US Election 2016: the fall of the American republic

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Yeah, it seems like the parties actually abdicated their gatekeeping function to the big donors, and big money alone doesn't actually have the power to carry out that role.

And you'd think that'd be a good thing, but here we are.

Republicans maybe, but I don't think Democrats have. Example, Alan Grayson is just about as close to the 'Democratic Trump' as there is; the party turned on him and he lost his senate primary and his wife (who is similar to him politically) lost the primary for his congressional seat.

This despite the fact that most liberal activists were pushing Grayson's campaign forward (at least they were, most of them dropped off after the domestic violence stuff came out).

[Martell Spy]

Florida Democrats widen early vote lead thanks to South Florida Sunday blowout

http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/11/florida-democrats-widen-early-vote-lead-thanks-to-south-florida-sunday-blowout-107167?lo=ap_b2

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Yeah, it seems like the parties actually abdicated their gatekeeping function to the big donors, and big money alone doesn't actually have the power to carry out that role.

And you'd think that'd be a good thing, but here we are.

Well, kinda. Obama won the DNC party over in 2008, notably with Ted Kennedy endorsing him. That started something of a flood of people and superdelegates (which is another way that the Democrats have baked in the idea of the party endorsing matters). Clinton had an overwhelming systemic lead because of superdelegates as well has having just a ton of supports across the entire Democratic coalition. Both of those things were way too hard for Sanders to beat, even after being able to fund things.

But my suspicion is that a lot of that is going away or is wanting to go away. The amount of shit the superdelegates got, for instance, is a good example - despite them being super important for minorities, there's a lot of pressure to kill them or make them weaker. The DNC was stated as 'rigging' the election for Clinton, which isn't remotely true - but it means their power is likely to be diminished in the future. I don't know what kind of gatekeeping the Democrats are going to have in the future with those things going away. Big donors might be part of it, but my suspicion is that it's going to be just muted, period. 

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Republicans maybe, but I don't think Democrats have. Example, Alan Grayson is just about as close to the 'Democratic Trump' as there is; the party turned on him and he lost his senate primary and his wife (who is similar to him politically) lost the primary for his congressional seat.

This despite the fact that most liberal activists were pushing Grayson's campaign forward (at least they were, most of them dropped off after the domestic violence stuff came out).

 

 

 

The Republican party and the Chamber of Commerce have had great success in recent times crushing tea party/freedom caucus candidates recently. Money is still a powerful weapon in Congressional races and primaries. It simply required the Chamber of Commerce and their ilk actually being able to realize these people were a danger to their goals and turn on them.

Paul Ryan totally crushed the Trump clone that went after him.

There's been a lot more very progressive Democrats losing this year than you'd expect as well. 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Ariadne23 said:

Absolutely. But short of the creation of an international institution that creates and enforces a rule of law, and would thereby maybe allow us to strip the power of our executive back to pre-WW II or maybe even pre-Civil War levels, what else can you do? Who or what else will prevent the demagogue besides the parties?

Granted, I'd feel better if there were three.

The parties cannot prevent a demagogue either -- a sufficiently clever one can use a party to his or her advantage (even Trump managed to make the Republican party serve his ends to some extent). The way to prevent one is to remove the underlying conditions which make the rise of a demagogue possible. Imagine if 90% (or even 60%) of the electorate believed that all was well (the country is on the right track, the government and media are trustworthy, etc.). Somebody seeking a leadership position in this situation proclaiming "Let's make America great again!" would be laughed at as the power-grubbing opportunist that he or she would almost certainly be.

The demagogues are merely a symptom and they're not even necessarily the worst one. The real problem is that few people believe that we're all headed for a better future and this engenders rage, distrust and various forms of tribalism.

[Mexal]

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

I won't get into Clinton because I was three at the time, but as someone who casted my first-ever vote for Obama partially on the basis that he was an breath of fish air outsider, I don't think this is true. (In retrospect I think I was a relatively low-information voter in 2008 and pretty much my key metric was simply that he was one of the few senators to vote against the Iraq war.) He wasn't the presumptive favorite and initially the DNC establishment did indeed favor Clinton but he was clearly being groomed for a potential run down the line after Clinton. (He got a prime speaking slot at the 2004 DNC, was funded by a lot Democratic establishment PACs, employed standard Democratic establishment operatives to run his campaign, took a shitload of money from Wall Street while his opponent relied on a publicly funded campaign, etc.) The only way the Obama anti-establishment holds up is if you use endorsements as the sole metric of determining whether or not a candidate is establishment -- which is a silly metric.  I think a comparable analogy would be the 2016 GOP -- Jeb! was clearly the establishment favorite but Rubio or even Kasich would have been acceptable alternatives -- just preferably later down the line. 

