So, not defeating Trump is the path to great policies?
2020 US Election (Part One)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I originally read this as 'we rather shoot those kids' and that worked just as well.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
So, have to decide what you want. Terrible policies or Sadistic policies. Decisions, decisions...
Put me down for Warren with Sanders as VP pick.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,418
Political systems in other large countries have been "burnt" lately, with "traditional" parties fragmenting or collapsing. It's not impossible for that to happen in the US. Both parties seem to be in need of replacement. It's too bad you also have a FTPT system like the british but that does not prevent change, only makes it harder.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,514
I personally don't want Sanders as part of the administration. He seems like he would be like Jeremy Corbyn, but even crankier, and spend all his time fighting with his own party rather than governing/leading the opposition.
Let Sanders stay out of the administration, but (especially if Warren is President) allied to it, so he can be all cranky and rabble-rousing on the outside.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
But that is the best thing about him!
That would be why he's VP. So that he'd get a voice. I really like Yang, wish he had a chance.
But Warren really won me over long before she became a politician
But Warren really won me over long before she became a politician
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,418
Indeed it is. The key thing to consider is that in any complex organization power is distributed, the person on top can make choices but has to deal with competing demands of other power groups.
Consider the story of how Bill Clinton turned neoliberal, as it is usually told. He was elected with a platform that called for some kind of universal health care already, for restoring rights to labour, for spending if necessary to increase employment. Then his treasury secretary told him that "investors" would not finance a government deficit to allow those policies to be carried out. And he went along and dropped it all.
History has unambiguously shown that "investors" are a bogeyman and the US government can increase its debt tine and again, indeed it has been doing it non-stop. And bailed out the private investors to boot! But because Clinton was spineless* he turned right. And many of the current problems you are dealing with go back to those decisions.
It is very important to have a person on top who is capable of disagreeing with the other powers at play, of fighting, of carrying out what he campaigned on and damn the naysayers. Among the candidates, who can you trust to do that?
This is the kind of thing that Sanders, and only him, can be trusted to actually do if he wins. All the others will either be spooked by talk of "investors withholding confidence"**, or are members of their club already.
* or because he never meant to apply what he had campaigned for.
** as if they had any other country to withdraw their capital to if they wanted. The US sits and will continue to sit an the center of world finance, it's not a small country that can be "punished" by "investors".
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,514
Clinton was a neoliberal from the start. IIRC he was one of the founders of the Democratic Leadership Conference to push for "Third Way" policies after Mondale's campaign was electorally a wipeout (and not just due to Jon Anderson running a strong game in traditionally Democratic voting blocks). He was trumpeted as one of the "New Democrats" from the start, with any left-wing policies being ditched once he won the election. Clinton knew how to speak the language of the left and wrap up right-wing policies in leftist words (not unlike Blair or Brown), and the left was all too happy believe in him after the 12 years out of office and the increasing collapse of their traditional blue-collar voting bloc.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,418
I do believe that. But he still campaigned on left-wing policies (at least compared to current ones), and still used that usual excuse of "but investors don't allow me to" to betray his voters.
Zardnaar
Deity
Clinton had to pivot to the centre.
Look at what happened to the Democrats in the 80s.
The older ones who survived watched the more liberal Dems get booted from office.
Right now America is very slightly left of center. Very slightly.
But it's not enough due to where they live. The election isn't going to be won or lost in California or New York.
If they had something like NZs system you would probably have 4 or 5 parties.
The Uber liberals still wouldn't get what the want, things tend to be dragged towards center right or left. The Uber conservative s would be in a similar position though. Would the GoP get more votes from blue states vs Democrat pick ups in red states?
Trump could still win though as he would have had incentive to campaign in California.
The GoP would pick up more votes from California for example. Hilary won the popular vote under a fptp system.
The Democratic party would likely spilt as well, GoP maybe but less of a chance. Someone like Biden or Perot could probably soak up 10 or 20% of the vote and swing an election.
Warren would more or less be at home in the Australian/UK/NZ Labour party.
Look at what happened to the Democrats in the 80s.
The older ones who survived watched the more liberal Dems get booted from office.
Right now America is very slightly left of center. Very slightly.
But it's not enough due to where they live. The election isn't going to be won or lost in California or New York.
If they had something like NZs system you would probably have 4 or 5 parties.
The Uber liberals still wouldn't get what the want, things tend to be dragged towards center right or left. The Uber conservative s would be in a similar position though. Would the GoP get more votes from blue states vs Democrat pick ups in red states?
Trump could still win though as he would have had incentive to campaign in California.
The GoP would pick up more votes from California for example. Hilary won the popular vote under a fptp system.
The Democratic party would likely spilt as well, GoP maybe but less of a chance. Someone like Biden or Perot could probably soak up 10 or 20% of the vote and swing an election.
Warren would more or less be at home in the Australian/UK/NZ Labour party.
Last edited by a moderator:
You mean voters' preferences, right?
Zardnaar
Deity
Yes. Even in preferential system though it wouldn't mean the right can't win. NZ is left of center elections are roughly 50/50 now.
Neo liberal economics can still win the hard right and left can't win.
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,731
What do you have in mind? The congress was republican from 94 onward, so there would hardly have been a need to dress a "right-wing" policy as something else if he wanted it passed. But relatively little got passed.
Zardnaar
Deity
Birthright citizenship seems a bit odd to me assuming I understand it correctly.
If an American women came to New Zealand in holiday and gave birth here that child is an NZ citizen? Assuming the child's father wasn't an NZer.
We don't have that here lol. My assumptions could be wrong.
Children of mixed nationalities should be legible for citizenship in either country IMHO.
If an American women came to New Zealand in holiday and gave birth here that child is an NZ citizen? Assuming the child's father wasn't an NZer.
We don't have that here lol. My assumptions could be wrong.
Children of mixed nationalities should be legible for citizenship in either country IMHO.
Last edited:
- Status
