The General US Politics Thread

Which is a bit of a dumb idea. We need the world and the world needs us.

@Sledge: You're assuming that there is any kind of consensus on what "Americans" want. You do realize that we've got a broad, badly polarized, spectrum of opinions with absolutely no consensus, right? (Hint: You're not the American consensus. Not even close. Nor am I, nor is any consensus of this site's posters.)

Anyway, the Republicans won't implode completely, but money isn't in the driver's seat anymore, insanity is (to the extent that money is involved, it's the money of lunatic ideologues rather than Corrupt Corporate Executives). The Chamber of Commerce's candidates are being shoved aside in favor of religious/libertarian/racist/fascist fanatics who regularly show up to vote. These guys are reality-proof, and that's what makes them dangerous. The rest of the country disagrees with them and is moving on, but anyone who goes to Congress in a Republican seat is either one of them or scared to death of them. (Exhibit A: Boehner. He's the guy you think of when you think "Republican," but his caucus is holding him at swordpoint and he doesn't have the strength to break them anymore.) A few brave, brazen kleptocrats have managed to ally with them for mutual benefit (Walker), but that's a sign of exceptionally robust evil and the calculus for governors is different from the calculus for Senators or especially Reps.

Instead, what's going to happen is everyone sane is going to abandon the Tea Party, which will try to keep itself afloat for a while by gerrymandering and voter suppression. After that, though, the teabaggers are going to continue fighting to control Congress whether or not they can ever take hold, and there's enough of them that they will be able to consistently become a "party of no" and force everyone else (from far-left to right-wing) into a single "anything but the Tea Party" coalition (to wit, the Democratic party we have now).

Barring a radical shift such as a socialist revolution, I don't think we'll actually be able to purge these guys from our political system.

I'm totally cool with socialist revolution.

As long as it doesn't cut into my work hours. I still need food.

Wages will be abolished After The Revolution™. You will be paid directly in food. Line six, comrade. NEXT!

edited 23rd Aug '14 2:21:24 PM by Achaemenid

There absolutely is consensus in the American people. Poll after poll, issue after issue, no matter the phrases question, the American people absolutely and wholeheartedly share the views I outlined.

The American people are not as uniformly in line with the establishment as certain people would like to believe. It is utter nonsense to believe the people agree with the machines in office. However, the only change that will come will be by removing money from politics - gay marriage is only possible because that's where the money goes, for example.

Exhibit A: the Chamber of Commerce - the wolves from Wall Street, mainly - still control the GOP, and their "business-minded" attitude gives them full authority over the Teabaggers. Some exceptions occur, but money - ala the Chamber of Commerce - reigns still.

edited 23rd Aug '14 3:42:31 PM by Sledgesaul

Eric Cantor is not "some exceptions." The Tea Party was able to oust him by running against the Chamber of Commerce. Likewise, Boehner has lost control of his caucus to the teabaggers, even if his own seat is safe.

The tail has come to wag the dog.

And the dog will sink its teeth in the tail.

You really think the money-loving Chamber of Commerce will ever lose to the Teabaggers? That's a pipe dream. Eric Cantor's out, but his clone in Kevin McCarthy took his place. No Teabagger is in a high seat of power in the House or Senate.

Only because thouse already in thouse seats of power are throwing themselves further and further to the right in an attempt placate the tea party. Soon enough they're going to go so far right that they might as well be the tea party or they're going to refuse to and get ousted.

The tea party has owned the bottom half the ticket for the last two presidential elections (and the top half in the last one was practically their puppet due to fear of them), and they're getting more powerful within the Republican Party all the time, soon enough they may be able to take the top spot on the ticket.

Which is bad

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee beg to differ,beat out conservative establishment incumbents in '10.

edited 23rd Aug '14 4:57:35 PM by terlwyth

There are more sane businessmen who hate the Tea Party. Money will triumph, as it often does.

The way you talk we might as well give you a robe and a sign and let you be a sidewalk prophet.

I'm analyzing the present based on what I've seen from the past.

Tea Party doesn't need someone in a high seat of Senate power to have their way.

Having control over Fox News and the rest of its rabid base, along with its huge pile of money, is enough to scare every single GOP Politican deep into the Far Right.

@Sledgesaul: Let's let the people who actually know the math do the analysis, ne?

According to Stephen J. Dubner and Steve Levitt, authors of Freakanomics, money does not win elections. It's backwards, in fact; being popular with voters gets you fundraising, but after you have enough money to compete at all, being able to spam a jurisdiction with money doesn't guarantee you an election.

Hasn't Freakanomics largely been discredited?

The main criticism is that it's not actually discussing economics, but sociology and criminology. Most of the criticism is that it's hard to tell what, exactly, they're talking about.

I've heard there was also a lot of bad science in it.

Freakonomics is a case of being mostly a set of half-proven assertions being passed off as completely proven.

The issues are that 1) they are being passed off as completely proven by the authors (for shame), and 2) instead of fleshing out the studies to prove or disprove these assertions, a lot of economists, sociologists, and other talking heads are just saying the equivalent of "no, you're completely wrong, so there" without a full body of evidence on their end either. Which is also a shame, because I'd love to see more studies done on some of the subjects they brought up.

At the very least, I'd like a second opinion of sorts.

Fair enough.

Still at least as valid as a naked assertion, however.

To be fair to them, all the money in the world didn't keep the California Governor's seat GOP in 2010,despite the disproportionate amount of states where the rich-ass CEO's swept in.

In fact Jerry Brown got a 3rd term despite spending a tenth of the opponent(Meg Whitman).

And before that the incumbent in 2002 (Gray Davis) had Nixon/Truman/Carter/Dubya approval ratings,but beat out the CEO opponent (Bill Simon). While it's true Davis would end up recalled the next year, he still took the gubernatorial.

Political advertising seems like it would only really work on casual voters: either on someone who doesn't do much research on the candidates before going to the polls and then bases their decision on who they can remember hearing good things about, or on someone who already knows which candidate they prefer but needs some rousing rhetoric to motivate them to actually head out and vote. If someone has already made up their mind that they're going to vote, and they read up on the candidates beforehand, then the ads they've seen probably aren't going to matter.

Civil Rights march in New York over chokehold killing. Everyone keeps it in their pants, the entire protest is peaceful on both sides.

I wonder how much spending on advertising vs spending on mobilization and get out the vote efforts is effective.

Anyway, it's hard to do a controlled experiment. I think the best that can be said is that money isn't everything (sorry Whitman) but it does help.