2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

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.

It is really dangerous. It also reflects why alot of people only bother to vote in Presidential elections. Over time, with these political expectations of the electorate, the Presidency may indeed be the only office that matters.

[Valmy]

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.

Well winners do have a mandate. But you have to win more than just the Presidency. The congress, governors, state legislatures, and local officials all matter.

[Razgovory]

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

You lost me.

Buying an election for a politician is like bribing someone.  A politician buying an election is like you paying for your own college.  They aren't really comparable.

[DGuller]

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.

Well winners do have a mandate. But you have to win more than just the Presidency. The congress, governors, state legislatures, and local officials all matter.

That all goes back to unresponsiveness.  If you need such a massive shift to get a mandate, then there will be a mandate less often.

[DGuller]

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

You lost me.

Buying an election for a politician is like bribing someone.  A politician buying an election is like you paying for your own college.  They aren't really comparable.

Who said anything about a politician buying an election?

[Razgovory]

Okay, I misread you.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

I mean this goes to the heart of something I've addressed in other threads for at least 3-4 years--and I'm by no means the one who invented this idea, the American system is not a great one. Most countries that have tried to emulate it have failed terribly. It worked in the United States because in the 18th century we were even then a relatively middle class (compared to Europe) country, this is because of a combination of access to the most modern farming/industrial technology and immense amounts of essentially free land. That lead to people handling a lot of stuff day to day on their own and not being super prone to being revolutionary. When most people in the 18th and early 19th century could have a nice homestead the concept of things that contribute to unstability--like mass riots/revolutions, just isn't appealing. Our system worked fine basically because even c. 18th century America was doing pretty well for itself. Countries without those advantages find the system collapses.

As for the glorified Founding Fathers, I think they created the best system possible given the need to pull together 13 cantankerous and independence minded colonies, with an eye to addressing specifically the abuses of the British system. Most of them (at least the Federalists) felt that just like they had replaced the Articles of Confederation, eventually as the country became more unified a more appropriate constitution would replace the one they had written. Unfortunately a few things happened:

1. The system they created addressed some of the immediate concerns they had with the British system as colonists, but actually replaced it with a system less capable of being reformed. The Westminster system with the still-powerful and unaccountable King in the 1780s, the rotten boroughs, undue influence/power of landed nobility sucked, but was much more easily transformed into a more democratic and better system than what we were left with.

2. While the Federalists won the debate on the Constitution, they never truly vanquished Anti-Federalist thought, it doesn't help that we had several Presidents and national political figures (Jefferson, Calhoun etc) that continued to advance essentially Anti-Federalist ideas. Even the Civil War didn't resolve it, as you still had a "vein" of Anti-Federalist thought that ran all the way through Jim Crow up to Rick Perry screaming during 2012 that Texas "could" leave the union.

I do think a too unitary government system like the United Kingdom had before devolution or France has now can lead to structural problems (like large blocs of the country trying to break away), but our system has problems too, and the still significant power of the States to impede structural changes is one for which there are few (maybe no) easy answers.

So basically I agree the structure of our government sucks, but Bernie ain't gonna change that--no one is, and in the context of our government I think the shifting of Presidential expectations into hyperdrive isn't a good thing. You can always say "all politicians do this" as berkut seems to do (and like berkut, he'll now throw a temper tantrum  because I've made a comment about what I think he's saying) but I lived through Clinton's campaigns, Dole's, Gore's, Bush I and II's--these guys weren't making the grandiose claims of an Obama or a Sanders or a Trump, simple fact.

[Berkut]

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.

I think there are too many dots to connect.

What I can show is the outcome though - and that outcome has happened regardless of who is in power. It happened while Dems had the power, and it happened while Republicans had the power. So it seems clear, at least to me, that this isn't something that happens to any significantly greater or lesser degree based on which party is calling the shots.

There are some high profile examples however, that really illustrate the trend. Like Internet equality.

