2016 elections - because it's never too early

[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.

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

Yes, there is.  Money goes in opposite directions for one.  But what does that have to do with anything?

[Razgovory]

You seem to think the end result is the same, which is rather puzzling.

[Berkut]

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.

You should not post articles that agree with my point, and disagree with yours:

Thomas Stratmann, an economist at George Mason who studies campaign finance, agrees. "In my view, political money is unlikely to have much impact on well publicized issues, such as gun control or single-payer issues," he writes in an email. "Money is more likely to be important for issues that are not on the radar screen of TV, newspapers, and social media, perhaps something like subsidies for sugar farmers."

That is exactly the point I (and the Princeton study) is making. When issues get into the spotlight, the interests of the voters matters. But for the majority of issues that do not...the interests of the funders trumps. And that is most issues. Nobody fights over the stuff that the funders all want - it is off the table.

[Berkut]

It's funny to see supposed "lefties/progressives" line up to support the status quo if that is what it takes to back their parties chosen candidate.

A simple and concise case study in why the system works so well to keep the super rich super rich, and the middle class and poor relatively content.

Yes, do continue to fight over immigration and marginal health care. That is what really matters!

What is especially amusing (except it isn't really funny at all) is the bemusement shown by otherwise rational people at the popularity of radical candidates like Sanders, Trump, and Cruz. When the non-radicals all line up like sheep behind the money, it takes barking mad crazy people to buck the trend. So there isn't a "reasonable" alternative that is willing to challenge the status quo, and even somewhat sane politicians like Warren (who again, I don't agree with on many issues) are immediately vilified, the only space left for those willing to challenge the status quo are the barking dog crazies.

[Eddie Teach]

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?

I think that's a natural outcome of globalization. Instead of each country having two or three competing companies in each industry, you have four or five competing worldwide. This is more efficient, but it means a smaller number of people are reaping the benefits.

As for the government's role in this, some policies contribute. For instance, investment income isn't taxed as highly as salaries. I think that's largely due to Republicans. I'm sure most Democratic lawmakers have sponsored and voted for bills that helped certain industries, but can't really see how they've helped the rich accumulate a bigger share of the pie. Please connect the dots for me.

[Razgovory]

Why do I even try?  I post an article and no matter what it says, he claims it agrees with him and everyone else is a sheep.  Berkut claims that politicians don't' stand on principle, but only what their nefarious masters tell them to do.  A look at two states to were elections are publicly paid for show that absent big political contributors politicians are pretty much the same.  There are some benefits but not the radical ones you would expect if everyone was really a slave to special interests.  Clearly that is line with Berkut's stance.

The income inequality gap has been increasing across the western world for the last 3 decades and many of these places have very different electoral systems.

[Valmy]

Politicians do stand on principals. But fund raising is such a huge part of their job they will, of course, bend where they have to to get the job done. The stakes are pretty high. Hard to advance your principles if you lose.

There is nothing nefarious about it, it is just how our system is structured.

[Martinus]

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.

Dunno. Search function does not seem to go beyond 2009.

[DGuller]

You seem to think the end result is the same, which is rather puzzling.

You lost me.

[Valmy]

Dunno. Search function does not seem to go beyond 2009.

The loss of all of our brilliant insights from 2003 - 2009 was a great tragedy. No more can we link people to Incan Torpedo boat discussions

[OttoVonBismarck]

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).

Actually the CSM had an article about the grandiose claims of Sanders and Trump--their conclusion, that I concur with, is it isn't good for our democracy for voters to vote for people based on grandiose claims. It creates greater dissatisfaction when that person wins and can't really produce results. The vox populi have a distorted understanding of what the Presidency is and how it works because of these grandiose claims, and grow ever more dissatisfied with each election when reality versus expectation has a huge gap.

I think that's at least part of why the Republicans have gone apeshit stupid Tea Party--this expectations gap, and I think it's bad for the health of the republic.

If you remember the "Hope and Change" campaign of 2008, I think what I'm talking about makes sense. I don't mind the argument that getting ideas out there is a good one, but making your supporters believe the Presidency is an Emperoriship isn't a good thing, Obama did it and now Sanders is doing it. Our system doesn't allow for a President to unilaterally make systemic changes, in fact constitutionally a President has few options for making systemic changes.

[Razgovory]

Politicians do stand on principals. But fund raising is such a huge part of their job they will, of course, bend where they have to to get the job done. The stakes are pretty high. Hard to advance your principles if you lose.

There is nothing nefarious about it, it is just how our system is structured.

Fund raising is really a pain in the ass more then anything.  If a money man claims he now owns a politician he's most likely going to get laughed at.  Someone else will back the politician.  I live in a small town with lots of politicians.  I've known many, some were even family members.  I also knew quite a few lobbyists (some of them were family members too).  People have these weird ideas about politicians.  They are all crooked, they are all bought, they can't think for themselves, they not "us".  It gets very tiresome.  When I read what these sanderites write about "the establishment", "corruption" and "revolution" it strikes me as about as close to actual politics and politicians as the Matrix is to computer programming.

[garbon]

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.

Dunno. Search function does not seem to go beyond 2009.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

This is a simplistic, and frankly unproven view. A lot of lobbying groups aggregate money and resources from millions of people of ordinary income. Unless you don't think the Sierra Club, AARP, AFL-CIO, NAACP or etc have any influence on politicians. Plus, most industry PACs (not Super PACs, corporate PACs) tend to advocate for things that make those companies stronger. A company isn't just the CEO or the billionaire owner, corporations have sometimes thousands to tens of thousands of employees, all of whom if you ask them probably support policies that keep them employed. There's a reason coal miners don't tend to be environmentalists, and they aren't rich people.

[DGuller]

Actually the CSM had an article about the grandiose claims of Sanders and Trump--their conclusion, that I concur with, is it isn't good for our democracy for voters to vote for people based on grandiose claims. It creates greater dissatisfaction when that person wins and can't really produce results. The vox populi have a distorted understanding of what the Presidency is and how it works because of these grandiose claims, and grow ever more dissatisfied with each election when reality versus expectation has a huge gap.

I think that's at least part of why the Republicans have gone apeshit stupid Tea Party--this expectations gap, and I think it's bad for the health of the republic.

If you remember the "Hope and Change" campaign of 2008, I think what I'm talking about makes sense. I don't mind the argument that getting ideas out there is a good one, but making your supporters believe the Presidency is an Emperoriship isn't a good thing, Obama did it and now Sanders is doing it. Our system doesn't allow for a President to unilaterally make systemic changes, in fact constitutionally a President has few options for making systemic changes.

Maybe it's not good for this republic, where unresponsiveness is seen as a feature and not a bug.  I imagine that in republics where the winners get real mandate, voters are careful to not go for too much change because they know they may get it, and whatever change is promised is more likely to be implemented.

Of course, the other republics don't have the track record that ours has.  A lot of impressive returns multiplied by zero is still zero.  If the other republics are so flexible that they can self-destruct, that's not a good thing.