Political observation

Jul 25 2016 Published by under General Politics

When pressed, the more mainstream supporters of Donald Trump in the Republican party insist that they believe that Trump does not really mean the full import of his wildest statements. He doesn't really plan to block all Muslims from entering the country, he doesn't really mean to deport all undocumented immigrants, he doesn't really mean to.... etc. So, as I understand their thought process, it is okay to support his candidacy and this doesn't mean that you support all that crazy stuff.

Interestingly, these self-same people have a burning hatred (or at least a profound irrevocable mistrust) of Hillary Clinton because they believe that she doesn't really mean what she says during the campaign or in her prior political activities. They are positively obsessed with conspiracy-level accusations about her alleged insincerity, dis-ingenuity and secret machinations. And completely and utterly unable to take her policy statements, and descriptions of her reasons for her prior actions, at face value. And to be clear, it is not just that they criticize her actions. They are worked up to an absolute frenzy about their beliefs about her alleged insincerity, far more than they are about the actual policies or actions.

It's fascinating. On the one hand Republicans support Trump because they believe he is a liar. On the other hand, they absolutely hate Clinton because they believe that she is a liar.

52 responses so far

  • wally says:

    Did you watch last night's John Oliver? Highly suggested, if not. There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed in which they interviewed academics who supported Drumpf, and they said exactly that - they didn't believe he would do what he said he would, therefore they supported them. To me what is possibly even scarier (in a vast field of terrifying) is this NYT report that suggests that Drumpf plans to have his VP be the President, while Drumpf "makes America great again." This should terrify moderates - Pence has a horrible track record as Governor of Indiana. He rolled back rights for women and for LGBTQ people. We all need to make sure these two do not come into power.

  • Grumble says:

    Nah, the "mainstream" Trump supporters are lying. They do believe Trump will do all those things - or, if not exactly what he says he will do (because he says a lot of conflicting things), then similar things. They support Trump because of what he says about immigrants, muslims, etc, not in spite of it. And they are lying about it because even they are embarrassed by it.

  • baltogirl says:

    Tonight I met a Trump supporter who was clearly unenthusiastic but said,
    I have to vote for whoever the Republicans nominate, because I am a Republican....

  • BethAnn McLaughlin says:

    I hear more 'unamerican' rumblings in my neck of the woods where Clinton is gogointo destabilize us by having complex political relationships w countries/people voters don't see the benefits of negotiating with ...

  • nohandle says:

    Keep in mind, there was a little bit of that on the other side for Obama as well. I heard the following sentiments from elements of the left (and may be a bit guilty of them myself):

    (1) He says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but I don't think he really believes that, so it's OK.

    (2) He professes to be a Christian, but I think he's essentially an atheist, which is what I want.

    Number (2) is particularly interesting because some of the right were doing the same, except from the position that Obama might be a secret Muslim rather than a secret atheist.

  • k elliott says:

    Republicans have been after Hillary Clinton for ever, before she got into the White House, while she was in and all the way through until today. I can't still understand why. Republicans are just a bunch of tedious, without any ideas whatsoever other than making life very difficult for the majority of citizens.

  • WH says:

    Couldn't you say the exact opposite? Hillary supporters claim Trump is a narcissistic liar (which he is), while ignoring that Hillary is... a narcissistic liar?

    I mean, she's even lied about the origins of her name.

  • Grumble says:

    All politicians stretch the truth. Only some of them are racist, misogynistic firebrands who use their lies to whip up nationalist sentiment to the point of violence, and whose very statements of goals are lies because they are impossible to accomplish (e.g., ending crime on January 20, 2017).

    So no, you can't say the exact opposite.

  • El Picador says:

    HRC is not a liar and is in fact a very truthful person. For a politician. Particularly when it comes to matters of policy and governance. Trump, otoh, lies continually and grandly with no shame whatsoever about factual matters of record. What we don't know is if he lies about his intended policy course should he be elected President.

