2016 Election Thread

[drjim]

 

But the most important parts are the negotiations to actually get stuff done when the other side has all the power and doesn't agree with you. Bill Clinton pulled that off, Obama mostly has not.

 

Almost sounds like a business transaction.

[mikecgrimes]

 

What is it about Cruz that makes you like him? I'm very much Libertarian, so I wish Paul was as likable as Ron was. In fact, Ron Paul was probably ahead of his time. Put him in these debates and he would destroy these guys. I liked the message Rand was sending with the deficit and spending. I also think he is on the right track with his tax reform. A much more palatable plan than anything I've seen elsewhere. While Bernie Sanders wants to raise minimum wage, Rand was to eliminate a bunch of taxes that stifle growth. Its not perfect, since the rich would undoubtedly benefit more from this plan, but that is where politics comes in and would make it better. He has to try to appeal to the conservative crowd somehow right?

 

I also wish Rubio wasn't such a zealot on some issues. I think he has a good foundation with solid values, but I can't tolerate some of the ultra right conservative agenda. Him missing a bunch of votes in the Senate also bothers me. All he has to do is vote. He has a team working for him that tells him which way to vote. I have a hard time understanding why our congressmen think it is acceptable to not do the one thing we put them in office for. Plus, he skated around the question when asked about it and put the blame on someone else. That might work for some people, but he is going to have to answer to it.

 

Trump/Carson: they are on the way down. The fact both of them are leading in the polls is a perfect example of how out of touch this party and their base is. If one of them are still leading and the other option is someone like Cruz, I will vote for them just so I can see them annihilated in the presidential election. You can't vote people in that call people losers or have no problem alienating the largest religion in the world.    

 

I'm a Ron Paul Republian as well, and if it's up to me Rand is getting the nomination.  I wish Cruz focused as much on economic issues as Ron Paul, but the reality is despite sometimes being overly focused on immigration or abortion Cruz has the grasp and commitment to curbing the economic destruction from the white house (now in it's 15th year). 

 

By the way I don't want Rubio but who cares if he shows up to vote, not exactly the first candidate who missed votes.  The fact of the matter is Rubio is a vote for his side when it matters, if a vote is 58-40 or 58-41 do you actually care?  And if you do actually care did you care enough to find out who else missed the vote?  Nobody actually cares otherwise Obama wouldn't have been electe, and Jeb Bush would be more careful with his endorsements.

[PseudoSABR]

Business is about efficiency.

 

The government should be about efficacy.  

 

If the government is doing the job, the market has not provided a private firm to do the job efficiently. The goals of providing education, safety, welfare are only akin to business in terms of their need for institutionality, not in terms of their purposes or structures.  

 

If the problem could have been solved with the mind of businessman, the market would have provided the solution.  To elect a businessman is likely to ignore the problem altogether.   Such problems--poverty, foreign affairs, defense, crime, wages--cannot/has not been solved as yet by the market. 

 

I just think the values of being the executive of the government must necessarily differ from those of a business executive.  There are many problems that cannot be solved by the compulsion towards profit/efficiency. 

[ashbury]

Almost sounds like a business transaction.

Maybe a few aspects of governance, otherwise not especially.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree with your points Pseudo, but nothing can really prepare you for government but government if we define it that narrowly. What else is there that can prepare you any better than being a CEO if you want to be a governor or president?

[Craig Arko]

I agree with your points Pseudo, but nothing can really prepare you for government but government if we define it that narrowly. What else is there that can prepare you any better than being a CEO if you want to be a governor or president?

I'd be happy with a position where they interact a lot with their future constituents. I rather believe the mission of government is to act on behalf of The People.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd be happy with a position where they interact a lot with their future constituents. I rather believe the mission of government is to act on behalf of The People.

And that's fine, but other than politician what would that be? If we are talking good prep for all the things a presidency or governship will throw at you, I struggle to think what is more well rounded prep than CEO. The nature of governance makes analogous situations difficult.

