The Sound of 'Splainin'
I've been through a few presidential cycles in my cycles around the sun. Not as much as many, but more than a few. I know there are differences and similarities in each. But this time, this time feels ... different.
( Cut for my rocking chair on porch moment. )
( Cut for my rocking chair on porch moment. )
Comments 16
::Applauds::
I hear all of this. I feel the same way, but for other reasons as well.
Reply
(I'm sorry, I'm terrible at social follow-ups. My bad.)
Reply
I haven't had a chance to formulate my own thoughts on the Bernie vs. Hillary debate to where I can readily explain them to someone who isn't me, but when I do, it's likely to come in the form of my own entry because I write way too effing much and don't want to clog your comments.
Reply
They were also the second and third choice of a lot of people! Meaning they weren't "losers" as the article exclaims
Weren't necessarily, anyways.
Ranked-choice voting doesn't guarantee that the winner will be better in terms of favorable/unfavorable views of the voters; it's a legitimate criticism that ranked-choice can result in the election of less-popular candidates than largest-plurality:
For example, consider the following setup:
- 45% favor candidate A, think candidate B is bad and candidate C is worse
- 30% favor candidate B, think candidate A is bad and candidate C is worse
- 25% favor candidate C, think candidate B is bad and candidate A is worse
In ranked-choice, 55% of the votes favor B after C is eliminated. B wins, but only 30% of the voters think B is a good candidate. In largest-plurality, A would win, and 45% of the voters would think the winner was a ( ... )Reply
By "that election style" you mean largest-plurality, right?
I do.
Why do you think that largest-plurality "buys the most ads" relative to ranked-preference?
Excellent question. Every time there is an election (well, it used to happen every time), someone brings up some form of ranked choice. One of the advantages of ranked choice is that more than two candidates can run at the same time.
Which has a profound influence on the tone of the campaign.
When two are running, the most points are scored going negative, pointing out the real/perceived weakness of the opponent. One can spend equal time promoting one's strengths and the weaknesses of the other.
Ah, but when there are more viable candidates in the running, there simply isn't time to just call names, lest one forgets/is unable to tout one's own qualifications. The overtly negative candidate seems too negative when he/she has to aim barbs at multiple targets. More than two therefore creates a less negative campaign in general ( ... )
Reply
Maybe. If high-stakes national campaigns were done through ranked-choice elections, I'm not convinced politicians wouldn't find effective ways to do negative campaigning anyways. I mean, look at Trump, he didn't wait until the field had narrowed to "go negative" in his primary campaign.
If, however, one counts more than just the direct telly/radio ads
That's why I said direct effect, we're in agreement here. But while both Clinton and Sanders are talking about overturning Citizens United, no one's talking about overturning Buckley.
Reply
Ah, that's strategic. When people are focused on two candidates even before the field narrows, expect those candidates to go neg on each other. The same thing happened when Clinton and Sanders were the top two; Clinton went after Sanders even though there was another debater, standing right there, still "technically" in the race. His poll numbers were low enough for her to ignore him.
I should distinguish here that "going negative" refers not to negative comments in general, but specifically to negative attacks on the other candidate. Trump had gone negative about everything he didn't like, not just the other GOPpers in the race. Those people he all but ignored, except when he was polling high and they attacked him. Then, he responded.
As to finding ways to go negative, this has already been done on a Biblical scale, though mostly not by the candidates. Again, lots of stuff in Mayer's book on this, stuff I plan to share.
...no one's talking about overturning Buckley.
Or Bellotti. Both of those ( ... )
Reply
Which means he does not see her policies as that threatening to his own privileged position.
Well, at least he sees them as less threatening than Trump's.
I'm not sure how much the Kochs should care about the details of campaign finance reform. It's not like they were uninfluential until Citizens United. But they were exerting that influence largely through the Republican Party (and related organizations), and that is quite a bit less likely to continue to exist in its previous form if Trump wins.
I'd guess that Charles Koch's support for Clinton over Trump has more to do with the effect of a Trump victory versus a Trump loss on the Republican Party than it has to do with the relative effect of either candidate on campaign-finance regulation.
other than to good-naturedly quip that a real progressive would pick a logo that didn't point to the right.That seems like it's deliberately obtuse in service of a line. While "right" and "left" are used to refer ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I agree, maybe I should've come up with a better way to express that than "and related organizations"? But the GOP is central in that complex, when it comes to the important role of getting candidates into office. And for all they can exert influence elsewhere, it doesn't seem like "the party of Trump" will be interested in electing the Kochs' preferred candidates.
(Leaving them to do what? Build up the Libertarians? Try to take over the Democrats?)
I still think that matters way more to the Koch's than whether campaign finance reform laws end up in a pre- or post-2010 state.
Exactly! That's what gives the line punch!
I agree it's evocative, it's just that what it evokes is, "Oh, you're an asshole!"
Reply
That's the confusion, I think. The Party has become the Party of the Koch's, of money. Trump is in line with the GOP, of course, but he is not beholden to money. Which is what the electorate have been craving since they joined the Tea Party.
Note I did not say "since they started the Tea Party." According to Mayer's very well researched history, money has been trying to start a Tea Party for decades; only now has it caught. Trump is the ideal TPer for the electorate, but not for the moneyed founders.
I agree it's evocative, it's just that what it evokes is, "Oh, you're an asshole!"
I can't argue with facts. ;-)
Reply
I think you are correct (if I infer correctly) that the Millennials will end up changing the direction of the country since they have "no future"...fortunately from my stand point, I won't be around to see it. I could go on, and I'd love to; but this is more than I've done in a long time, and of course I'd rather talk than type.
By the way, how are your potatoes doing this year?
Reply
Whoa, there, Sunshine! Those are some scattershot assertions! Let's break things down.
...the average American really isn't all that enamored with FDR's policies....
Really? Um, no. To get a handle on what the average American feels, yes, you have to ask. And on FDR's policies, perhaps that average would feel negative. After all, plenty of ink and sound bite time has been wasted blasting him.
When you ask about the programs he started, though, things change drastically. Social Security is really, really liked, for one example. Same with unemployment insurance and the kind of banking reform he pushed. Heck, once you plug actual numbers into the reality of the program, estate taxes are also favored. Even though some of that stuff has been repealed (like the Glass-Steagall Act), it's still popular ( ... )
Reply
While you are correct, young people are becoming more left leaning, on the other hand "boomers" are becoming more conservative, and as badly as we have messed up the country, it will be a few more years before we are no longer the 'ruling' class.
It is the nature of things for the younger generation to be more liberal (partially due to the fact they are ruled more by emotions while people tend to get more pragmatic as they get older) Think about it, it is often said Reagan couldn't be nominated by today's republicans, but what I think is glossed over is Kennedy couldn't make the democratic ticket.
The bottom line is so much of philosophy and belief is predicated (or perhaps merely reinforced)by the people we hang with, listen to, and even where we live :D
At any rate, hopefully, this afternoon I will have the time to read your discussion with
Reply
Leave a comment