[Berkut]

So basically I agree the structure of our government sucks, but Bernie ain't gonna change that--no one is, and in the context of our government I think the shifting of Presidential expectations into hyperdrive isn't a good thing. You can always say "all politicians do this" as berkut seems to do (and like berkut, he'll now throw a temper tantrum  because I've made a comment about what I think he's saying) but I lived through Clinton's campaigns, Dole's, Gore's, Bush I and II's--these guys weren't making the grandiose claims of an Obama or a Sanders or a Trump, simple fact.

But I am not arguing that they are making such claims - I am arguing that the making of those claims isn't really relevant to a rational comparison against their opponents, who are also making claims (albeit less grandiose ones) that they cannot deliver.

I actually agree with most of your post.

[Berkut]

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.

This is actually a damn good point, and a good argument against the "populism" of Sanders/Trump et al.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Isn't Bernie more likely to win general election than Hillary against virtually every single Republican candidate?

He polls the strongest in national head to heads, but I think most people don't put a lot of stock in national head to head general election polling at this stage. A lot changes when the nominees are known for sure.

Additionally, Bernie hasn't had to weather much of a negative storm. He has some positions that are probably deeply unpopular with people who are independents or moderates. For example his healthcare plan is a major tax increase on every tax bracket not just the top bracket. Now, for some people (but not all) in the lower and middle brackets the increase will be offset by healthcare premium and out of pocket costs (it's going to depend on how good your employer plan is--people with really good plans will pay more), but unfortunately most people don't dig into issues too far. When you hear "tax increase for everyone", that's a pretty bad position in terms of optics. If Bernie was the nominee Republicans would run non-stop ads on that issue, the last major candidate to outright admit to a tax increase plan for everyone was Walter Mondale--also the biggest loser in the history of the electoral college. I don't believe Bernie would lose like that, but I think his numbers with a general election voter base take a major hit from that stuff becoming more visible and mainstream.

There's also been polling that show that describing yourself as a socialist is the single most negative descriptor that a candidate in America can use, atheist coming in second--and Bernie is arguably both (and the GOP will be making that argument for sure.) Then he also has the age factor against him--75 is very old.

None of this really matters right now because he's an "insurgent" candidate. When GOP candidates aren't attacking each other they're attacking Obama and they're attacking Clinton--Sanders has largely been spared because no one has yet really bought into him as the likely nominee. If Sanders actually wins the nomination the target of Republican vitriol changes over night.

Does that mean Sanders loses to say a Cruz or a Rubio? I don't know--but the polling right now isn't that predictive.

[Berkut]

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.

Except that evidence exists that shows that this is in fact exactly what is happening. See the link I posted earlier, and the well known fact that the wealthy are getting wealthier while the middle class (and even upper middle class) stagnates.

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.

Wait, you cannot have it both ways. Of course they have influence - but if you accept that those groups with money have influence, you also have to accept that other groups with money have that same influence, and in the same measure.

So how do we check and see? We measure the results. And the results seem pretty clear - the ultra wealthy, businesses, etc., etc., get their way in almost all cases.

Which is working out very well for them, as should be expected.

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.

Indeed, which is why in many cases the will of the not rich aligns just fine with the will of the rich, and in those cases, the not rich get to "win".

[Berkut]

Isn't Bernie more likely to win general election than Hillary against virtually every single Republican candidate?

He polls the strongest in national head to heads, but I think most people don't put a lot of stock in national head to head general election polling at this stage. A lot changes when the nominees are known for sure.

Additionally, Bernie hasn't had to weather much of a negative storm. He has some positions that are probably deeply unpopular with people who are independents or moderates. For example his healthcare plan is a major tax increase on every tax bracket not just the top bracket. Now, for some people (but not all) in the lower and middle brackets the increase will be offset by healthcare premium and out of pocket costs (it's going to depend on how good your employer plan is--people with really good plans will pay more), but unfortunately most people don't dig into issues too far. When you hear "tax increase for everyone", that's a pretty bad position in terms of optics. If Bernie was the nominee Republicans would run non-stop ads on that issue, the last major candidate to outright admit to a tax increase plan for everyone was Walter Mondale--also the biggest loser in the history of the electoral college. I don't believe Bernie would lose like that, but I think his numbers with a general election voter base take a major hit from that stuff becoming more visible and mainstream.

