The Dreaded Political Poll...

[shadowkat]

[ETA: Apologies - apparently I spelled Bernie Sanders, last name wrong. But hey at least I was consistent about it.]

After Book Club and work, where we skirted around the topic and then skirted back again, I'm curious as to where the political landmines lie on my livejournal flist and the degree to which I should avoid all things political. (Book club was doing a better job of skirting, work not so much -- cubical mate likes to rant about Trump on a daily basis.) I already know where they lie at work and on Facebook, and with family. The people on Facebook are pro-Bernie Saunders, the people at work are either pro-Trump, Clinton, Saunders or staying quiet. And the book club seems to be leaning towards Cruz or no one. Meanwhile my mother is actively campaigning for Clinton.

So a poll. For this poll - I attempted to list all the presidential candidates currently running, but got tired after listing over 20 of them. Most of which, I'd never heard of. I thought, geeze, there's a lot of presidential candidates. And here, I thought only ten people were running, turns out I was wrong. In case you are remotely interested - the complete list of currently registered Independent Candidates running for President on the Independent Ticket, can be found HERE:

[Poll #2035065]

I forgot to list undecided. Damn it.

I tend to stay away from this topic, because...blood pressure inducing. But I'm curious to see where my flist falls. Are you all Bernie Saunder's fans? Or are you all Trump fans? (Ghod, I really really hope not. But one never knows...Honestly I can't imagine a Trump fan reading and enjoying my journal, but stranger things have happened.)

Currently, I don't feel strongly about any of the candidates...except that I'll probably have to move to New Zealand if Trump wins. The man has dead eyes.

[ETA: Apparently there is 1524 people who are running for president of the US. As an aside? This sort of reminds me of scrolling through television channels hunting for something to watch, over a thousand channels, and still, nothing is on!]

Comments

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I felt 8 years ago that we would have been better off with Hillary as President than Obama. He would have been so much better prepared to deal with Congress if he was running now instead of eight years ago (assuming he'd been in the Senate all that time).

As you say above, it just isn't practical for Bernie Sanders to be President. I agree with some of his stated goals. Having taught for a few years at a university, I can't agree with him about sending everyone to school beyond high school. Lot's of folks just don't want to go, including some who are currently enrolled. They waste everybody's time by being there. Helping those who want to go would be a much more workable idea. But just as you say above, and even he admits, he couldn't get anything done without a drastic change in Congress that no one expects will happen. He is currently the darling of campus activists. But those folks often run on a lot of wishful thinking. Sanders would be extremely lucky to be as successful as the last campus darling, Obama

Personally Sanders gives me the creeps, and I don't trust him.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

I think Sanders is probably what he appears to be--I like his ideas, and would love to live in a country that could put them into practice.

But I don't think he has any way of having any bills passed. The Republicans own the House for at least the next decade, thanks to redistricting, and we saw that even with a majority Democratic House and Senate, Obama was able to get only one really big bill through. So Sanders is a dream, not a reality.

Hilary can get things done, but I don't like her corporate connections and some of what Bill did as president. If she's the Democratic candidate, I'll probably vote for her--she's not in the ballpark of the evil that is Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc. But I don't really feel very hopeful about anything different from the last eight years under her lead. I like Obama, but the government is such a mess that only a reborn FDR or LBJ could do anything, and maybe not even them.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I don't like her corporate connections

That was the most disappointing thing about Bill. Just a lot more chummy with big business than a Democrat should be to keep the country balanced. I'm not thrilled with Hillary, but I think of the realistic candidates she's the best qualified.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we basically agree. I hope she can get elected with a lot of voters thinking, well, she's the best of a bad bunch. We have to hope that fear of the Republicans will get them to the polls.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'd have to agree with all of the above.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, most politicians seem to be connected to big business lobbyists in some way -- it's how they get their money. Because unfortunately in order to get any media attention or name recognition - you'd have to have a lot of money. And the people who can give you the most are corporate interests.

