2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

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.

This is where people who think like you go badly wrong.  Of the two parties that we have, there is only one party that explicitly works to remove barriers to money having more and more influence.  Citizens United wasn't a 9-0 vote.  There is also only one party that has a long track record of chipping away at the voting franchise on the margins, with things like voter ID laws or over-purging of voter rolls.  I'm not saying that Democrats don't bring their own set of problems when they get to dominate state politics, but rolling back the franchise isn't one of them.

[Berkut]

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.

This is where people who think like you go badly wrong.  Of the two parties that we have, there is only one party that explicitly works to remove barriers to money having more and more influence. 

Except that they don't. They say they do, and yet nothing happens. People like Clinton won't do it, and people like Obama say they will, but then do nothing - they don't even attempt to do anything.

In fact, Obama was all set to let someone who ran a telecom drive the decision on net neutrality - and we all know which way that would have gone absent a huge public outcry.

Bill Clinton never did a thing to roll this back, and Hillary is well known for being a front for the banking industry.

So it is the case that one party talks the talk more than the other, in some narrow sense, but neither of them walk it at all.

The fiction that there is a difference between the two is what has driven the rise of radical options like Sanders and Trump. Because people know that the reality is that the difference between Romney and Obama is actually, and practically, zero on these economic/business issues.

There is certainly a difference on all kinds of other issues, most of which the funders do not care about.

Citizens United wasn't a 9-0 vote.  There is also only one party that has a long track record of chipping away at the voting franchise on the margins, with things like voter ID laws or over-purging of voter rolls.

And that is a good reason to oppose Republicans, and it is shit like that that makes me vote Dem over and over again. But that isn't an issue that big business cares about at all, hence is a fine example of the cute little battles that happen in order to make people like you think their dogged support for Dems matters in the broader picture. I support Dems (in cases like this) because in the narrow scope that I am allowed to decide, the Dem option is marginally better. Absent a real choice, I will take the best choice given to me. The part that sucks is that the only "real" choices are guys like Trump and Sanders, who have serious problems otherwise, because the system doesn't allow for mainstream, reasonable candidates who oppose the system itself.

Whether or not the Republicans succeed in stopping some small number of blacks and Hispanics from voting Dem will have zero effect on the funders of elections. It will just shift which bought and paid for politician gets elected. It is a *perfect* example of an issue that to them matters not in the least, so have at it! It makes it look like there is Real Differences between the parties! Winners! Losers! Real political weight happening right here!

Meanwhile, either way, the people who fund both parties continue to amass wealth and influence, whether or not a few hundred thousand minorities are successfully blocked from voting or not.

I'm not saying that Democrats don't bring their own set of problems when they get to dominate state politics, but rolling back the franchise isn't one of them.

Which is one good reason to support Dems over Republicans, but has zero impact on what I am talking about.

[DGuller]

There is a difference between not fixing something and breaking it further, no?  And both voter ID laws and Citizens United are really part of the same issue:  shifting the franchise from the poor towards the rich.  Whether you prevent some people from voting, or make voting less relevant to outcomes, is really a difference of tactics, and both are employed to the extent possible.

[Berkut]

There is a difference between not fixing something and breaking it further, no?

True enough - and on that basis, I agree that the Dems are the more palatable choice. At least talking the talk is preferable to actually just coming out and saying that the rich running the government is the way the system ought to work. That goes back to my comments about Sanders and his impossible plans - at least having an impossible plan might inform you about how they will act on the not-so-impossible.

But weighing that against what history shows us actually happens when dems are in power, it is clear that while the Dems might slightly slow the decay compared to Republicans, it is also clear that neither will actually do anything real.

Again, if the only choice we have is between bought and sold politicians who say they think the buying and selling is great, and those who say it isn't great but will still do as their buyers tell them, well, I guess the latter is better. But it isn't really significant to solving the problem of bought and sold politicians. For that you need someone outside that system entirely.

And therein lies the problem, which I don't know how to solve: Apparently, the only ones outside the system are too radical in other ways to contemplate.

