2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

There is always a fascist strain to tap into in our society.  I guess Trump, being a shrewd man that he is, decided that tapping into it directly rather than beating around the bush was his ticket.

Is that going to be enough to win Presidency of the US? Seems like a big fail for a general.

[celedhring]

But yea - the pandering race to the bottom is scary. It didn't happen with 9/11. Maybe Bush deserves more credit than he got.

Bush was very careful to not blame Muslims or Islam for any of it. He went with 'terrorists' constantly. I believe it was he who said the whole 'religion of peace' thing that everybody has mocked since.

Pretty grim that Bush looks less bad in retrospective.

[Valmy]

Seems like a big fail for a general.

I sure the hell hope it is. Hillary '16.

[DGuller]

There is always a fascist strain to tap into in our society.  I guess Trump, being a shrewd man that he is, decided that tapping into it directly rather than beating around the bush was his ticket.

Is that going to be enough to win Presidency of the US? Seems like a big fail for a general.

Can't win a general without winning a primary.

[Jacob]

Pretty grim that Bush looks less bad in retrospective.

It seems it can always get worse.

[Malthus]

But yea - the pandering race to the bottom is scary. It didn't happen with 9/11. Maybe Bush deserves more credit than he got.

Bush was very careful to not blame Muslims or Islam for any of it. He went with 'terrorists' constantly. I believe it was he who said the whole 'religion of peace' thing that everybody has mocked since.

If the alternative is the Trump plan, he'll go down in history wearing that mockery as a badge of honour. 

[garbon]

There is always a fascist strain to tap into in our society.  I guess Trump, being a shrewd man that he is, decided that tapping into it directly rather than beating around the bush was his ticket.

Is that going to be enough to win Presidency of the US? Seems like a big fail for a general.

Can't win a general without winning a primary.

Because he was doing so horribly?

[DGuller]

Because he was doing so horribly?

Trump didn't start appealing to fascists yesterday, he started it during the announcement of his candidacy.

[viper37]

But yea - the pandering race to the bottom is scary. It didn't happen with 9/11. Maybe Bush deserves more credit than he got.

I believe it was he who said the whole 'religion of peace' thing that everybody has mocked since.

it predates him, IIRC.  Or it predates 9/11 for sure.  Some Paradox members used to make fun of that during the 2nd Intifada.

Interestingly, in the matter of Trump becoming President, is that I was just reading tonight that his wife told him "to tone it down".  I guess that is toning down for Trump.

[Martinus]

Unfortunately, Trump is the symptom of the problem I have been talking about for quite a while now.

On one side you have Trump, with his racist, fascist ideas. On the other side you have Obama who refuses to even use the expression "Islamist extremists" (instead insisting on calling them "violent extremists") and claims Daesh has nothing to do with Islam.

If this becomes the only viable alternative, and people see that the latter is clearly bullshit (people don't like double-speak), they go for the former.

[jimmy olsen]

Some good news from the elections earlier this month.

http://www.thenation.com/article/reform-wins-ohio-bans-gerrymandering-while-maine-and-seattle-bust-big-money/

 Reform Wins: Ohio Bans Gerrymandering While Maine and Seattle Bust Big Money
Billionaires are buying the old politics—but state and local activists are building a new politics that puts democracy first.

By John NicholsTwitter

November 5, 2015

 Are Americans ready for great big reforms that renew democracy?

Yes.

Americans keep telling us they want real reform with local and state resolutions—more than 600 so far—calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United ruling and restore the essential premises that money is not speech, corporations are not people and citizens and their elected representatives have a right to organize elections where votes matter more than dollars. On Tuesday, the city of Kent, Ohio, joined the list, giving 64 percent support to a resolution that declares "1. Only human beings, not corporations, are legal persons with Constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not equivalent to speech, and therefore, regulating political contributions and spending does not equate to limiting political speech." To emphasize their point, Kent voters mandated the establishment of an annual Democracy Day to focus attention on the need to let the will of the people—as opposed to big money—define the direction of government.

Americans keep telling us they want real reform with grassroots organizing, petitioning and marching on behalf of voting rights that—despite the ongoing assault by right-wing politicians and the US Supreme Court on Voting Rights Act protections—has yielded tremendous victories such as the groundbreaking Oregon and California automatic voter registration laws.

And Americans told us a lot on Tuesday by backing bold new responses to a broken politics.

 • In Ohio, 71 percent of voters backed Issue 1, a constitutional amendment to ban partisan gerrymandering and establish a bipartisan Ohio Redistricting Commission to draw legislative district lines that promote real competition. The vote was so overwhelming that backers now plan to take on an even bigger target: the gerrymandering of congressional seats. "Today's win was an important first step, but it only got us halfway there," says League of Women Voters of Ohio executive director Carrie Davis. "We need to take these new anti-gerrymandering rules that Issue 1 applied to the General Assembly and extend them to congressional districts, which are even more gerrymandered."

