2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Berkut]

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/8/10937468/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

This is just vile irresponsible populism. He is making such sweeping promises that would be almost impossible to keep even if he had full control over the entire legislation, which as I understand the exact opposite of what he would have.

Here's the counterpoint: http://theweek.com/articles/605611/president-bernie-sanders-couldnt-stop-mass-incarceration-by-himself-but-reform-good-start

I think that's largely what happens when Bernie's unrealizable aims are criticized - 'well it is a step in a right direction and even if he fails, it will set the stage for a later time'

That is a perfectly reasonable response though.

It's not like Clinton is going to somehow convince a Republican Congress to do, well, ANYTHING.

This is what I was trying to say about Sanders before. Saying he cannot possibly realize his "goals" is just an attack for the sake of attacking him - it isn't an honest evaluation of him as a candidate.

Of course he cannot immediately fix all that is wrong with the US prison system. But if he is starting from a point that at least recognizes that there are significant problems that will take serious reform to resolve, then one can presumably surmise that he might actually TRY to improve things. Which is more than can be said for anyone else. Obama has done nothing, for example. I doubt Clinton would even try as well. Just not important to them.

Same thing with Trump - people say "Hey, it's not like he can ACTUALLY build a giant, Mexican funded wall! So why worry about it?"

We should worry about it because while he cannot build a stupid wall, there are things he CAN do that someone who wants to build a gigantic fucking wall WOULD do, and *those* things are pretty bad as well (or good if you are of the "Sweet a giant wall!" mindset).

[garbon]

This is what I was trying to say about Sanders before. Saying he cannot possibly realize his "goals" is just an attack for the sake of attacking him - it isn't an honest evaluation of him as a candidate.

From your point of view. From my vantage, it shows me someone who is willing to lie about what they are going to do, leaving me wondering why they aren't spending time speaking about their actual policy objectives. Not that he'll do anything crazy, but it makes me wonder what actual plans he has in mind. His campaigning leaves me with little and instead asks me the voter to research his past.

[Berkut]

This is what I was trying to say about Sanders before. Saying he cannot possibly realize his "goals" is just an attack for the sake of attacking him - it isn't an honest evaluation of him as a candidate.

From your point of view. From my vantage, it shows me someone who is willing to lie about what they are going to do, leaving me wondering why they aren't spending time speaking about their actual policy objectives. Not that he'll do anything crazy, but it makes me wonder what actual plans he has in mind. His campaigning leaves me with little and instead asks me the voter to research his past.

As I mentioned, and you cut from my response, that is true for every single candidate out there, including Clinton.

Given a Republican controlled Congress, nothing Clinton claims to be working for can get done either (except those things that require stopping Congress from acting to some extent or another), does that mean she is lying about her goals as well - and she actually has some secret plans in mind?

And how does "my point of view" differ from yours anyway? I am not a Sanders supporter, and would not vote for him over Clinton. Or anyone other than Cruz or Trump, for that matter. Does your point of view require a fervent loyalty for Clinton to make sense?

[Malthus]

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/8/10937468/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

This is just vile irresponsible populism. He is making such sweeping promises that would be almost impossible to keep even if he had full control over the entire legislation, which as I understand the exact opposite of what he would have.

Here's the counterpoint: http://theweek.com/articles/605611/president-bernie-sanders-couldnt-stop-mass-incarceration-by-himself-but-reform-good-start

I think that's largely what happens when Bernie's unrealizable aims are criticized - 'well it is a step in a right direction and even if he fails, it will set the stage for a later time'

That is a perfectly reasonable response though.

It's not like Clinton is going to somehow convince a Republican Congress to do, well, ANYTHING.

This is what I was trying to say about Sanders before. Saying he cannot possibly realize his "goals" is just an attack for the sake of attacking him - it isn't an honest evaluation of him as a candidate.

Of course he cannot immediately fix all that is wrong with the US prison system. But if he is starting from a point that at least recognizes that there are significant problems that will take serious reform to resolve, then one can presumably surmise that he might actually TRY to improve things. Which is more than can be said for anyone else. Obama has done nothing, for example. I doubt Clinton would even try as well. Just not important to them.

