What do you think about the 2016 US presidential race?

[robocop (actually)]

For this thread I would like it if we talk friendly and not try to poison the well (make a candidate look so bad with a hot button issue that everyone immediately hates them).

I think Hillary Clinton is inadmissible. Mitt Romney is a mark off. Elizabeth Warren is fine. Elizabeth Warren is great. Republicans are a good vote. Republicans will need to have a say on global warming.

 

[Sunstone]

I think whoever wins, whether Republican or Democrat, will be securely beholden to Wall Street, the corporations, and the uber-rich. That doesn't mean there won't be some significant and meaningful differences between the final candidates, but I do think it means that fundamental reform of, say, the financial sector, will be put off until at the very least, the next economic catastrophe.

 

[gsa]

I don't really care for Clinton as a rule, but I would vote for her over any of the current crop in the Republican field. And I would enthusiastically support Warren.

 

[gsa]

I think whoever wins, whether Republican or Democrat, will be securely beholden to Wall Street, the corporations, and the uber-rich. That doesn't mean there won't be some significant and meaningful differences between the final candidates, but I do think it means that fundamental reform of, say, the financial sector, will be put off until at the very least, the next economic catastrophe.

Warren is about the best I could hope for on that front. But in general I agree.

 

[Sunstone]

I read the other day that fundraisers for both parties are now predicting the election will cost five billion to buy the white house. That compares with the one billion it cost the Democrats to buy it during the first Obama term.

 

[Sunstone]

Warren is about the best I could hope for on that front. But in general I agree.

I love Warren, but I don't think she can raise the money.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't really care for Clinton as a rule, but I would vote for her over any of the current crop in the Republican field. And I would enthusiastically support Warren.

You'd even vote for Clinton over Ted Cruz? Scandalous!

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

A Rand Paul presidency would be interesting, if he could win.

 

[Laika]

I live in the UK, but I'm hoping it won't be a Hilary Clinton versus Jeb Bush race as that will prove how dead democracy is in America. Wall Street will win pretty much whoever gets in.

But purely in terms of spectacle- and regrettably that's really all it is now- and probably what best sums up America, here's my choice...

For Republican:

yeah, I know he's Austrian and doesn't qualify. but imagine the campaign ads... if it's even possible.

For "Democrat" (if he could stand the idea):

After that Race, America would never be the same again. (Chomsky is my choice).

 

[gsa]

I live in the UK, but I'm hoping it won't be a Hilary Clinton versus Jeb Bush race as that will prove how dead democracy is in America. Wall Street will win pretty much whoever gets in.

But purely in terms of spectacle- and regrettably that's really all it is now- and probably what best sums up America, here's my choice...

For Republican:

yeah, I know he's Austrian and doesn't qualify. but imagine the campaign ads... if it's even possible.

For "Democrat" (if he could stand the idea):

After that Race, America would never be the same again. (Chomsky is my choice).

Well the Bush dynasty is an actual elite dynasty, while the Clinton partnership is a more nuanced problem for American democracy, primarily the influence of money and the Washington-based political elite. I have no real fear that their only child will be campaigning for president or any other higher office in the near future.

Visually the Clint/Bush rematch looks bad, but the fundamental problems would still exist if the race was between Romney and Warren, or Jindal and Biden.

 

[gsa]

A Rand Paul presidency would be interesting, if he could win.

If he governed the way his rhetoric suggests, it would be a haphazard nightmare, with US foreign and domestic policy vacillating between extreme pseudo-libertarian positions. In reality I suspect that a Rand presidency would not look much different from any other Republican presidency.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If he governed the way his rhetoric suggests, it would be a haphazard nightmare, with US foreign and domestic policy vacillating between extreme pseudo-libertarian positions. In reality I suspect that a Rand presidency would not look much different from any other Republican presidency.

Hm I dunno, depends how far he takes it. He could succumb to the powers that be and run your run-of-the-mill Republican presidency, but if he really cuts down the government and gives more power and more freedom to the people it could really set forth an interesting precedent.

 

[Tarheeler]

I read the other day that fundraisers for both parties are now predicting the election will cost five billion to buy the white house. That compares with the one billion it cost the Democrats to buy it during the first Obama term.

It's sad that that is an accurate description of how our political systems works, isn't it?

It doesn't matter if a Democrat or a Republican wins, they are both bought for and beholden to the same people.

And the big two make sure to keep it that way. They ensure that campaign, election, and ballot laws all work to keep out third parties and that we remain a two-party system. Couple that with the billions the rich spend to concrete the power (and maximize their investments, of course), and you have almost a zero chance of ever seeing a Libertarian, a Green, or a SPUSA candidate winning a federal election.

 

[gsa]

Hm I dunno, depends how far he takes it. He could succumb to the powers that be and run your run-of-the-mill Republican presidency, but if he really cuts down the government and gives more power and more freedom to the people it could really set forth an interesting precedent.

Except that the growth of the federal government is a result of population changes, including increases, aging and urbanization. Every candidate runs on cutting (domestic) government spending, and every president oversees the growth of (domestic and overseas) government spending. Every attempt to slash clearly unnecessary military expenditures encounters fierce resistance because the only actual welfare queens are in defense. And so on and so on.

There are also legal and political limits to the ability of any president to accomplish this utopian slash and burn policy by fiat.

 

[gsa]

It's sad that that is an accurate description of how our political systems works, isn't it?

It doesn't matter if a Democrat or a Republican wins, they are both bought for and beholden to the same people.

And the big two make sure to keep it that way. They ensure that campaign, election, and ballot laws all work to keep out third parties and that we remain a two-party system. Couple that with the billions the rich spend to concrete the power (and maximize their investments, of course), and you have almost a zero chance of ever seeing a Libertarian, a Green, or a SPUSA candidate winning a federal election.

I agree, but I also think the third parties aren't doing themselves any favors. The easiest way to grow a third party is to successfully implement something like proportional representation at the state level, and use the states as an actual political experiment the way they were intended. I haven't seen any third party or movement of third parties committed to this idea.

 

[Tarheeler]

I agree, but I also think the third parties aren't doing themselves any favors. The easiest way to grow a third party is to successfully implement something like proportional representation at the state level, and use the states as an actual political experiment the way they were intended. I haven't seen any third party or movement of third parties committed to this idea.

I know both the Greens and the SPUSA target local and state races more than national ones.

I agree more needs to be done, and that it has to start locally, but it's just as hard to break the two-party system on the state level as it is on the federal one.

They know if proportional representation ever takes hold they, and the people financing them, are going to loose power quickly.

 

[Quintessence]

I fundamentally do not understand how financing influences this stuff so much in the first place. I don't pay attention to any of the $#@% they fund with it. In this day and age, all you need is a website and an internet campaign, plus a meager amount of foot work to catch the non-net demographic.

 

[Tarheeler]

I fundamentally do not understand how financing influences this stuff so much in the first place. I don't pay attention to any of the $#@% they fund with it. In this day and age, all you need is a website and an internet campaign, plus a meager amount of foot work to catch the non-net demographic.

Only a portion of it goes into actual ads; a lot of it is used to support legislation (like keeping third parties off the ballots) and influencing the media (such as no third parties at debates).

 

[robocop (actually)]

Jindal/Biden? That would be two people who care about workers and the middle class-interesting. I thought Rand Paul said he wouldn't run. Yes the civilization grows naturally-whether government should as well is of course an issue.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For this thread I would like it if we talk friendly and not try to poison the well ...
I think Hillary Clinton is inadmissible. ...

OK ...