 

Mind you not all CEOs are good candidates (as this year clearly shows), but I do think it can be valuable previous experience.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And that's fine, but other than politician what would that be? If we are talking good prep for all the things a presidency or governship will throw at you, I struggle to think what is more well rounded prep than CEO. The nature of governance makes analogous situations difficult.

 

Mind you not all CEOs are good candidates (as this year clearly shows), but I do think it can be valuable previous experience.

Another problem with saying CEOs aren't good politicians is the assumption a smart CEO would even try to run the government like a business.

 

Again, I think the biggest problem is that most of the smart CEOs want nothing to do with politics, not that CEOs are inherently bad at the job. Why would a smart, successful CEO even want the job?

[ashbury]

Another problem with saying CEOs aren't good politicians is the assumption a smart CEO would even try to run the government like a business.

OK, but then that means the experience held by this very smart person isn't very relevant after all. Which was the point being made here.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I'm not sure what the point is then? What is good previous experience?

[Craig Arko]

Out of curiosity, what makes people think that there's any previous experience that prepares someone for the variety of major (sometimes life and death) decisions that a national leader is required to make? Have you watched the way being President has aged those who serve in that role? Nothing prepares a person for that, I think.

 

And isn't the point of having a cabinet, chairman of the Joint Chief's, even a VP, ambassadors, even Congress, to bring many peoples' previous experience to bear in arriving at a final decision?

[Brock Beauchamp]

OK, but then that means the experience held by this very smart person isn't very relevant after all. Which was the point being made here.

But what is?

 

I'm not sure there anything that prepares a person to be president and each path has blind spots, even governor.

 

I think too many here are discounting the skills it takes to be a CEO: negotiation, temperment, organization, ability to hire competent people and rely on them, etc. There's a lot of overlap.

[TheLeviathan]

It is certainly true that there are a host of things impossible to specifically prepare for, but im not sure thats a sufficient response.

 

Afterall, many CEOs surround themselves with something of a cabinet as well.

 

While the issues arent exactly analogous, you are still talking about a lot of delegation, setting the tenor with your leadership, and navigating a complex field of obstacles. I struggle to think of anything, though imperfect, that comes close.

[Willihammer]

We are talking about the chief of the executive branch. Improving efficiency absolutely should be a priority.

[Craig Arko]

We are talking about the chief of the executive branch. Improving efficiency absolutely should be a priority.

"At least the trains ran on time."

[Willihammer]

 

"At least the trains ran on time."

Why do you speak so cryptically?

 

Are you suggesting there isn't a difference between efficient and fascist? Please explain what you are getting at.

[Craig Arko]

Well, for one thing the system of checks and balances was put in the Constitution to help make sure bad things are not done too efficiently.

 

Efficient != good, necessarily.

[Willihammer]

 

Well, for one thing the system of checks and balances was put in the Constitution to help make sure bad things are not done too efficiently.

Efficient != good, necessarily.

Thank you, I appreciate the more straightforward language.

 

By "efficiency" I was not suggesting unconstitutional declarations of war or skirting judicial oversight to wiretap citizens. The President's office is in charge of 438 agencies according to the register here: https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies

 

Surely we can agree that improving efficiency of these agencies, consolidating, etc. is a worthwhile goal given we're all paying for them. Eg. how much duplicate effort is there going on between the NSA, Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, and Dept of Defense?

[Craig Arko]

By the way, were I to look at one single profession that produces what I think is the best background to lead this country, I'd say take a good long look at the pool of retired astronauts.

[drjim]

Our current system has lead to the legislature allocating money for the executive to spend with some decent leeway. That is where I think efficiency gains could be realized and a talented CEO could be valuable.

 

I actually think Romney is perhaps the most qualified (eligible) person in our country at the moment. Would have been nice if he actually ran as who he was (competent New England moderate Repub) instead of his silly pandering. Might actually have gotten elected if he could have secured the nomination.

[Hrbowski]

 

By the way, were I to look at one single profession that produces what I think is the best background to lead this country, I'd say take a good long look at the pool of retired astronauts.

If I did I would choose lawyers.

 

Edit: Cellists would be my second choice.

[Hrbowski]

 

Listening to Ted Cruz debate is like reading an Always33 game thread. He's unsure how to begin and extremely reluctant to end.