  • WH says:

    And only one of the candidates has had the FBI director come out and say she was “extremely careless” with important matters of national security. And oh yeah, she lied about it.

    The fact that so many defend one of these two clowns is proof that most Americans will eat whatever garbage is spoon fed to them- so long as it’s their team in the kitchen.

  • neurosomething says:

    And yet, virtually no foreign policy or national security experts support Trump. Why? Because he's too volatile and short-sighted and thin-skinned to be trusted. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/gop-national-security-experts-are-readyforher.html

    The false equivalency between the faults of Trump and Clinton needs to stop. It's not a matter of degree at all. I can trust Clinton's intentions for the country as a whole whereas I can only trust Trump to be out for himself and his inner circle. I can trust Hillary of trying to learn the nuances of governing (actually, of her already knowing it as well as anyone could in this complex system), while I can trust Trump only to go by his gut feeling and to be as mercurial as a 3-year old ADHD child.

    Oh, and Hillary at least seems to care about making sense and making policy. Trump doesn't care for the truth and will say whatever he thinks or feels in the moment, and is all about them headlines.

    So, no. If you think someone who is hyper-competent and generally high-minded is an equivalent (or worse!) choice to a narcissist shallow braggart, then I question your values and sense of reality.

  • jmz4 says:

    "while ignoring that Hillary is... a narcissistic liar?"
    -Virtually everyone who has ever sought the presidency is a narcissistic liar to some extent. So we really are in the territory of differences in degree instead of differences in kind. And boy howdy, is Trump a difference in degree. Hillary, to my knowledge, has never set up an entire fake University for the purpose of defrauding people.

    Also, re the name thing, we all believe stories our parents tell us long after we should have realized they're factually inaccurate.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/19/mitch-mcconnell/did-hillary-clinton-lie-about-being-named-after-si/

    I think the standard of truthfulness we apply to Hillary, who is far from perfect, is the same one we would apply to everyone. 1) Everyone lies a little sometimes (e.g. to lubricate social situations) or distill a more forceful argument or reveal a more important truth (i.e. Platonic noble lies). 2) Bear in mind she's been in the public spotlight for 25 years. In that span of time, I think we would all find times when we were less than above board.
    Keeping all that in mind, the only thing that really distresses me is the private email server. I understand the instinct, given the witch hunts Republicans routinely whip up, but it shows poor judgement, lack of foresight, and a prioritization of secrecy that is worrisome.

  • AcademicLurker says:

    I have to vote for whoever the Republicans nominate, because I am a Republican....

    The tribalism in US politics is so strong that I'm pretty sure that Charles Manson would get at least 40% of the popular vote if he were nominated.

    "Sure, he's a deranged murderer...but darn it, he our deranged murderer!"

  • Grumble says:

    @WH: "The fact that so many defend one of these two clowns ..."

    I didn't support Hillary initially. I supported Bernie. But that wasn't because I thought Hillary was a liar. It was because Bernie's policy positions are more in line with what I think is right.

    But now it's Clinton vs Trump, and there is simply no comparison. It's not just that Trump lies far more, and more noxiously, than Clinton. It's that, just I preferred Bernie's policies over Hillary's, I (vastly) prefer Clinton's over Trump's. To call her a clown, when her opponent is the most Bozo of all the presidential candidates the US has seen in 240 years, is absurd to the point of insanity.

  • Grumble says:

    @jmz4: "1) Everyone lies a little sometimes (e.g. to lubricate social situations) or distill a more forceful argument or reveal a more important truth (i.e. Platonic noble lies). 2) Bear in mind she's been in the public spotlight for 25 years."

    Take a look at the terrible, terrible lies Hillary Clinton is guilty of:
    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/t-day-evergreen-7-wildest-lies-hillary-clinton/

    That's it. That's the worst the rabid right-wing press can come up with. I would not be the least surprised to find that John F Kennedy, FDR, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington (yes, he of the cherry tree), and Ronald Reagan each told more and probably worse lies.