Same thing with Trump - people say "Hey, it's not like he can ACTUALLY build a giant, Mexican funded wall! So why worry about it?"

We should worry about it because while he cannot build a stupid wall, there are things he CAN do that someone who wants to build a gigantic fucking wall WOULD do, and *those* things are pretty bad as well (or good if you are of the "Sweet a giant wall!" mindset).

The term I heard for this is "moving the Overton Window".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[Razgovory]

It's been a couple of years now, but I still can't get anyone on Languish to stop foaming at the mouth about Warren for long enough to be able to coherently explain to me why she's such a bad person.

She would be a terrible choice for him as a VP running mate, but I have great respect for Elizabeth Warren. She is that rare thing in politics - someone who actually stands on their principles.

I don't think by one's principles, in and of itself, is something to be lauded. There's something to be said for some flexibility in the field of politics.

Congress is full of people who actually stand on their principles, it's not exactly a rarity.  It also results in complete gridlock.

[Tamas]

Edit: And also, this is not the first US election that I have ever paid attention to - but weren't you saying the same about Obama being less viable than Hillary 8 years ago?

I don't know how we can ever test whether or not that was true.

HOPE! CHANGE! YES WE CAN!

[Berkut]

It's been a couple of years now, but I still can't get anyone on Languish to stop foaming at the mouth about Warren for long enough to be able to coherently explain to me why she's such a bad person.

She would be a terrible choice for him as a VP running mate, but I have great respect for Elizabeth Warren. She is that rare thing in politics - someone who actually stands on their principles.

I don't think by one's principles, in and of itself, is something to be lauded. There's something to be said for some flexibility in the field of politics.

I think a willingness to actually stand for something is certainly to be lauded, especially in a political world where the vast majority of politicians are nothing more than bought and purchased tools for whichever lobbying group funnels them the most cash.

Of course flexibility is completely necessary - and I've seen nothing to suggest that Warren lacks that. Having an ideology that informs your actions does not at all imply a lack of flexibility. Indeed, it is the idea that one must straightjacket themselves into some radical ideology based on who funds them that is the problem.

Is there some reason to believe that Warren lacks flexibility?

[Berkut]

It's been a couple of years now, but I still can't get anyone on Languish to stop foaming at the mouth about Warren for long enough to be able to coherently explain to me why she's such a bad person.

She would be a terrible choice for him as a VP running mate, but I have great respect for Elizabeth Warren. She is that rare thing in politics - someone who actually stands on their principles.

I don't think by one's principles, in and of itself, is something to be lauded. There's something to be said for some flexibility in the field of politics.

Congress is full of people who actually stand on their principles, it's not exactly a rarity.  It also results in complete gridlock.

No, Congress is full of people who stand on the policies demanded by those who paid for them to be elected. That isn't the same thing at all.

[Razgovory]

You really believe that don't you?

[Berkut]

You really believe that don't you?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9836.html

Can a country be a democracy if its government only responds to the preferences of the rich? In an ideal democracy, all citizens should have equal influence on government policy--but as this book demonstrates, America's policymakers respond almost exclusively to the preferences of the economically advantaged. Affluence and Influence definitively explores how political inequality in the United States has evolved over the last several decades and how this growing disparity has been shaped by interest groups, parties, and elections.


With sharp analysis and an impressive range of data, Martin Gilens looks at thousands of proposed policy changes, and the degree of support for each among poor, middle-class, and affluent Americans. His findings are staggering: when preferences of low- or middle-income Americans diverge from those of the affluent, there is virtually no relationship between policy outcomes and the desires of less advantaged groups. In contrast, affluent Americans' preferences exhibit a substantial relationship with policy outcomes whether their preferences are shared by lower-income groups or not. Gilens shows that representational inequality is spread widely across different policy domains and time periods. Yet Gilens also shows that under specific circumstances the preferences of the middle class and, to a lesser extent, the poor, do seem to matter. In particular, impending elections--especially presidential elections--and an even partisan division in Congress mitigate representational inequality and boost responsiveness to the preferences of the broader public.

At a time when economic and political inequality in the United States only continues to rise, Affluence and Influence raises important questions about whether American democracy is truly responding to the needs of all its citizens.