Interesting thing about qualifications...my co-worker and cubicle mate keeps ranting about the fact that various of our presidents and politicians had no real qualifications.

Co-worker: "What happened to qualifications?? A peanut farmer could become President? A movie star?
A reality star, who inherited funds to bribe folks to become a business guy? Seriously? Anyone can be President? A bodybuilder and action movie star became Governor???"

I suppose he has a point. Although I admittedly liked the peanut farmer, not the best President though. ;-)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

People praise FDR and LBJ's ability to "get things done" but it's important to remember that both had the benefit of *massive* majorities in both houses of Congress. Personal charm and legislative skill aside, they had numbers.a

The next Congress is going to tilt against democrats - and the modern practice of reflexive and compulsive opposition will make almost everything harder. Democrats could offer a bill declaring "Water is Wet" and not get more than a handful of Republican votes. In that Climate, and incrementalist who knows how to operate the machinery is about as good as you can do.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

They also had solid party organizations. A lot of FDR's and LBJ's 'majorities' consisted of conservative Southerners who were not at all happy with much of New Deal Liberalism. Then party discipline in terms of handing out campaign funds kept things going in a way that probably isn't possible in this age of special interest pacs.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

And it's well to remember that the very popular John Kennedy couldn't get anything done in Congress, because he spent most of his time in the Senate preparing to run for President instead of making the right connections within Congress.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Southern Democrats were happy with FDR's New Deal Legislation provided administrators could steer the benefits only to whites. Yes, LBJ's majority included anti-civil rights southerners - but his 1964 majority was so massive that he could overcome them. Republicans made gains in the 1966 mid-term and LBJ got a lot less through in the term after that.

The political environment is certainly most different - it's a different system now.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think LBJ did lose some ground with the Voting Rights Act - which he stated was going to lose the Southern Democrats. (It did, they flipped to the Republican Party shortly after it and then found a way to weaken the act years later.)

But you're right...a lot of what LBJ and FDR had was the ability to make back-room deals. LBJ was a master manipulator of the system. As was FDR.

I don't think it's possible to do it today, though... a lot of things have changed since then.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Curious...to know what you think of this article that I found by David Brooks:

What Republicans Should Say" (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/opinion/what-republicans-should-say.html)

The writer is a conservative columnist...but he had an interesting comparison of Cameron vs. Cruz/Trump.

I posted it elsewhere...but took it down and put it here instead, because I want to have an intellectual and not emotion-charged discussion about it.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I think it'd be an argument, but Brooks' own tone betrays a basic political reality... that the kind of Republican party and Republican voter base that could espouse this kind of message... does not exist in any sort of strength in America.

Right. The Republicans have held the White House, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court in varying stretches over the past 20 years. Brooks' discussion is just not where the heart of today's American right wing is. The Republican party's ideology has been if you are poor and can't get yourself richer - well, that's your problem. Don't look for the government to do anything about it.

The idea that Conservatism is split "over what to do about the slow-motion devastation being felt by the less educated, the working class and the poor" is fatuous. The split is over how to win the vote of the working class and poor - and which members of the poor and working class to pursue. Not "what to do for or about" them. What to do about them ... is nothing. The answer is deregulation, tax cuts, and sending money to favored religious charities.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

That's what I'm picking up on as well. Our conservatism is far more to the right than Britain's, or so it appears.
And I know from various Republican co-workers and associates -- that that is the overall sentiment, if you are poor and can't get yourself out of it, too bad. The more moderate Republicans believe that communities and local organizations should be helping the poor not the Federal or State governments, but that's not what is happening across the board.

They are succeeding with the working class and poor in many of the Southern States, and States like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and of course the Mid-West, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.

US politics has just become "extreme"...either swinging to the extreme right with Trump, or the left with Saunders, with not much in between. And it seems there's a lot of people who like the idea of an "authoritarian" leader, which is downright frightening, when you think about it. I'm not sure why though...