    Trump and his supporters vilify Hillary for her "lies" because she's Hillary, not because she has any extraordinary propensity to lie.

  • becca says:

    @AcademicLurker
    Now that you mention it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ECs2-Cv7Fo

  • WH says:

    The tribalism in US politics is so strong that I'm pretty sure that Charles Manson would get at least 40% of the popular vote if he were nominated.

    This. We wonder our country is so polarized. This election is Exhibit A.

  • EPJ says:

    I'll go to vote in November, but find the current political events very upsetting, kind of distracting from important issues affecting the general population. And damaging to the politician themselves, and their own families and friends. But again, maybe the whole thing is really is showing that is time to evaluate the build up over time in fancy strategies and just focus in the existent problems and how to go about that.

    Well, is there any "neuro explanation" for the differences in political behavior, and it's a very honest question by my part. Is it some kind of human tribal behavior, brain pattern influencing behavior, or just away to keep things eventually the same.

    Some times you find comments in relation to energy level, but not sure if it is an over coded slang.

    That type of grant should be applied immediately, no?

  • EPJ says:

    'should be approved immediately', a matter of natl political security.

  • drugmonkey says:

    I didn't support Hillary initially. I supported Bernie. But that wasn't because I thought Hillary was a liar. It was because Bernie's policy positions are more in line with what I think is right.

    But now it's Clinton vs Trump, and there is simply no comparison. It's not just that Trump lies far more, and more noxiously, than Clinton. It's that, just I preferred Bernie's policies over Hillary's, I (vastly) prefer Clinton's over Trump's.

    Endorse. But even more so, I supported Hillary AND Bernie. I thought then, and I do now, that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most qualified person* that we have to be President but that her policy tendencies of triangulation push her far more to the right than I like. Bernie's policies are way more in line with my preferences so I supported him as the guy pulling the Overton Window back in the right direction. This, by its whopping success, managed to re-align the Clintonian triangulation strategy back leftward. Her Veep pick, Senator Cheery Muppet-Elf rattled off three policies that were pure Bernie in his speech accepting her selection. Bernie's campaign did that.

    Every thing is coming up roses as far as I am concerned with respect to the Democratic nominee for POTUS.

    *Hands down, no contest and if you can't see this there is something seriously wrong with your brain.

  • drugmonkey says:

    EPJ- there have been some studies purporting to find personality traits that divide Republicans from Democrats in our US electorate. As you might expect the Repubs are authoritarian types.... looking to line up behind strong leadership and conform with a majority group. that sort of thing.

    As far as the quality of such things goes...... I really couldn't say.

  • EPJ says:

    @El Picador @Grumble @jmz4

    I think politics got too fancy to the point that is hard to tell if the so called lies are just that or 'overambitious' proposals made for the sake of political power goals, or just ought of pity for the population that just won't recognize the need to change for real some the same aims and issues because of the times we live in. It is just awful to see society happily cruising into a worst situation than just before the turn of the century.

    I can believe what I have found in the internet about events going back >70 ya, and if that is really the foundation of a society structure the newer generations will build upon that. So that everything is under questioning, even the person hood of a human being and of free and independent nations. Is it rue that freedom legally does not exist, or that no independence took place? or that that status has implications for human rights? I can believe that either, but it becomes important for everything.

    If any of that is true, it would a good place to start the reorganization.

  • Bagger Vance says:

    ctrl-f "Confirmation bias" results = zero : really?

    I think people take Clinton's record into account and assume her to be the closest thing they can get to a third Obama term. Did people literally believe every word out of Obama? Are they more cynical now? Why would that be? They may or may not take Trump's talk seriously but the tone and specifics illustrate some desirable priorities. I didn't think illegal immigration as a top priority myself but people have been asking for it for decades and seem pretty unlikely to take "no" for an answer indefinitely, especially after long-term effects on unions, minimum wage and blue-collar employment can be seen.

    ps "qualifications" (I thought we called that CV-padding or GlamJournal-chasing?) can be negative as well as positive--note that there was no grassroots effort to get another Bush back into the game. The American presidency is about connecting with people and giving them something they can focus on, not reciting policy wonk-ese.