Yes, I actually do believe that.

[Eddie Teach]

I think most electable politicians have a pretty easy time finding like-minded people or organizations to fund them. Some positions may be harder to monetize(not advantageous to any large corps), but there will still be NGOs and private donations.

[Berkut]

I think most electable politicians have a pretty easy time finding like-minded people or organizations to fund them. Some positions may be harder to monetize(not advantageous to any large corps), but there will still be NGOs and private donations.

Well, I think the key is to realize that for most policy decisions, there isn't necessarily a difference between what people want, and what people with a lot of money want. It's not like corporations and the ultra wealthy all want to destroy America. So there is plenty of overlap.

But when it comes to spots where those interests diverge, the data is compelling. The wealthy get their way, and the politicians, for the most part, line up in their neat little rows to support them.

You see some very visible examples of this, when something catches the public's attention. Look at the internet equality issue. This is an obvious issue when it comes to public policy - one where there should not have been any real debate had the decision makers been considering what is best for the American public. Yet it took a huge outcry to get the Obama administration to shift from their plan to do exactly what big business wanted them to do.

What about all the issues that never get that public attention? All the bills, the amendments, the day to day running of the country that does not rise to that level of public attention? Those actions go, almost exclusively, in the direction that those who fund politcians want them to go, and it has little to do with parties, since the same money funds both parties.

We get this highly visible partisan battles over issues that bug business either doesn't care about, or where there is disputes between the funders, or where the issue is simply to politically big to ignore the will of the masses - but the latter is the exception, not the rule.

So the partisans feel good because they get to engage in these highly visible battles over Obamcare or abortion, or gay rights, or immigration, or foreign policy. And they feel like they are fighting the good fight.

Meanwhile, for most issues, that vast, vast majority of issues, both sets of politicians quietly and without fuss do as those who fund them want them to do - not what those who elect them want them to do - and that is mostly because you have to be funded before you can be elected, so in most cases those who are up for election have already been vetted by those who fund them, and found acceptably compliant.

And we wonder why the system has shifted so that the ultra rich get ultra richer? Why the fruits of increasing productivity become more and more concentrated in a smaller group? How could it be otherwise?

[DGuller]

I think most electable politicians have a pretty easy time finding like-minded people or organizations to fund them. Some positions may be harder to monetize(not advantageous to any large corps), but there will still be NGOs and private donations.

Whether an elected politician is bought, or whether an election is bought for a politician, doesn't seem to matter to me.  The end result is the same.

[Razgovory]

You really believe that don't you?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

Yes, I actually do believe that.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left

I'm do not.

In fact, the narrative that the politicians are bought and paid for by special interest is backward.  The special interests don't find some innocent ideologue and corrupt him, people entering politics go to special interests they already support and ask for money.  So a guy who already believes strongly in gun control goes to the NRA while a person who believes in abortion rights go to NOW.  As a politician goes up the ladder he builds a collection of special interest allies.  These allies typically fall in line with what the politician's constituents want or local industries that employ those constituents want.  So politicians who come from Texas often are pro-oil and get money from the oil industry.  If you were to prevent special interests from giving money to political campaigns you'd still get people from Texas who are pro-oil because a lot of the constituents are working for the oil industry and they don't want to lose their jobs.

If politicians really were bought and paid for by industry, you would expect less gridlock.  After all, business understands the importance of negotiation and deal making.  Instead you have people who are ideologues (even if the ideology is rubbery), who are told by constituents that they must stand on principle and never give in.  The Tea party is an excellent example of this.  Tea Party members don't obstruct Obama and the rest of government because some nebulous businessman told them to do so.  They do so because their constituents tell them not to make any deals Obama because Obama is some kind of satanic communist Muslim.  Since the politicians are drawn from their constituency they often believe the same sort of nonsense as their voters do.

[Razgovory]

I think most electable politicians have a pretty easy time finding like-minded people or organizations to fund them. Some positions may be harder to monetize(not advantageous to any large corps), but there will still be NGOs and private donations.

Whether an elected politician is bought, or whether an election is bought for a politician, doesn't seem to matter to me.  The end result is the same.

Really, I imagine there is a big difference between me bribing you or you paying for something.