There's also been polling that show that describing yourself as a socialist is the single most negative descriptor that a candidate in America can use, atheist coming in second--and Bernie is arguably both (and the GOP will be making that argument for sure.) Then he also has the age factor against him--75 is very old.

None of this really matters right now because he's an "insurgent" candidate. When GOP candidates aren't attacking each other they're attacking Obama and they're attacking Clinton--Sanders has largely been spared because no one has yet really bought into him as the likely nominee. If Sanders actually wins the nomination the target of Republican vitriol changes over night.

Does that mean Sanders loses to say a Cruz or a Rubio? I don't know--but the polling right now isn't that predictive.

Indeed, which is why Sanders never gets the nomination.

Clinton is a slam dunk against almost any possible Republican contender. Or nearly one, I suspect, since the Republican field is so radicalized (unless someone like Kasich manages to get the nomination).

Sanders gives the Republicans a slam dunk.

That isn't what people are thinking about right now though, but they will once this shakes out a bit more.

[Barrister]

Isn't Bernie more likely to win general election than Hillary against virtually every single Republican candidate?

He polls the strongest in national head to heads, but I think most people don't put a lot of stock in national head to head general election polling at this stage. A lot changes when the nominees are known for sure.

Additionally, Bernie hasn't had to weather much of a negative storm. He has some positions that are probably deeply unpopular with people who are independents or moderates. For example his healthcare plan is a major tax increase on every tax bracket not just the top bracket. Now, for some people (but not all) in the lower and middle brackets the increase will be offset by healthcare premium and out of pocket costs (it's going to depend on how good your employer plan is--people with really good plans will pay more), but unfortunately most people don't dig into issues too far. When you hear "tax increase for everyone", that's a pretty bad position in terms of optics. If Bernie was the nominee Republicans would run non-stop ads on that issue, the last major candidate to outright admit to a tax increase plan for everyone was Walter Mondale--also the biggest loser in the history of the electoral college. I don't believe Bernie would lose like that, but I think his numbers with a general election voter base take a major hit from that stuff becoming more visible and mainstream.

There's also been polling that show that describing yourself as a socialist is the single most negative descriptor that a candidate in America can use, atheist coming in second--and Bernie is arguably both (and the GOP will be making that argument for sure.) Then he also has the age factor against him--75 is very old.

None of this really matters right now because he's an "insurgent" candidate. When GOP candidates aren't attacking each other they're attacking Obama and they're attacking Clinton--Sanders has largely been spared because no one has yet really bought into him as the likely nominee. If Sanders actually wins the nomination the target of Republican vitriol changes over night.

Does that mean Sanders loses to say a Cruz or a Rubio? I don't know--but the polling right now isn't that predictive.

Indeed, which is why Sanders never gets the nomination.

Clinton is a slam dunk against almost any possible Republican contender. Or nearly one, I suspect, since the Republican field is so radicalized (unless someone like Kasich manages to get the nomination).

Sanders gives the Republicans a slam dunk.

That isn't what people are thinking about right now though, but they will once this shakes out a bit more.

Clinton is a weak candidate though.  Both her ties to big business / big banks, her being on the national scene for 25 years in a year when voters want change, plus she's never been a real natural at public speaking / relating to people.  That's why she lost in 2008, and that's why she's in trouble against such someone as extreme as Sanders, who ordinarily would be a fringe candidate.

I think that's part of why the GOP is so frustrated with Trump.  They see this as the year they could win and control all of the House, Senate and Whitehouse, except now Trump is standing in their way.

For what it's worth, the head-to-head polling has shown Clinton over Trump by 2.5%, but Cruz over Clinton by 1% (and Rubio over Clinton by 4.6%).

[Razgovory]

Berkut, income inequality has been a problem all across the world for the last 30 years.  Many of the places that have seen a growing gap between rich and poor are countries that have very different electoral systems then the US.  More then anything it reflects economic philosophies that took hold in the late 1970's and early 1980's that became mainstream across the world especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Simple wealth inequality is easy to fix.  You just tax the hell out of the rich like they did the 1950's.  I don't know if that would be an optimal solution, but it would do it.  There also seems to be an increasing appetite for such a move so it's not impossible.