  • EPJ says:

    @DM

    Thanks for your reply, and it does seem like that would be the fitting pattern. But, have you noticed the strategies in use among the public activists in internet? It almost looks like people are going around using a Venetian mask just to express a political view and it is now a wide spread meme..

    [like a snap picture of chromosome replication and crossing over, so that some of the features of the sister chromatids are now present in the progeny in different combinations due to recombination]

    I have realized that some things do need change, and that includes an official 3d party and the fact not much money should be needed to run with the availability of internet. But frankly it could be taken as walking into the lab next door and boss around. A 3d party may be the best situation over that of dividing the country and segregating groups by political credo.

    For example, I never thought of there being real vs fake americans, so that the complaints are very heart felt, as if true splits have occurred.

  • WH says:

    Well, there is a ticket running for president with two former two-term Republican governors of Democratic states. To me, Johnson/Weld are the most qualified candidates out there. They have more elected executive experience than the other two tickets combined.

    As an added bonus, as far as I know, they haven't voted to start any wars.

  • jmz4 says:

    "This. We wonder our country is so polarized. This election is Exhibit A."
    -The problem is there is a zero sum situation here vis a vis forming a major third party from the left or the right. The first side to blink is going to guarantee the other, intact party remains in power for a very long time. It's why disaffected Republicans will keep trying to take back control of the Republican party instead of forming a fiscal conservative socially liberal party, or why the constitutionalist Tea Party still stayed under the umbrella of the Republican party.

    It would be nice if we could come up with some way to dismantle the structural and electoral advantages of party unity besides forming more parties. For a while it seemed like a divided government could accomplish that, but since both parties (though mainly Republicans) have found it substantially easier to simply not govern, that strategy is moot.
    We need something that rewards compromise and ingenuity to a degree commensurate with electoral victory and disciplined messaging. Personally I'm hoping for the eventual genesis of a dominant, moderate third party comprised of the current establishment Dems and Republicans, and that can reliably get about 40% of the vote. That leaves space for opposition parties on the left and right,

    But until such time as that happens, people with more or less unwavering allegiance to their party are really just being practical, since there are no other viable alternatives.

  • jmz4 says:

    " To me, Johnson/Weld are the most qualified candidates out there. "
    -Yes, but their policies are sufficiently radical that most Americans are legitimately not if favor of them.

  • Anon says:

    @jmz4

    "We need something that rewards compromise and ingenuity to a degree commensurate with electoral victory and disciplined messaging."

    So a multi-party system where a coalition of parties must be formed in order to the govern, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-party_system

  • WH says:

    Yes, but their policies are sufficiently radical that most Americans are legitimately not if[sic] favor of them.

    Maybe you're not paying attention, but this is their platform, directly from their website*:

    -Cut both military and entitlement spending to reduce the deficit
    -Simplify the tax code
    -Impose term limits on Congress
    -Increase employment by lowering regulation
    -Civil liberties- require warrants for call/data searches, pro gay marriage
    -Non-interventionism- no more wars in the Middle East
    -Immigration - allow employers to bring in employable immigrants, no wall-building
    -Criminal justice reform to lower incarceration rates
    -Reduced government regulation of the internetz
    -Economically-sensible environmental reforms, including acknowledging climate change is a man-made problem
    -Education- school choice
    -Abortion- belief in a woman’s right to choose
    -Ending the war on Drugs

    Hardly radical stuff. Additionally, neither has made racist remarks, taken millions from foreign governments (including while serving as Secretary of State), called for the deportation of 10 million immigrants, or been reckless with top secret material (and lied about it).

    *https://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

  • Bagger Vance says:

    By all means please explain how a viable third party in the American political system (representation in multiple governorships, multiple congressional representatives) would be developed and implemented. And how that would function in congress to pass bills, etc.

