.  The cultural conservative felt used, and he rebelled.  The rebellion has continued for the last 8 years and while the GOP was kept together by the promise defeating "that Muslim in the White House".  That has essentially fallen apart.  Driven into a frenzy by decades of talk radio and later Fox News editorials the cultural conservative doesn't know who he hates more, the demonic evil of the Democratic parties or a Republican party that has betrayed him.  The GOP is in the midst of a civil war, bigger then the one that tore the Democrats apart a generation ago.  I don't know what will happen.

[celedhring]

I'm starting to wonder whether the vaunted resistance to change built into the American system is in fact a bug and not a feature that leads to extremism.  People become more extreme when they don't have the real power to effect any changes. 

That is actually an interesting idea.

I was talking about this last night with a friend - how the religious right has become so radicalized in America.

And to be fair, if you are a religious right nutjob, it has to be incredibly frustrating. On every issue, over time, they just lose, lose, lose, lose, lose. Forever.

Gay marriage. Science. Evolution. Religious participation, for that matter. It is just a never ending series of failures. Their victories are, in almost all cases, completely tactical. Minor battle wins while the war is decisively lost.

That has to get kind of infuriating, and I suspect leads to the "Fuck it, lets burn the entire thing down" kind of politics that you see the Tea Party embrace, where they are willing to (for example) allow the US government to actually default rather than give a nickel to Planned Parenthood - even if it is absolutely clear that this is NOT the will of the people.

I can't emphasize enough how alarming I find this idea - that it is acceptable, even demanded, that since some Tea Party candidate represents people who don't want to fund Planned Parenthood (which in and of itself is a valid political stance per se), it is reasonable for them to attempt to hold the actual governance of the nation in every realm hostage to try to force their minority viewpoint.

I mean, this is obviously not at all rational - if 15% of the population has the right to refuse to govern based on some issue, surely the 85% has that same right?

But this extremism, this crazy ass radicalism that is, in its form, no different from the most extreme version of any other ideological or religious radicalism (it just manifests in a different manner than overt violence), has come from somewhere. Our system of government seems to give them no outlet other than obstinacy.

The hard right has been losing those battles - and even worse - in Canada though. Even when the PM in power was originally from a breakaway hard-right "Reform" party, and was in power for a decade, they kept losing those same battles.

Same here.The (very socially conservative) minister of Justice quit recently because he couldn't get his restrictive abortion reform passed, even though the conservative PP party has a comfortable majority in parliament.

The religious right made an huge fuss of reverting several social reforms (gay marriage, easier abortion, speedier divorce) that the left implemented in the 2000s, but they have found they lack the political and social capital to do so once the conservatives are in power. They keep losing all culture wars, but they don't seem to be able to stir the pot anymore, besides angry sermons. 

[Valmy]

Weird. Abortion is one of the few issues the social conservatives have that gets traction.

[DGuller]

The hard right has been losing those battles - and even worse - in Canada though. Even when the PM in power was originally from a breakaway hard-right "Reform" party, and was in power for a decade, they kept losing those same battles.

Same here.The (very socially conservative) minister of Justice quit recently because he couldn't get his restrictive abortion reform passed, even though the conservative PP party has a comfortable majority in parliament.

The religious right made an huge fuss of reverting several social reforms (gay marriage, easier abortion, speedier divorce) that the left implemented in the 2000s, but they have found they lack the political and social capital to do so once the conservatives are in power. They keep losing all culture wars, but they don't seem to be able to stir the pot anymore, besides angry sermons.

I'm not saying that the hard right needs to win the political battles to not go more extreme.  Rather, there has to be a perception that they're not getting it down because there is just not enough political support, as opposed to the perception that there is enough political support but the political system is just not responsive to it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Religious right is to narrow.

Yes.

The latest paper by the newly Nobelled (Riksbanked) Angus Deaton got a lot of press today.  The headline finding is that death rates for US whites from age 45-54 have been *increasing* over the last 10 years (while declining elsewhere in the OECD).  Rivers may not be cried over this but there is something real at work here.  Whatever it is, it's not a huge surprise that there seems to be a lot of anger coming from middle aged whites and that it seems to be bleeding over into political expression in dysfunctional ways.