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

A party like the British Conservative party exists in America. They're called the Democrats.

Where Republicans succeed with the working class, it's over the shared ethos of government action and over cultural issues. But we'll note that rural working class Americans liked the new deal. Rural working class Americans switched over the reforms of the 1960s when "government spending" became associated with "Government spending on brown people"

As an aside, I know I'm very picky but his name is *Sanders* not "Saunders" and I'm going batty over it...nuts.

.either swinging to the extreme right with Trump, or the left with Saunders, with not much in between

I think this has nothing to do with "left" and "right" (in terms of ideology) and most everything to do with culture and personality.

Republican politicians media have spent the past 30 years promising and arguing for things that they cannot do, do not actually want to do, and which would ruin the country - but which sound attractive to voters. And having been whipped up, Republican voters are now frustrated with their own politicians for not delivering - and with any poltician who seems like a Squish.

Democrats have generally valued cooperation and deal-making, and faced with Republican intransigence, are frustrated with the inability of elected Democrats to follow through on their promised programs. So Bernie Sanders, who promises to fight republicans and not accommodate them looks appealing. Bernie's actual policies matter less. That's how he can be thoroughly unable to address foreign policy, and it doesn't hurt him with voters yet.

Ideologically, a lot of voters actually agree with many of the things Obama has done. But they aren't going to say it. And they aren't going to vote that way. Because culture, not policy.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the Sanders thing. Grammarely was confusing me or maybe Facebook. ;-)

Apparently, how conservative or liberal you appear depends on the company you're currently in or is a matter of perception. No wonder, Europe is looking at the US sort of oddly. Our liberal is their version of ultra-conservative, and our conservative -- frankly scares the bejeesus out of them.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agree with everything you state above. While Bernie Saunders has great ideas -- I honestly don't see how he can possibly implement them. It's a lot harder to implement these things than people realize. It's one of the many things that I've learned working for a public agency that keeps trying to implement cool social service ideas and failing miserably at it. (There's a reason it takes forever for anything to be repaired or built.)

Also, I don't see how he could possibly get any bills passed. No one in Congress appears to agree with him on anything, including his own party.

Hillary seems to be the best bet at the moment for precisely the reasons you state above.

[spikesjojo.livejournal.com]

Sanders isn't going to make college mandatory - what he wants to do is make community college free. Kinda like the rest of the 1st world countries. We'd get back in taxes and less need for social spending what we would put out.

I have one child who has a degree in forensics, and after all the courses was told there are no forensic job in the US - but she could be a prison guard. She owes 20K for that - and can no longer get any student loans. My other daughter has one year of community college but had to drop out to pay off her loans. Living on your own, paying your own expenses, and paying almost $300 a credit (most classes are 3 credits) plus books that cost over $100 dollars is really impossible.

Both kids are motivated straight A students - it's not just that they would benefit. We need an educated work force in these times.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree! My son owes 200K and has had to leave the country because he can't work in his field, so I know what you mean.

But I still haven't heard how Sanders will get the Republicans to cooperate, or how he will manage to accomplish his goals without Congressional approval. I don't like it--would love to see his goals accomplished. But how?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It's pretty horrible out there. When I graduated from law school in 1994, you couldn't get a job to save your life either. I was unemployed throughout the majority of my twenties and thirties. Laid off three times. Didn't get a good steady, well-playing job until I turned 40. And it's with a public agency and in a union, so protected.

Granted I didn't have huge loans. School was about $3000 a semester, dirt cheap compared to what it is today.
Even my undergraduate, which was pricey back then, isn't in comparison to what it would be now.

I can't believe it costs $32,000 to go to a state or community college in NY. And $52-60,000 to go to a private school. That's insane.

But I'm not sure how we can lower those costs...without lowering teacher's salaries and other expenses.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

More state support for state schools would be a good start for lowering costs, and more regulation of for-profit private schools (which does seem to be happening, a little).