    I think the current election is more of a realignment of political goals/coalitions within the current parties. And that's about as close as you're going to get to a third party.

    (ps 10 million illegal immigrants. how strange that that gets overlooked.)

  • jmz4 says:

    -"Simplify the tax code"
    They want to replace income tax with a consumption tax and shrink the government by 43%. That is a radical departure from COP by anyone's standards.

  • EPJ says:

    When it comes to immigration the best thing is to address it honestly, apolitical and including the human part component in terms of providing what is needed for adaptation and basic functioning in the new environment. That would yield the best outcome for every one, and it would reflect what is truly need it to add/change for improvements.

    But immigration is just a one way look at migration, that means is dependent on the events of the rest of the world. It really is pretty unpleasant to have people exercising authority ogn the wrong people and wrong situation, because eventually it becomes clear that it is just for different reasons, like law and justice applications or making use of the professionals. It gets to be beyond amusing to have to deal with that and other oddities that you would expect within less organized/developed countries. As if the whole purpose of accepting migrants is is to fine tune the laws for that every 100 years.

    But, it doesn't happen to every migrant, and that then becomes selective discrimination, a subset of the theme.

  • drugmonkey says:

    WH- it's not up to your "opinion". It's simple fact that HRC is most qualified. You can say you don't like her politics, fine. But nobody is as qualified. No, Podunk state gov "executive experience" doesn't compare to her national and international policy chops.

  • drugmonkey says:

    New Mexico's budget is $18B, state Dept is $50B. This is 2016 numbers but I'm sure the relative size is a good approx for recent past. So she ran an enterprise 2+ times the size of the one Johnson ran. A lot more complex too, I wager.

  • drugmonkey says:

    MA is $35.5B, Virginia $51.8B if you want to compare the VPs

  • Geo says:

    Republicans and Democrats ran this country into the Ground long ago. Ask anyone currently without a job after having started out with a promising future 20 or 30 years ago.

  • WH says:

    I will say, DM, that your ‘podunk’ comment honestly surprises me. Do you now believe that one’s science is less valuable if s/he is a riff-raff single R01 small-town grocer in flyover country? And that you need to be a vertically-ascending eleventy pioneer at an ILAF in the Northeast for your scientific experience to count? If not, why do you so readily discount small-state political experience? That’s pretty rich.

    To the point, Hillary is credentialed- no doubt. She’s held high-ranking positions as FLOTUS, Senator, and SoS- more than any other candidate in my lifetime. To me, that isn’t the same as being qualified; qualification requires a record of success. When I look at her record, here’s what I see:

    1. As a Senator, she sponsored three bills that became law, and they dealt with renaming post offices and the like.

    2. She voted for the Iraq war.

    3. As SoS, she negotiated TPP, which I assume will be passed in a lame-duck session of Congress later this year. I don’t believe she supports it anymore, but I could be wrong.

    4. As SoS, her foundation took millions of dollars from foreign governments, some of which were in violation of her ethics agreement with the Obama administration (1).

    5. As part of #4, the Clintons and their foundation took hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars from Russians attempting to buy US uranium reserves, in a deal that required Department of State approval (and got it) (2).

    6. She set up an email server that put her convenience over national security, resulting in careless treatment of top secret information. She subsequently lied about it. Lots (3).

    7. She pushed for intervention in Libya, which has left a failed state and an ISIS breeding ground in its wake (4). And we still have troops there.

    8. She pushed for arming Syrian rebels (5). When we tried that later, ISIS ended up with all the weapons (6).

    #2,7, and 8 make her far too hawkish for my taste, and #4-6 are uniquely disqualifying. If you want to vote for her and claim she’s qualified because of the capital letter beside her name, that’s your prerogative. But let’s not act like she’s God’s gift to America in the national and international policy arena.

