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

[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.