It really is true that for any school, even a daycare, decent salaries for teachers=high tuition, unless there's some other funding from somewhere.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The difficulty is that the states have no money. And all the agencies keep asking for more money.
I know, because half of our major construction projects - such as handicapped accessible elevators and stairwells, and a huge train yard, are tied up due to funding issues.

Each one of these programs costs a lot of money to implement it. Where's the money coming from? Taxes?
Who? Profit from public transportation? Tuition? I mean it has to come from somewhere. And then there's the problem of which agencies should get it? I remember when I worked in a state legislature - the agencies spent a lot of time lobbying the senators as to where the money should go.

Does education deserve it? Infrastructure (roads, bridges, public transportation)? Health care? Emergency Services? Police? Fire? Sanitation? Environmental?

I've become aware of how complicated it is working in a state agency. The State wants to please everyone -- but the problem with trying to please everyone is bureaucracy. For example - our governor has decided he has to give jobs to veterans, disadvantaged businesses, minorities, and women-owned businesses...but attempting to do so has increased paper work, red tape, and costs.

Have you seen S3 and S4 of the Wire? It brilliantly depicts the problem. You have a politician who genuinely wants to change things, but he can't. Too many problems, too many directions, he ends up playing a numbers game.

I

[spikesjojo.livejournal.com]

At the moment Sanders is less than half a percent behind Hilary. He is leading in New Hampshire and Vermont. He's bringing out voters who never voted. My hope is that will have to have some effect on congressional voting. BTW - there is a strong Republicans for Sanders group.

It may be a dream but right now I can dream. :)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think you may be right...except there was no way in heck that Hillary would have won in 2008. McCain/Palin would have beaten her. There were a lot of Republicans who voted for Obama that would not have voted for Hillary back then. I don't know about now, however. I feel differently about her now than I did in 2008, and I'm noticing a lot of others do as well...

Not really sure why they hate her so much. I have co-workers who despise her. And a member of my book club sees her as Machiavellian and ruthless. (I don't).

Agree on the bit about college education - - it's not for everyone. But, I also think the educational system needs to change significantly. I remember discussing it with a fellow law student in law school. We both began law school later than most, I started it at 24/25, he did at 25/26, as opposed to right after college. We felt the mistake was too much emphasis on classroom lecture, which does nothing to prepare you for the workforce.
A better approach would have been internships and apprenticeships. I think the difficulty is people want a simple solution and there is none.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

Hillary made serious missteps early in Bill's Presidency. She wanted to lead the way toward a health care plan not too dissimilar from what we eventually got from Obama. Most notably she called together people from the insurance industry and the medical profession to discuss the situation without making some effort to include the public, the very people who were supposed to benefit from any changes. The insurance industry didn't want any changes and the medical community wasn't going to volunteer to make concession about anything unilaterally. So with all sides opposed the Clintons had no choice, but to bury the thing as quietly as possible, with Hillary receiving most of the blame for what Bill must have been just as responsible.

Obviously I can't be positive, but I suspect that after right George W Bush, Hillary could have won. I know, my opinion of her had changed by then. I did vote for Obama, but more reluctantly than it would have been for Hillary.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think you may be right. There was also the whole Lewinskygate mess, which tainted her in various people's eyes. (As if no other President ever did the same thing??? Hello, Kennedy and Roosevelt. Also, I'm not exactly sure how it was her fault.)

I remember the health care fiasco -- at the time, I was working for a Kansas State Senator who was attempting to get single payer health care passed on a state level. The Small Business, American Medical Association, and Insurance Lobby shut it down. Then later, when I worked, briefly, for an major insurance carrier - saw how and why they shut it down. (They had their own competing plan in place and it would cost them billions.)

Hillary in both elections was by far the most qualified and smartest candidate. In 2008, Obama just ran a savvier campaign. He did change how elections were run, in a lot of ways. Also, she had a lot of baggage from Bill that he just didn't have. I think she may have less baggage now.