    --

    (1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
    (2) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
    (3) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/24/fact-check-hillary-clinton-false-and-misleading-claims/87499416/
    (4) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html
    (5) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-clinton-idUSBRE91201220130203
    (6) http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapons-u-s-/

  • drugmonkey says:

    Is that small town grocer as qualified to be NIH director? Hell no. Is this a knock on their science as a scientific contribution.... No.

  • drugmonkey says:

    And your numbered items are just fighting over policy. And fantasizing over could-have-beens.

  • WH says:

    Pointing out facts, such as the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war, is 'fantasizing'? You inhabit an interesting reality.

    And maybe you're right about the size aspect. After all, George W. Bush – governor of Texas – was a much better president than the governor of Arkansas who preceded him, right?

  • And maybe you're right about the size aspect. After all, George W. Bush – governor of Texas – was a much better president than the governor of Arkansas who preceded him, right?

    Governor of Texas is largely ceremonial weak position; Lt. Gov. & legislature pretty much run everything. This is why intellectual defectives like GWB and Perry can feign competence while doing it.

  • patrick says:

    Lot of rationalization taking place here...

  • Busy says:

    "I mean, she's even lied about the origins of her name."

    No she didn't. She repeated a story her mother had told her and she had no reason to disbelieve. Upon inspection, it turned out it was false, so the blame is on the mother, not on Hillary. If that is your best claim to her "dishonesty" I'd take that as a compliment to her character.

  • jmz4 says:

    "I think the current election is more of a realignment of political goals/coalitions within the current parties. And that's about as close as you're going to get to a third party."
    -That might possibly be enough, if they can remain stable and not tear the parties apart (which is threatened every election cycle but hasn't happened since the birth of the Republican party).

    "By all means please explain how a viable third party in the American political system (representation in multiple governorships, multiple congressional representatives) would be developed and implemented. And how that would function in congress to pass bills, etc."
    - I actually think this would have happened if Sander's had won the nomination in addition to Trump. You would have had the wonks, insiders and moderates from both parties on the outs, and so their blinkered partisanship might have dissipated enough for some of them to actually form a moderate party. They'd have had the organizational skills and fundraising chops to create a relatively serious party from scratch. And since there's nothing stopping elected officials from swapping parties, they probably could have grabbed a decent number of the sitting members of Congress who are sick of the bickering and infighting.

    That's the only way I see one forming in our current political landscape. The extremists are happy throwing bombs and staying nominally affiliated with the parties, so it really will have to be a coming together of the center left and center right against the wingnuts.

  • Bagger Vance says:

    @jmz4--good observations. All I can say is that this year feels like a push for big changes, more 2008 than 2012, and after the last few election cycles with all the "once in a century"-type occurrences maybe a bigger generational shift is going to be more apparent this time out. Sanders supporters really wanted bigger changes than are on display this week. On the right the ideological-purity pundit class looks like it's going away, and they can take the Neocons with them. Today's R and D aren't the same ones there were in the 1960s, or 1920s, or whenever. Different times, different issues, different positions.

    The themes I keep hearing are "globalism vs nationalism" or maybe "libertarianism vs authoritarianism." I appreciate the vision but I am afraid the wingnuts will always be with us.

  • DJMH says:

    I actually think this would have happened if Sander's had won the nomination in addition to Trump. You would have had the wonks, insiders and moderates from both parties on the outs, and so their blinkered partisanship might have dissipated enough for some of them to actually form a moderate party.

    You are confusing forming a party with winning a presidential election. By the time Sanders would have won the nom, it would be too late for an upstart Centrists-R-Us party to get on the ballot in 50 states. And no one is willing to lose nobly just so that in 4 years' time they can run again. So the DNC would have hunkered down and support Bernie, exactly as the RNC is doing for Trump. All the centrists would be pissed, but that wouldn't cause them to form a party since that wouldn't help until 4 years from now.

    The issue of who gets on the ballot really keeps late-forming centrist (or outsider) bids from gaining traction.

