Campaign 2016

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[the captain]

Keep in mind the DNC revised its system of nominating candidates (using super delegates) to overrule the democratic process: they didn't want another incident like McGovern.

Considering Sanders isn't and has never been a member of the Democratic Party and (unlike Clinton) doesn't raise funds for it or for down-ticket candidates, I wouldn't expect the Party to do him any favors at any point down the line.

True democracy has been something US leaders since the founders have worked pretty hard to minimize. Some good reasons, some bad. But parties--powerful ones--are interested in self-preservation, not democratic principles.

[Emily]

I don't really think the nominating process should be democratic, theoretically. Theoretically, anyone who wants should be able to gather people behind whomever they want to nominate and call it a 'party.' So, if I want to nominate 'the captain,' I should be able to found a party to organize and drum up support for the captain and I shouldn't have to let other random people come in and say, 'well, there are more of us in your party now and we nominate 'zachrwolfe.' Theoretically, the democratic (such as it is. Making it so challenging for people to vote and the electoral college already render it undemocratic) process starts with the general election, once the nominees are nominated through separate 'private' processes.

Practically, though, we've got a pretty unbreakable two-party system in which the two parties are quasi-official. So one can argue that the practical process doesn't match the theoretical process in ways that create a sound argument that the parties should have internally democratic processes and should be governed by public rules, as they are practically ensconced public bodies. I personally prefer the theory to the practice, but given the reality, understand why the parties should be internally democratic.

Either we should accept that we have a fixed two-party system and adjust the rules to reflect that, or we should adjust the rules to break the two-party system.

[the captain]

I strongly prefer the latter of your options. And this might be better suited for the tremendously unpopular "Electoral Process" thread (I'm pretty good at starting unpopular threads...  ), but I think the two-party system has the hugely unfortunate result of forcing a false dichotomy on people. The idea that the complexities of political scenarios, whether full platforms from top to bottom or the nuances within individual pieces of legislation, are honestly so simple as Choice A or Choice B--and that's it!?--is patently absurd. But as I said earlier, the primary objective of successful parties is maintaining or growing their power. The last thing they want to see happen is for their own status to be risked by opening up the process to (GASP) alternatives.

[Douchepool]

Breaking the two-party system would require great swaths of Americans to stop being red vs. blue fanboys and start thinking on policies as opposed to parties. I believe we're asking too much of our fellow countrymen. I say this as someone who would desire nothing more than the complete collapse of the two-party system, replaced with nothing. Run on policy, not party.

[the captain]

Breaking the two-party system would require great swaths of Americans to stop being red vs. blue fanboys and start thinking on policies as opposed to parties. I believe we're asking too much of our fellow countrymen. I say this as someone who would desire nothing more than the complete collapse of the two-party system, replaced with nothing. Run on policy, not party.

I agree completely.

I think one part of the problem is the fear that the parties push down onto those perverts, those heretics, who show signs of straying from orthodoxy: if you stray from us, your cute little vanity candidate still won't win, and the candidate you hate most probably will. That has been the narrative over and over. And people are actually afraid to "throw away their votes," apparently not understanding that we have probably at least as many people who claim not to be affiliated with one of the major parties as we do affiliated with either one. That's to say nothing of those who DO affiliate, but only because they see a lack of viable alternatives. (Let's get serious: is a Sanders follower really in the same boat as a Clinton follower? I mean really? Was a Ron Paul follower truly a part of the same party as a Mitt Romney follower?)

[Douchepool]

It's funny when we mention this whole "if you vote for your vanity candidate THE OTHER GUY WE DON'T LIKE WILL WIN!" bullshit - the fact that that is even a talking point is proof that even the same partisan red vs. blue fuckwits KNOW their system is bullshit and have a similar lack of faith in the process.

[SMiLE Brian]

Damn straight captain and TRBB!

[the captain]

The question becomes how to break up those two parties, then. They dominate. Even the legislature is at least in practice if not by rule organized around them: the rare independents caucus with either Republicans or Democrats because you can't very well caucus by yourself... The idea of a 'big-tent" party is great, except when it eventually leads to what it has led to, which is to say parties that in the end are football teams dedicated to 1) gouging fans for money by 2) televising their organized violence against one another. Or maybe better, they're pro wrestlers, because it's all such pathetic theater.

I don't mean nobody in either party has actual beliefs, that's not for me to say. But the system itself is basically pro wrestling.

How do you get to a viable multiparty system, or no-party system? And are those results better than the sh*t we have now?

[SMiLE Brian]

Jesse Ventura for president?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Again, though, a third party candidate running in an American election is not going to be able to achieve much, and certainly not enough to risk turning the country over to extremist leadership. What's far more important than a third party candidate is a movement of people that can make serious systemic changes. That's not going to happen with a third party candidate under the current system.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The question becomes how to break up those two parties, then. They dominate. Even the legislature is at least in practice if not by rule organized around them: the rare independents caucus with either Republicans or Democrats because you can't very well caucus by yourself... The idea of a 'big-tent" party is great, except when it eventually leads to what it has led to, which is to say parties that in the end are football teams dedicated to 1) gouging fans for money by 2) televising their organized violence against one another. Or maybe better, they're pro wrestlers, because it's all such pathetic theater.

I don't mean nobody in either party has actual beliefs, that's not for me to say. But the system itself is basically pro wrestling.

How do you get to a viable multiparty system, or no-party system? And are those results better than the sh*t we have now?