 

(That's not meant as a compliment to either party.)

They are both very good at what they do.

[DaveW]

By the way, were I to look at one single profession that produces what I think is the best background to lead this country, I'd say take a good long look at the pool of retired astronauts.

PHD in Economics wouldn't hurt as well, Obama had a nice background though as a community organizer, I liked Bill Clintons background as well, there is something to be said about someone "becoming" who they are on their own with out being born into it (trump, bush(w and jeb) etc)

[mikecgrimes]

Probably somewhat of a factor at least in the primary fight is "Extreamist" Matt Bevin wins big as Governor of Kentucky despite all polls showing him trailing or tied.  It appears the average Republican already is saying to heck with the establishment but this win might just push a few more to support who they want rather then avoid "extreamist" out of fear of losing.  Bevin of course tried to take out Mitch McConnell in a primary challange 2 years ago coming just short but making a huge name for himself nationwide and is a huge prospect for the white house in 2024 (I think it's safe to assume "extreamist" Ted Cruz will run for re-election in 2020).

[drjim]

 

Probably somewhat of a factor at least in the primary fight is "Extreamist" Matt Bevin wins big as Governor of Kentucky despite all polls showing him trailing or tied.  It appears the average Republican already is saying to heck with the establishment but this win might just push a few more to support who they want rather then avoid "extreamist" out of fear of losing.  Bevin of course tried to take out Mitch McConnell in a primary challange 2 years ago coming just short but making a huge name for himself nationwide and is a huge prospect for the white house in 2024 (I think it's safe to assume "extreamist" Ted Cruz will run for re-election in 2020).

 

I wonder if this is the election cycle that will finally break the establishment hold on the party.

 

Aside from Obama in 2012 (which is admittedly a huge aside), Republicans have been crushing it since 2008 in elections in all places on all levels, and I can't blame much of the electorate for wondering what, exactly, has been gained by that.

[drjim]

On a similar note, Trump continues to fascinate me. He appears to be running out of steam a little, but still is clinging to the lead

 

Leaving aside the personal complaints against Trump, what fascinates me is the demographics he has managed to capture. He is getting the white, more moderate(ish), secular, lesser(ish) educated part of the population. He has captured something from a segment of the population that is large, but that is not at all represented by either political party and is generally ignored by elites (including political, media, business, religious, etc).

 

There is news that the death rate of middle class white males is increasing, contra every other demographic and every other advanced country. This is representative, in my mind, of a certain despair in that group. They are getting squeezed out of the labor market (either lack skills for jobs available or the low skilled jobs don't pay enough to support a family) and it is manifested further in low marriage rates, high divorce rates, poor health metrics, declining church attendance (representing cutting off social organizations), increasing debt, minimal savings, and many of the other bad indicators that aren't being noticed by college educated people in our country.

 

Can either party offer anything to this demographic? Do they even care? In my mind this is the biggest political and social question facing our country, and there is nothing really being offered. Makes "extremist" candidates that much more attractive.

[TheLeviathan]

Electing Matt Bevin is confirmation that Kentucky is full of stupid people.  Allow John Oliver to explain.  (Go to the 11:15 mark)

 

 

[drjim]

 

Electing Matt Bevin is confirmation that Kentucky is full of stupid people.  Allow John Oliver to explain.  (Go to the 11:15 mark)

 

It's a real mystery why Democrats keep losing elections with responses like this.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's a real mystery why Democrats keep losing elections with responses like this.

 

 

Not really, the Dems stink at getting turnout in non-Presidential elections.  

 

I mean, it's not much to hang your hat on that you managed to get a two-faced moron elected because the other side is lazy and apathetic.

[drjim]

 

Not really, the Dems stink at getting turnout in non-Presidential elections.  

 

I mean, it's not much to hang your hat on that you managed to get a two-faced moron elected because the other side is lazy and apathetic.

 

Stink is one way to put it. Offering nothing of substance to inspire people to actually vote would be another.

 

Shouldn't Dems be embarrassed that they can't beat a two-faced moron?