And Trump was acceptable once he showed that people would vote for him and he could, maybe, beat Clinton. The only reason he was considered unacceptable was because people thought he would never ever win. 

But this really conflates two different ideas - an 'outsider' vs an 'anti-establishment' candidate. And really, in both cases Trump and Obama are more outsider than anti-establishment. Trump has been doing the birther movement thing for many years now and has been steadily growing his base, and was a big deal in 2012's election with Romney. He's been a staple on Fox and Breitbart and the like for years. His brand has been about strong Republican and alt-right ideals. And Trump isn't remotely anti-establishment any more, as witnessed by his policy, which aside from Russia is the most conservative policy ever. 

4 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

I actually started to sour on him a mere few months after voting for him -- starting with reports that he was still ok with renditioning prisoners to Bagram prison where the Afghan military tortured them and then gradually bleeding into other foreign policy issues like his implementation of the drone program and ultimately domestic issues.) Also, as he moved up the political food chain throughout his career, he calibrated some of his views to make himself more conservative. (IE: gay marriage). 

I think that's fair, and is sort of the point I was talking about with the pivot. Something that both Trump and Clinton just...didn't do at all. In fact, both went more ideologically away from the center than towards the center. 

4 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Please. You'll never see Sanders threatening to shut down the government unless Republicans agree to pass a single payer healthcare system anymore than you see Liz Warren threatening a government shut down every year when the GOP weakens the Wall Street regulatory agenda in the budget. Also unlike the Tea Party and Clinton's efforts to paint him as uncompromising, Sanders is actually willing to compromise. (IE: He trashed the 90s crime bill but voted for it to pass the Violence Against Women Act -- certainly a bad compromise but it's a good counterpoint to that dumb narrative.) As for primary challengers, the only way to push the Democrats to be a more effective bulwark against right-wing extremism is to get rid of representatives who thrive off of the same campaign contributors (Wall Street, big oil, etc.) "Ideological purity" is certainly a stupid reason to fund a primary challenger but frankly there are some pretty Democrats still in office and there's nothing wrong with pushing them left.  There's a difference between waging a primary challenge against someone like Bayh or Manchin or Mendenez Wasserman Schultz who are willing to let their campaign donors call the shots (or push conservative foreign policy agendas) vs. someone like Lamar Alexander who is already way further right than the aforementioned group of congressional critters is left. 

 

We literally saw Democrats sitting in and threatening to not allow bills to pass in congress this year. Like, that actually happened. Sanders even came by and sat in solidarity. You know that happened, right? Like, you were aware this already occurred? And that it pissed off Republicans to no end?

I think that you haven't seen that happen on the Democratic side all that much YET. Because why would they? They aren't the ones fighting against Obama's policies. They haven't had to so far. But they've also seen that nothing bad comes of it if they need to, and in fact they'll be applauded for standing up to shitty budgets and policies. Think that they wouldn't obstruct a super-conservative SCOTUS that pledged to overturn Roe v Wade as soon as they could? Come on. 

Sanders certainly compromised in the 90s, but that was the 90s. That era is done. 

[Ormond]

Saturday we had the Nebraska Psychological Society annual convention at my university, and one of the keynote speakers was a social psychologist who gave a talk on voting behavior. A few points:

1. If one is considering multiple issues on deciding who to vote for, it is actually usually better to make one's decision on the basis of one's overall attitude of "liking" a candidate rather than trying to carefully consider all the information just before making a choice. That's because the human capacity for working memory is unfortunately small enough that when trying to make such a decision purely rationally we tend to put too much weight on the information we have most recently learned without realizing it. Going with the "gut" often leads to a better decision in such cases. (However, if one is really a one or two issue voter, that may not apply.)

2. The three main emotions motivating voters are fear, anger, and enthusiasm. Of the three fear is actually the one that leads to the best decisions, because it often motivates people to search out information and pay better attention to the trustworthiness of sources. Anger and enthusiasm both actually tend to shut down searching for more information -- though they are better at motivating more "costly" behaviors like donating time or money to a candidate. 

3. Polling this year has generally shown Republicans to be much more motivated by anger than Democrats are. (That's a statement about this particular election, not necessarily for all time.)

4. Among people who say they plan to vote, those who make specific plans to vote in a particular way at a particular time are much more likely to vote than those who have good intentions but don't think about the specifics.

 

My interpretation of the above is that right-wing media, by deliberately driving up ratings by making people angry all the time, tends to turn people into lower-information voters. But I suppose that's not a profound insight for most of us. 

 

 

[All-for-Joffrey]

Quote

We literally saw Democrats sitting in and threatening to not allow bills to pass in congress this year. Like, that actually happened. Sanders even came by and sat in solidarity. You know that happened, right? Like, you were aware this already occurred? And that it pissed off Republicans to no end?