Sorry, I wrote the above before seeing this post but my above post does in some way get towards responding to this question. I think you get to this system first and foremost with a dedicated popular movement that actively pressures the system to change.

[Emily]

Look up Duverger's Law. It's quite right that you'd be "throwing away your vote" if you don't vote for a major party candidate, as long as we have a winner-take-all by district system. If we apportioned representation according to voting percentage  - which is how you break the two-party system - that wouldn't be the case. It's not actually codified in the Constitution that the states have to be split up by district. A state could move to proportional voting for its federal representation on its own. But it's a prisoner's dilemma - if a state does it on its own, it loses by having outcaste representatives in congress. So no state wants to be among the first to make the change. Once enough have changed to break the two-party stronghold, it benefits the other states to follow suit.

[filledeplage]

It's funny when we mention this whole "if you vote for your vanity candidate THE OTHER GUY WE DON'T LIKE WILL WIN!" bullshit - the fact that that is even a talking point is proof that even the same partisan red vs. blue fuckwits KNOW their system is bullshit and have a similar lack of faith in the process.

It is all propaganda and smoke and mirrors and threats.  Everyone laughed at the Tea Party as whack jobs.  Now, it ain't so funny that people are incensed, and national security is all that matters to most people.  Domestic stuff can be fixed in the courts. We can't fix an invasion. 

The travesty that people are finding out about, is that these primaries are not uniform among the 50 states and they make up their own rules as they go along.  And RNC is openly bragging that despite a 1237 vote, they will block and put their own "fresh face" person in.  Who do they think they are, substituting "their judgment" for that of the people? 

RNC had better get it's act together.  And the Dems are getting a big shocker with almost steamrolling wins with Bernie whom they also ridiculed.  DNC is a disgrace with their lack of impartiality.  The moderate, pro law-enforcement Democratic party of Bill Clinton is not the leftist party of his spouse. 

When you have the caucus system, there is horse-trading going on all the time and it is the same-old, same-old.  Only in this historic primary season people are smartening up to what is really happening, and it is the shock and horror of the terrorist attacks.  This is not "our new normal" as would be suggested.  We are not going to swallow this. I don't need some electoral college to "think for me" and some political-hack substitute his or her judgment for what I think. And, I would like to see a uniform primary voting system across the country so everyone is on even footing in this democracy. 

Both parties are getting big surprises. People laughed at Trump and Sanders.  They thought it was a joke. This country has had enough of the dynastic political class elite.  The slumbering giant has awoken.  The party and 2-party gravy train is over

[alf wiedersehen]

Looks like this nation's preeminent widow's peak and Republican-party pushover has run away from the presidency.

[the captain]

Keep in mind the DNC revised its system of nominating candidates (using super delegates) to overrule the democratic process: they didn't want another incident like McGovern.

I misspoke here: the super delegate system was added after Carter's loss to Reagan. No doubt McGovern was still on the mind as well, but the direct cause was Carter.

[Emily]

Looks like this nation's preeminent widow's peak and Republican-party pushover has run away from the presidency.

This is too cryptic for me. Who? Did what?
Figured it out.

[Douchepool]

I do find it INCREDIBLY hilarious and ironic that Bernie's supporters are bitching and moaning about Hillary's "unearned" delegates. The double standard just BURNS. I guess even Sanders supporters can't get behind having stuff given to someone else who didn't earn it.

[filledeplage]

I do find it INCREDIBLY hilarious and ironic that Bernie's supporters are bitching and moaning about Hillary's "unearned" delegates. The double standard just BURNS. I guess even Sanders supporters can't get behind having stuff given to someone else who didn't earn it.

The election has become a free-for-all. Both parties are a mess. 

[KDS]

Looking at the remaining candidates, I have to say that it's scary that this is the best the United States can do. 

I'm basically supporting Trump because he's the candidate I dislike the least. 

This is like being asked to pick my favorite song from Summer in Paradise. 

[the captain]

It's absolutely NOT the best the US can do. It's what the system we've allowed to evolve leaves us. (Quick plug for the unused electoral process thread, where I'd hoped we could discuss not THIS election, but our whole system and process.)

Who runs for major office? A unique person with a massive ego, sufficient funding, willingness to be compromised on a regular basis by a party, willingness to be compromised regularly by funders, and who accepts--even chases, for certain things--the ludicrous paradox that is 24/7 media hype (incessant gossip mongering that somehow avoids actual content most of the time). All this to be part of an institution that is at best impotent and at worst corrupt and destructive. Oh, and all this for relatively low pay, when compared to professions into which the most talented people go.

Should we be surprised that the best and brightest don't sign up?

[Douchepool]

Politics is the most overvalued and overpaid part-time job in history. The can-dos don't go into politics because they can prosper much better in the private sector. The can't-dos either go into politics or worse...teach.

[Emily]

Politics is the most overvalued and overpaid part-time job in history. The can-dos don't go into politics because they can prosper much better in the private sector. The can't-dos either go into politics or worse...teach.

I disagree. There are a lot of idiots who are successful in private industry and a lot of good, smart, capable people who go into politics and teaching.
There's one very famous idiot who's being successful at both right now.

[the captain]

OK, as we move toward the actual nominations and read inevitable stories about how someone other than the leading candidates could win, let's take the pulse of the board:

Does anyone here think the most likely scenario is anything other than (current frontrunners by significant margins) Trump v Clinton? If so, I'd like to hear your guess, and (most interestingly) how that will come about.

[SMiLE Brian]

Captain, does this thread have comped drinks?