But then you get into that same analysis you are talking about. You say that if you have to choose among the mainstream options, pick the least onerous mainstream option (Dem/Clinton).

I think an equally compelling argument can be made that you should choose the least onerous NON-mainstream option - (Dem/Sanders) (note that I do not think it is a coincidence at all that both of the non-onerous options right now are Democrats). And I think a lot of people are doing exactly that. I don't think it will work though, but I certainly understand why it is a real force now.

And if we end up with Rubio or Clinton, it is going to be an issue again next cycle. And the one after.

What I think is the interesting question though is this:

Will the "screw the system" candidates become MORE radical, or less? I am not sure, to be honest - but I know they won't go away.

And both voter ID laws and Citizens United are really part of the same issue:  shifting the franchise from the poor towards the rich.  Whether you prevent some people from voting, or make voting less relevant to outcomes, is really a difference of tactics, and both are employed to the extent possible.

No, they are NOT the same issue at all. Thinking they are the same is incredibly dangerous, IMO.

Voter ID laws are purely tactical efforts by the Republicans to deny the vote to people who tend to vote Democratic. It is an effort to win more elections in a pretty shitty manner.

Citizens United is much, much more dangerous - it is a successful effort to make the vote not matter that much to begin with - the people who want that don't care who wins the election, because it is a means by which they can make sure that they can limit the options in that election to only those they can control.

[Valmy]

I am deeply disturbed that Berkut's way of thinking so closely mirrors my own. Have I been brainwashed by reading his posts all these years?

Though I have a major agenda piece I want to see completed in the next few years: the ratification of the TPP. Sanders and Trump and the other establishment types would wreck that. Hillary would at least ensure the Presidency is completely onboard.

Will the "screw the system" candidates become MORE radical, or less? I am not sure, to be honest - but I know they won't go away.

History suggests MORE...at least for awhile. When/if the establishment candidates win this year and we get more of the same well  2020 will be great fun.

[DGuller]

But weighing that against what history shows us actually happens when dems are in power, it is clear that while the Dems might slightly slow the decay compared to Republicans, it is also clear that neither will actually do anything real.

Again, if the only choice we have is between bought and sold politicians who say they think the buying and selling is great, and those who say it isn't great but will still do as their buyers tell them, well, I guess the latter is better. But it isn't really significant to solving the problem of bought and sold politicians. For that you need someone outside that system entirely.

And therein lies the problem, which I don't know how to solve: Apparently, the only ones outside the system are too radical in other ways to contemplate.

Sentiment changes gradually.  Make the "breaking it further" plank politically impossible, and in time maybe "not fixing it" will become the radically undemocratic stance.  It used to be that being for civil unions for gay couples was the radically progressive idea.  Now it's, well, not.  Sometimes the way to get better options in politics is to be uncompromising against the worst options.

No, they are NOT the same issue at all. Thinking they are the same is incredibly dangerous, IMO.

Voter ID laws are purely tactical efforts by the Republicans to deny the vote to people who tend to vote Democratic. It is an effort to win more elections in a pretty shitty manner.

Citizens United is much, much more dangerous - it is a successful effort to make the vote not matter that much to begin with - the people who want that don't care who wins the election, because it is a means by which they can make sure that they can limit the options in that election to only those they can control.

More Republicans winning elections -> more Citizens United types of policies.  I also disagree that voters have no say over Citizens United.  They do, they always do, ultimately.  If 75% of voters tomorrow decide to get rid of it, we will, regardless of what some rich kochs think up.  Voter suppression makes that revolt at the booth less likely.

[Berkut]

More Republicans winning elections -> more Citizens United types of policies. 

Well, we have had Dems win elections, and yet we still have those policies.

Of course, if you really want less CU type policies, then you would support Sanders since he is not just a Dem, but a Dem who has stated very clearly and much more forcefully than Clinton that CU needs to be overturned/fixed.

And yet, you do not support him - quite the opposite in fact. He is seen as a threat by the mainstream Democrats.