• In Maine, 55 percent of voters backed a proposal to dramatically strengthen the state's 19-year-old old Clean Elections system for publicly financing campaigns. In response to court rulings that have opened all sorts of new avenues for corporate special interests and billionaire donors to buy elections, the voters updated the state law so that candidates who accept public financing can receive additional public funding to counter attacks from supposedly "independent" Super PAC groups. The reforms enacted Tuesday also require "independent" groups to disclose the identities of their top donors on all advertising—a transparency rule that has the potential to reveal when individual millionaires and billionaires are faking up self-serving campaigns under assumed identities such as "Americans for Apple Pie." In addition, the Maine measure hikes penalties for violations of campaign finance laws. "What Maine people proved tonight is that we won't let a Supreme Court ruling or [legislative actions that weaken] our clean election laws, win the day," said Andrew Bossie of the Yes on One campaign. "With a strong Clean Elections system and enhanced disclosure and more accountability in our elections, we can have a more true democracy that works for all of us."

 • Seattle voters overwhelmingly backed Initiative 122, which establishes a system of taxpayer-funded "democracy vouchers." Under the first-in-the-nation plan, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission will mail four $25 vouchers to each voter in each election cycle. Voters can then assign the coupon—as a sort of campaign donation—to any candidate for mayor, city attorney, or city council who is participating in the voucher system. Candidates who participate must accept strict spending limits ($800,000 for a mayoral race), accept limits on the amount of direct donations they can collect from private individuals or groups, and agree to participate in at least three public debates. "Seattle leads the nation, first on $15 an hour and now on campaign-finance reform," said Heather Weiner of the Honest Elections Seattle campaign that backed I-122, and that was enthusiastically endorsed by the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and other reform groups. "We look forward to seeing more cities and states implementing their own local solutions to the problem of big money in politics."

 The crises created by big money in politics—corruption of governance, warped policy making, vapid campaigns, low turnout—require local, state, and national action. National action—constitutional and congressional—will be the heaviest lift. And that's why it is vital to keep conscious of what can be done at the local and state levels. Model responses matter, and the 2015 election results signal that they are coming.

"From coast to coast, Americans are taking action to reduce the influence of wealthy and well-connected special interests on our politics and on our democracy," says Congressman John Sarbanes, the Maryland Democrat who has emerged as one of the most innovative thinkers in Congress when it comes to election reform issues.

"Nearly 70 percent of Americans feel that our political system is broken because it works for wealthy donors and special interests at the expense of everyday Americans," says Sarbanes, who suggests that members of Congress should "take the [cue] from state and local efforts that fight back against big money in politics and pass sensible reforms at the federal level to take power away from wealthy special interests and return it to everyday people."

Sarbanes is right about the need for congressional action.

 But the most immediate response is for grassroots activists to take the cue from Ohio, Maine and Seattle and start making the changes that are necessary and possible in hometowns and home states across this country.

[Jaron]

Unfortunately, Trump is the symptom of the problem I have been talking about for quite a while now.

On one side you have Trump, with his racist, fascist ideas. On the other side you have Obama who refuses to even use the expression "Islamist extremists" (instead insisting on calling them "violent extremists") and claims Daesh has nothing to do with Islam.

If this becomes the only viable alternative, and people see that the latter is clearly bullshit (people don't like double-speak), they go for the former.

I don't think this is true. They might be more sympathetic to those ideas, but I don't see people abandoning their political ideologies and jumping to the far right. Even after 9/11 this did not happen. At best, Americans as a whole become temporarily more supportive of war and military action but it was very short term. There are other reasons I don't see this happening:

1) A significant portion of the US population is not white / christian. They aren't going to jump on a anti-minority anything bandwagon in huge numbers.
2) Americans are perhaps the purest and most righteous people on the planet. We have a sense of mission and global purpose. What our country is and what it represents is more important to us than to Europeans or perhaps any other nation in the world. Only the extreme right would want to see it become a symbol of what we have historically fought against.
3) Instead of flocking to the ideological opposite, you'd see an evolution of the left wing of politics to embrace a shifting world view. Your entire theory is based on the assumption that these positions are immutable. They are not.

In conclusion, there will be no mass exodus to the right wing or their ideas. New ideas and ways of thinking will be proposed but the right will stay right and the left will stay as the left.

[jimmy olsen]

Trump tore Carson's beating heart out with that rant and devoured it in front of him

[DGuller]

I have to say, Trump so far seems to be a political genius.  Every time he does something that makes the talking heads again get their shovels out to dig his grave, his poll numbers actually do the opposite.  Of course, he could just be a poker player who goes all-in every hand.  It'll keep working until it doesn't.

[alfred russel]

Unfortunately, Trump is the symptom of the problem I have been talking about for quite a while now.

On one side you have Trump, with his racist, fascist ideas. On the other side you have Obama who refuses to even use the expression "Islamist extremists" (instead insisting on calling them "violent extremists") and claims Daesh has nothing to do with Islam.

If this becomes the only viable alternative, and people see that the latter is clearly bullshit (people don't like double-speak), they go for the former.

The US political system tends toward this though, with the primary system. The republican candidate represents the majority of the  population on the right, while the democratic candidate represents population on the left. A centrist candidate has a tough time getting through the primary system.

A parliamentary system where there wingnuts get siphoned off into fringe parties may be better in this regard.