I think that you haven't seen that happen on the Democratic side all that much YET. Because why would they? They aren't the ones fighting against Obama's policies. They haven't had to so far. But they've also seen that nothing bad comes of it if they need to, and in fact they'll be applauded for standing up to shitty budgets and policies. Think that they wouldn't obstruct a super-conservative SCOTUS that pledged to overturn Roe v Wade as soon as they could? Come on. 

Sanders certainly compromised in the 90s, but that was the 90s. That era is done.

Ok you're right, that was fucking stupid. 

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The parties cannot prevent a demagogue either -- a sufficiently clever one can use a party to his or her advantage (even Trump managed to make the Republican party serve his ends to some extent). The way to prevent one is to remove the underlying conditions which make the rise of a demagogue possible. Imagine if 90% (or even 60%) of the electorate believed that all was well (the country is on the right track, the government and media are trustworthy, etc.). Somebody seeking a leadership position in this situation proclaiming "Let's make America great again!" would be laughed at as the power-grubbing opportunist that he or she would almost certainly be.

The demagogues are merely a symptom and they're not even necessarily the worst one. The real problem is that few people believe that we're all headed for a better future and this engenders rage, distrust and various forms of tribalism.

Eh. That's your confirmation bias, I suspect. While it's true that most Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, they are also fairly positive about their party and about their party's candidate. Where they universally hate things is congress. 

As to the trustworthy thing, I think you're mistaking cause for correlation. The Republicans have been spending a very large amount of time ensuring that their base believes that media is untrustworthy and bizarre fringe elements - who as @Ormond point out use anger as a primary system - take over. Democrats largely trust the media. Democrats largely trust government. This isn't (yet) a whole country which thinks that things universally suck; it's very much partisan in suckage. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

33 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Democrats still have room for excitement though. Kanye 2020

I ain't sayin' he's a gold-digger, but he ain't messing with no broke bidders. 

[DunderMifflin]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I ain't sayin' he's a gold-digger, but he ain't messing with no broke bidders. 

Trump vs Kanye presidential campaign would be the greatest thing that's ever happened. 

[Kalbear]

Here's another example. Americans HATE politics - but are largely happy otherwise. The notion that things largely suck is really an artifact of one side, and even then it's largely pointed at the others. 

[Boris the Blade]

Currently at dinner with family and a family friend of theirs, she says a trump supporter. Asked me who I thought was as going to win, I told her. She's as nervous as Clinton supporters are. I didn't delve into who i was voting for to avoid a debate at dinner and an uncomfortable situation. But I brought up the size of Clintons ground game and how she has more money to spend and how's polling works. She seemed more nervous.

[Dr. Pepper]

Any others seeing their deplorables on facebook posting stuff about Hillary on the Lolita Express?  

I just don't get how people can't do basic fact checking.  They bitch and moan that facebook is all biased and that nothing on facebook is true, and then they see a meme and they jump aboard.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

That's why user comments are still important!! It's worth 20 troll comments to get to the one person that brilliantly exposes some bullshit article or claim.

Only if it's within the first 20 comments.

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

Kurt Eichenwald is tweeting all findings during his 6 months of investigations. The thread starts below. He's up into the 60s now and still has a long way to go.

 

That's the big shot lawyer from NYC right? He's the state AG right?

Meanwhile, I don't do twitter or Facebook, is this Kanye thing real? That's a joke, right? Because I can say right now there's at least one Democrat who'd be voting Republican that day.

 

[Castel]

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

That's the big shot lawyer from NYC right? He's the state AG right?

Meanwhile, I don't do twitter or Facebook, is this Kanye thing real? That's a joke, right? Because I can say right now there's at least one Democrat who'd be voting Republican that day.

 

I wouldn't make that promise until I see who the GOP nominates

[Ariadne23]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Republicans maybe, but I don't think Democrats have. 

True. I was being sloppy. 

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The way to prevent one is to remove the underlying conditions which make the rise of a demagogue possible....The real problem is that few people believe that we're all headed for a better future and this engenders rage, distrust and various forms of tribalism.

There is no way to have the rate of social, cultural, and technological change that we've had without having a regressive element that feels this way, and that's only one reason among many that people might exhibit that kind of exploitable group anxiety. 

I don't think there is a "real" problem. I think this is the way democracy is, and the safeguards we had in place to minimize the risk and fallout of demagoguery are not what they once were - or we've just been lucky so far.

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, Castel said:

I wouldn't make that promise until I see who the GOP nominates

If they are that bad, I swear to god I will attempt to organize an alternative democratic candidacy like whatshisfuck in Utah.