  • Jmz4 says:

    @DJMH
    Depends on when he would have won it. There was still time as of late March, when speculation around Bloomberg was swirling, I think. But also, they could have courted a moderate from the Republican side, or O'Malley, since he was technically on the ballot. But yeah, it might have taken someone more radical than Bernie to force the fissure. A true leftist equivalent to Trump.

  • Bagger Vance says:

    Theoretically a popular president could announce a new party on the heels of an election, and built support before the next election. But between the lack of ground support (party infrastructure), multiple layers of penetration at states and federal levels, and the election deadlines there isn't much to be said at this stage of the game; even a winning candidate would have no congressional mandate to enact change. (Although some have said that a candidate that both parties hated might unify them in the way that a candidate both parties love would.) Both parties have continued to not reform their electoral processes and even to accentuate the problems--making early winners, the NH/IA primaries, and superdelegates more important than ever but still open to be gamed.

    Public satisfaction with the current bi-factional ruling party may be inferred from the fact that both parties had wins or near-wins by candidates who aren't even longtime party members.

  • k elliott says:

    Unsure if the "Dem anxiety" over Trump's chances to win is real. I still have faith in the American's common sense.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/289737-dem-anxiety-hangs-over-clinton

  • jmz4 says:

    "Both parties have continued to not reform their electoral processes and even to accentuate the problems--making early winners, the NH/IA primaries, and superdelegates more important than ever but still open to be gamed."
    -The Dems are supposedly going to be reforming their nomination process to address Sanders supporters' complaints.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/23/democrats-vote-to-bind-most-superdelegates-to-state-primary-results/

    We'll see if this actually happens once the spotlight is off the DNC, but it seems like a sensible change.
    I think there are good reasons for having an extended primary campaign (though not as long as we have now: 2 months would be sufficient), but I agree the anachronistic way the order is determined is not productive.
    I'd argue that the order should be based on the last primary's voter turnout and margins. But I'm not sure what way of ordering the primaries temporally would be most effective. A top-bottom approach, where the most solidly Democratic and largest 3 states vote on the same day as the 3 least Democratic and smallest states might be the most fair. It would also be fairly consistent, while allowing some states to move up the primary schedule by improving their game (which nets them real advantages, so it is good incentive).

    "Public satisfaction with the current bi-factional ruling party may be inferred from the fact that both parties had wins or near-wins by candidates who aren't even longtime party members."
    -A disturbing number of people don't realize that the Republican and Democratic parties are private political entities, not government agencies.

  • EPJ says:

    @B Vance

    I also keep hearing about authoritarianism vs libertarianism and globalization vs nationalism, and at first I thought that globalization meant more interaction among different countries in the world we now have, but what the heated discussions have shown is that authoritarianism has crawled in and is actually spreading without much notice by the general population. And I have frankly noticed that in several scenarios, including academic science that anyway tends to be presented as 'stiff authoritarianism' or as entitlement/nobility but that in reality is not like that for the great majority in recent times.

    And if any thing is very sensitive is the issue of nationality, because it addresses identity and the authoritarianism has permeated in several ways, I think due to the way society has been shaped.

    So the world leadership actually reflect all of that mix trying to fix the problems with what it looks like the wrong tools.

  • EPJ says:

    @jmz4

    Agree, though I understand now that the 2 party system works like a palindrome, or different versions for different situations it actually is the same structure with the same goal yielding to stability via an overarching control, it looks like the variation and growth of both parties are signaling the need for a 3d party to counter the confusion and maybe improve efficiency without excess of authority, which we find everywhere.

    Too many laws written out of desperation and undue enforcement that quickly turns self defeating yielding more problems and the wrong solutions, that coupled to an excess of the fuel for the economy going into a few things and trunks to be aliquoted for selected subjects within a growing population. That yields chaos and waste, a major problem that is said to be by design, though that would be a waste in the wrong direction.

    Th economic system looks like needs improvement, so that's why Bernie is so popular, plus he is an icon for the youth logically and by empathy.

Leave a Reply