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

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

If I were American, I would probably vote for Bernie Saunders.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Jeff Boss
Lloyd Kelso
Morrison Bonpasse
Jeremiah Pent
Samm Tittle

OK, you made some of these up, right? :)

Honestly, I'm glad I don't have to vote for any of these.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Nope, I found them on the candidate lists.

Wish I didn't have to vote for any of them. Seriously, as a co-worker succinctly put it: "This election sucks!"
And last night, one of the women in the book club was discussing a David Brooks non-fiction book about "Character." I asked her, after she explained what he meant by "character", if any of the current candidates in our presidential election met that description or came close - she said, none of them.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

As much as I wish Saunders could work and he would, most likely, in France, Canada, Britain, and Australia.... But...not in the US. The structure of the US government just makes it impossible for him to do anything without the support of both houses of Congress.

Someone on Facebook posted that he intended to undo or restructure the US banking system with an executive order. I burst out laughing. If it were that easy -- one of the US Presidents would have done it already.
The President of the US really doesn't have as much power as many people think. It's not like he's running a corporation or a city. We have a complicated system of checks and balances -- in order for Saunders to get anything done, he'd have to have both houses of Congress agree with him or at the very least a majority, and in some instances the judicial system. It's not like we haven't had Presidents try. And from what I've gathered? Both houses of Congress on both sides of the political fence do not like him or agree with him on anything.

[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.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I checked off Bernie, but I'd vote for Hillary too. Sanders is closer to my politics, but like you I'm skeptical that he can actually do anything different.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

I should have clicked Other in Comments instead of Not Listed.

Actually my husband is a candidate for the Green Party nomination (http://www.billkreml.org/), but Jill Stein (who's also not listed) (http://www.jill2016.com/) will get the nomination.

[cjlasky.livejournal.com]

Elizabeth Warren. Should have run. Might have beaten HRC; if she'd won the democratic nom, she would have almost certainly been elected.

Unlike Bernie, I think she might have even had a chance to negotiate with the GOP congress to enact significant legislation.

Maybe in 2024.

[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.

[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.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Whoa. You're right, Stein has a better chance, just because people know who she is. So much of it is "popularity" or "name recognition". It's sort of like everything else --- what has the greatest "name" recognition, gets picked. (And they say evil marketing people don't rule the world. ;-) )


When I was looking up the candidates to put on the poll last night....which was around 11:30 at night (still wired from book club), I had great aspirations. I thought, I know, I'll list all the possible candidates. Then, I did a little research....Oh dear lord, this is reminding me of hunting for new books to suggest for book club at Barnes and Noble. And, I think there are more candidates running for president of the US than there are recently released books in paperback on display at Barnes and Noble.

The list went on forever. I gave up after 40.

Quite a few of the Republicans have dropped out already. Former Governor of NY, Pataki, withdrew a month or so ago. I remember thinking at the time..."wait, you were running?" Apparently he withdrew due to lack of interest, and I thought, yeah, nobody knew you were running.

Bloomberg's threatening to run - which scared my book club, but amuses me greatly, because a lot of my co-workers who are supporting Trump (because he's a business man) would leap over to Bloomberg (because he's a more qualified businessman).

[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.

[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.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree. I like Elizabeth Warren and think she'd have made a better candidate. Also, I think she would have had a better chance of winning overall. (Although she's probably smart to wait. And we need her in Congress.)

[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]

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.

[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'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. ;-)

[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.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

1524 people have filed to run for president (http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2nm.shtml) (or at least to try to get nominated). I'm not sure why a lot of them do it. Bill wanted to be able to make speeches about his political ideas--he's run in other elections to do that.

[cjlasky.livejournal.com]

Warren probably held off in deference to her old friend Bernie.

But she just made a speech today about how you don't need a bunch of new laws to tackle deep rooted corporate malfeasance and inequality; you just need to actively enforce the laws on the books NOW, and maybe some sort of balance to the economy can be achieved.

It was impassioned, and yet so...so.... sensible. That's the mix you need in a good leader.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed. And she's right...we do have regulations in place, but they've been weakened by other regulations.
Each procedure has a loop-hole or a workaround. We don't necessarily need new laws, we need to strengthen and implement the laws currently in place.

For example -- it's not that billionaires don't have to pay taxes, they do. But there are a lot of ways to avoid it, if you know how. Pre-tax dollars, 401 Ks, tax shelters, charitable contributions...etc.

Have you seen "The Big Short" -- it talks about how the banks were regulated, regulations are in place along with regulatory agencies, but the regulatory agencies were making deals behind the scenes and not regulating the banks. It's a fascinating breakdown on how the system collapsed on itself and why.

And I've talked with my co-worker who emigrated from Russia to the US and he said the problem with Russia was all the back room deals, bribes, and bureaucracy. Certain people, people who could work the system, could get anything they wanted, while honest folks couldn't get scraps. It wasn't the rules, but how they were implemented and who was implementing them.

The devil is the details.