A few questions to the Americans re: Presidential Elections 2016

Started by Syt, October 10, 2016, 02:25:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
User actions

dps

#30
October 10, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:53:57 AM
Okay but I thought we were discussing essentially style over substance. While I call complaining about that back then, he was/is miles ahead of Trump. Basically not even comparable really.

He certainly had far more substance than Trump. But he was a Junior Senator will little to show for his short time in the Senate, beyond one speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. His flair on the campaign trail is what made him President.

Being a junior Senator with little to show for his one term in Congress made him inexperience, not insubstantial.

Looking at the winning Presidential candidates of my lifetime, I'd classify them this way:

Johnson:  a good mix of style and substance (you might not like either his particular style or the substance of his policies, but he had 'em)

Nixon:  definitely substance over style

Carter:  Very heavily style over substance

Reagan:  Same comment as applies to Johnson

Bush the Elder:  substance over style

Clinton:  much more stylish than Bush I, but still more substance than style

Bush the Younger:  more stylish than his dad, but not as much so as Clinton;  still had more substance than style

Obama:  actually pretty close to Bush the Younger on this axis IMO

So that's 8 candidates over 14 elections, and only 1 of them had style over substance as I see them, 2 were equal parts style and substance, and 5 were substance over style.  I don't see a trend toward more theatrical candidates.

Zanza

#31
October 10, 2016, 02:31:46 PM
Is that really a dichotomy? There are boring politicians without substance and theatrical politicians with lots of substance...

Razgovory

#32
October 10, 2016, 02:59:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2016, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 10, 2016, 12:14:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
I believe he accused Hillary of representing the defendant in a case of raping a 12 year old girl.
Bill was the defender in the case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/

If Bill had been accused of raping a 12 year old I would definitely remember it.

Only Donald Trump would consider abiding by a code of ethics to be bad.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

dps

#33
October 10, 2016, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 10, 2016, 02:31:46 PM
Is that really a dichotomy? There are boring politicians without substance and theatrical politicians with lots of substance...

Well, off-hand I can't think of any recent politicians who were successful on the national level who had neither, but having both, yeah, sure, see my list above.

Valmy

#34
October 10, 2016, 03:05:24 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 10, 2016, 02:31:46 PM
Is that really a dichotomy? There are boring politicians without substance and theatrical politicians with lots of substance...

Hey I hope I am wrong. I am very concerned about the coming elections. We will see how things develop from here.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

CountDeMoney

#35
October 10, 2016, 03:37:46 PM
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
Carter:  Very heavily style over substance.

Disagree; he was all substance to the point of anesthesia, and it ran so counter to convention nobody was buying any of it.

garbon

#36
October 10, 2016, 04:12:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2016, 03:37:46 PM
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
Carter:  Very heavily style over substance.

Disagree; he was all substance to the point of anesthesia, and it ran so counter to convention nobody was buying any of it.

Substance consisting of how woefully unprepared he was to be president?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

dps

#37
October 10, 2016, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2016, 03:37:46 PM
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
Carter:  Very heavily style over substance.

Disagree; he was all substance to the point of anesthesia, and it ran so counter to convention nobody was buying any of it.

I'm not saying that he didn't have policies, ideas, and beliefs;  he did--but he didn't run on them.  He ran on being a smiling, friendly peanut farmer who was a born-again Christian and a Washington outsider who was going to D.C. and clean up the mess there.  He never gave us any specifics as to what form that clean-up would take.  Even after election day in 1976, people were still debating if he was a conservative, moderate, or liberal.

Admiral Yi

#38
October 10, 2016, 04:38:39 PM
He ran as the anti-Nixon.  He promised the American people he would never lie to us.  As far as i know, he never did.

p.s. While he was president.

Scipio

#39
October 10, 2016, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:53:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:50:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:49:12 AM
I might have disliked the man and thought (still think) he'd have been much better had he waited to build relationships in Washington, but I don't really see how that's true. Unlike Trump he actually had policies. Many might have been 'chocolate milk in drinking fountains' but they actually were thought out unlike notions that 'Obamacare is going to be repealed and we are going to create the best health system (unspecified)'.

He certainly was big and theatrical though. He was an incredibly gifted campaigner for that reason.

Okay but I thought we were discussing essentially style over substance. While I call complaining about that back then, he was/is miles ahead of Trump. Basically not even comparable really.
Biggest triumph of style over substance? Bill Clinton. Luckily, he rose to the task. It's hard to be a superstar when you're the governor of Arkansas.
What I speak out of my mouth is the truth.  It burns like fire.
-Jose Canseco

There you go, giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.
-Every cop, The Wire

"It is always good to be known for one's Krapp."
-John Hurt

Razgovory

#40
October 10, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
Biggest triumph of style over substance is easily Reagan.  He was a man with Alzheimer's who now is given credit with destroying the Soviet Union by saying mean things to them.  Apparently calling them an evil empire was enough for the Russians to pack it in, good thing the Germans didn't know that in WWII!
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

The Minsky Moment

#41
October 10, 2016, 06:21:23 PM
Reagan had a rather rich policy agenda.  It may have been better if much of it never saw the light of day, but he was pretty clear policy wise about what he was proposing and that's what his administration set out to do.

I think the problem with all of these comparisons is that the gradations between everyone else seems very insignificant when compared to the vast gulf that exists between all of them and Trump. 
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

HVC

#42
October 10, 2016, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
Biggest triumph of style over substance is easily Reagan.  He was a man with Alzheimer's who now is given credit with destroying the Soviet Union by saying mean things to them.  Apparently calling them an evil empire was enough for the Russians to pack it in, good thing the Germans didn't know that in WWII!

reagan aka way baffled me as a republican idol. He seemed relatively liberal (especially compared to the current crop of republicans).  Plus he's an actor who married a hooker. Seems like the opposite of what make a good republican.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

jimmy olsen

#43
October 10, 2016, 06:45:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 10, 2016, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
Biggest triumph of style over substance is easily Reagan.  He was a man with Alzheimer's who now is given credit with destroying the Soviet Union by saying mean things to them.  Apparently calling them an evil empire was enough for the Russians to pack it in, good thing the Germans didn't know that in WWII!

reagan aka way baffled me as a republican idol. He seemed relatively liberal (especially compared to the current crop of republicans).  Plus he's an actor who married a hooker. Seems like the opposite of what make a good republican.

His first wife was a singer. :unsure:
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Eddie Teach

#44
October 10, 2016, 06:47:12 PM
An actress. I thought he meant Nancy.  :hmm:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
User actions