He is opposed not because he is too progressive, but rather, IMO, because he is not truly seen as a good party man. A vote for Sanders is tantamount to a vote that denies that the Party itself is fine - rather it is a vote that says that the Party is broken, and broken in a fundamental fashion, because it is not a question of Democrat vs. republican, but rather a question of establishment versus not establishment.

And that is what is seen as intolerable - the refutation of the very structure of partisan politics.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

My point isn't that money has no influence--it's that money doesn't only represent wealthy people, in fact a great portion of money that goes to candidates in campaigns (what 95% of people focus on) and effort that goes into lobbying already elected candidates (something that isn't focused on as much but is also important) doesn't come from sources that solely represent the rich.

There are some sources of influence that clearly advance a "wealthy people at the expense of lower and middle income people" ideology, but I don't think it's necessarily correct to say that all corporate PACs only help the rich, that all issues organizations only help the rich.

The rich haven't won so many battles as I think you'd imagine, on many issues government since 1960 has done things the rich wouldn't like and probably didn't support. The rich won one huge battle--the 1980 election, the resulting tax brackets from the Reagan vanquishing of Jimmy Carter are overwhelmingly one of the single largest reasons for wealth disparity--it's not a huge number of things they've won on perpetually, it's that singular event and the fact that once slashed tax rates politically are not easily increased. Note that Reagan's 1981 reduction in capital gains tax rates are also a huge part of this (albeit they were already down to essentially 28% before he was elected.)

But what I don't agree with at all is what I feel is Bernie's assertion (and I think Clinton was right to put this out there): namely that if you accept any campaign contributions from an entity, you cannot impartially regulate them. That is so demonstrably false as to be unnecessary to delve into very specifically. Plus, the single largest contributor to Barack Obama's campaign were the communications and tech industries and they still capped out at like 1/1000th of his total contributions. How much influence does 1/1000th really buy you? Obama has a mixed bag in response to communications and tech, net neutrality has advocates on both sides of the spectrum in those industries, and on information privacy Obama has been fairly mediocre and more law and order focused.

[Berkut]

Except that it isn't true that overall the rich haven't won so many battles. The evidence directly refutes that:

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

[DGuller]

More Republicans winning elections -> more Citizens United types of policies. 

Well, we have had Dems win elections, and yet we still have those policies.

Didn't we already cover this?  You are again excluding the middle.  There is something other than "more" or "less".  Such as "the same".

Of course, if you really want less CU type policies, then you would support Sanders since he is not just a Dem, but a Dem who has stated very clearly and much more forcefully than Clinton that CU needs to be overturned/fixed.

And yet, you do not support him - quite the opposite in fact. He is seen as a threat by the mainstream Democrats.

Where do you get "quite the opposite" from?  You have a tendency to make assumptions about how people think based on your preconceived notions about them rather than what they actually write, and I think this is one of those times.

I do not support Sanders, not yet anyway, but that's because he's far too left economically for me.  Leftist economics of his failed before in this country, and gave rise to crony capitalist over-correction that we're experiencing now.  But I'll be quite okay with him if he is the nominee, and I'll even feel less dirty voting for him than I would feel voting for Hillary.

[Admiral Yi]

I still don't know what you mean by crony capitalism.

[Valmy]

I still don't know what you mean by crony capitalism.

Public money being used to bail out your contributors, regulations designed to hurt your contributors competition, blah blah

[Admiral Yi]

Public money being used to bail out your contributors, regulations designed to hurt your contributors competition, blah blah

So things like the auto bailout, restrictions on Uber, and limitations on charter schools?

[DGuller]

I still don't know what you mean by crony capitalism.

I don't mean anything unusual by it, just the standard definition of the term.  It's a system where the capitalist's success in the market depends significantly on their political connections.

[DGuller]

Public money being used to bail out your contributors, regulations designed to hurt your contributors competition, blah blah

So things like the auto bailout, restrictions on Uber, and limitations on charter schools?

Both socialists and crony capitalists abuse the government regulations for their own competitive advantage.  Socialists abuse them to protect the working class, crony capitalists abuse them to protect the rich plutocrats.  It's preferable to not be at the either extreme.