2016 elections - because it's never too early

[CountDeMoney]

It's been a truly horrible campaign season, but it really didn't hit home until I saw an analyst this morning refer to it as "The Duck Dynasty versus Lena Dunham" election.  Now that is despair.

[Berkut]

Yeah. I find people who think that if Hillary wins, things will just go back to normal, extremely naive. The phenomenon that propelled Trump to win the GOP nomination will get stronger and stronger each election cycle, and the person it will bring up will be nastier and nastier.

I think this is half true.

Trump and Sanders are both symptoms of the same "problem". They are not the problem.

This is something the Dems need to realize as well - sadly, their Trump was not batshit fucking insane, so it won't be so obvious to the DNC that they have a serious problem.

And the party faithful who don't care about more than getting their side elected will resist any change.

Bizarrely enough, the fucked-uppedness of Trump might actually prove to help the Republicans more than the Dems in the long run, if it forces them to change to actually address the fact that the current system does not provide representation to the voters, while the Dems blissfully trundles forward on the strength of crushing Trump.

Clinton sure as hell is not going to change anything.

[garbon]

Since voters tend be such shitshows, I think I'm rather glad their representatives don't simply fight for the wishes of the people.

[Berkut]

Since voters tend be such shitshows, I think I'm rather glad their representatives don't simply fight for the wishes of the people.

Yes, thank god we have a system where the representatives don't care about the wishes of those who elected them, but rather those who fund them. What could go wrong?

It's ironic that you don't even see that the "shit-show" is a *direct* result of the warping of the system in question. Go Hillary!

[LaCroix]

I think only very few politicians truly don't care about the wishes of the people. there are many different wishes, and politicians can't/shouldn't fight for every wish. some wishes are just unrealistic or bad, etc.

[alfred russel]

Yeah. I find people who think that if Hillary wins, things will just go back to normal, extremely naive. The phenomenon that propelled Trump to win the GOP nomination will get stronger and stronger each election cycle, and the person it will bring up will be nastier and nastier.

Normal is always changing, but I'm skeptical that we are going to be getting nastier and nastier versions of Trump. There are a finite number of billionaires, and not many of them have the right combination of personality, media savvy, and willingness to do what Trump is doing. I think it more likely that trump is a perfect storm candidate: very well established in the public eye, with his own TV show for a decade that propped him up as the uber businessman, and ability to self finance.

There may be more outsiders, I'm sure people are taking notice. But I doubt the next republican nominee will kick things off with a statement accusing mexicans of being rapists.

[Valmy]

Bizarrely enough, the fucked-uppedness of Trump might actually prove to help the Republicans more than the Dems in the long run, if it forces them to change to actually address the fact that the current system does not provide representation to the voters, while the Dems blissfully trundles forward on the strength of crushing Trump.

Clinton sure as hell is not going to change anything.

The Voters seem quite well represented. They elect fanatics to carry out ideologically pure crusades against the people they have been led to believe are evil. And those fanatics wreck shit up. Isn't that what they want?

And unfortunately I think you are wrong about nothing changing. Clinton looks like she is going to be reactionary in responding to the insanity of the voters. Statements she has made constantly concern me about the policies I support versus the ones Red Bernie called for. And I strongly disagree Bernie was not a nutcase. His policies, if implemented, would be disastrous. He is and remains a very dangerous man. Also I strongly disagree that Trump and Cruz and company are somehow "good" for the Republicans and will somehow reform them into a force of pure goodness. Nothing in the last few decades suggests that. Rather it will mean the advancement of catastrophic populist policies.

In any case last I checked Clinton voted for McCain-Feingold so why she is responsible for the 'money is speech' thing I have no idea. Want to explain that one to me?

Besides last I checked the President lacked the ability to enact electoral reforms by fiat. The Congress would have to do it and I don't see much evidence she would veto that kind of legislation. I don't really see the basis for your last statement.

[Valmy]

It's ironic that you don't even see that the "shit-show" is a *direct* result of the warping of the system in question. Go Hillary!

If the shit-show was a direct result of Hillary I don't think it would be an international phenomenon stretching around the world. This is a populist revolt against globalization and modern technology and the values (and social problems) that go with them in modern society.

[Legbiter]

It's been a truly horrible campaign season, but it really didn't hit home until I saw an analyst this morning refer to it as "The Duck Dynasty versus Lena Dunham" election.  Now that is despair.

***IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS***









****Do not do that again.  You have been warned.
--CdM

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, one party has become decidedly establishment, but is still interested in governing and getting it agenda accomplished.  The other has simply driven itself off a cliff, but has been heading that way and accelerating for 8 years.

There are plenty of years when one can make the equivalency that both parties are at fault for the broken "system", but not this year.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. I find people who think that if Hillary wins, things will just go back to normal, extremely naive. The phenomenon that propelled Trump to win the GOP nomination will get stronger and stronger each election cycle, and the person it will bring up will be nastier and nastier.

Depends on your interpretation of Trump I think. If you're a demographics is destiny kind of a guy (and I'm not) then I think you could see this as sort of the death-rattle of the male, white working class vote. All the optimistic nationalism of the Reagan Democrats curdled into fake-tanned impotent anger. (If that's true the Ivanka joke might actually be a prediction )

Nativism, isolationism and protectionism have always been very powerful forces in American politics that occasionally surface.

I think the immediate reaction of the GOP will be to impose greater control on their nominating process so it never happens again that the party doesn't decide. As I said somewhere the interesting thing for me is that these Trump voters show the gulf between the GOP establishment since Reagan and their base. They pick Trump over heroic fiscal conservatives like Ryan, strong national defence conservatives like McCain and Christian social conservatives like Cruz. It's very predictable and been something I've said for years that the GOP needs to offer a policy agenda that matches their base and not their donors.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the GOP nominate an absolute anti-Trump next time round and won in 2020 - it's equally likely they retreat to donor service and convince themselves they're doing well off the back of predictably good mid-terms before crashing by nominating a multi-millionaire who mainly cares about tax cuts.

But I think it's very difficult to predict and I'm not sure that it'll be as linear as you suggest. I also think a lot of what happens in the GOP will depend on whether the Democrats can keep their coalition together. The contempt of Bernie Bros for Democratic primary voters in 'conservative' Southern states (for conservative, read black) was really striking and unpleasant.

[Valmy]

It's very predictable and been something I've said for years that the GOP needs to offer a policy agenda that matches their base and not their donors.

Well they already have done so if you read the 2016 Texas GOP platform. Why they need to offer an agenda that is going to have such narrow support and will alienate so many voters I have no idea but hey it is your big idea.

[Sheilbh]

It's very predictable and been something I've said for years that the GOP needs to offer a policy agenda that matches their base and not their donors.

Well they already have done so if you read the 2016 Texas GOP platform. Why they need to offer an agenda that is going to have such narrow support and will alienate so many voters I have no idea but hey it is your big idea.

What?

[Admiral Yi]

Shelf, you seem to be using party base as a synonymous with people who voted in this year's primaries, which I don't think is accurate.

[Valmy]

What?

Read it if you want

https://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PERM-PLATFORM.pdf