American Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Parties of the right always have that advantage due to the age differential, it just gets highlighted that bit more in the US because even though your system has general elections every two years, the public still thinks it's the ones every four years that count. But then the Dems held congress for a huge amount of time pre-90s, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Will they be able to overturn the gerrymandered districts any time soon?

Your earlier point about changing demographics is really the key though - I read that if there had been the same ratio of minorities in the US back in '88 as in 2012, Dukakis would've won. The GOP need to adapt or die.
 
Saw a clip on 'How The States Got Their Shape' on gerrymandering, and it's quite sad to think how politics have conned the public and practically stolen elections with this clear altering of districts. I can't quite locate the particular segment from the aforementioned show but was able to find a few other clips from other shows. It's bullshit this is allowed to occur but it's not like we the people can stop it.



http://www.c-span.org/video/?315772-5/gerrymandering
 
proportional representation would be fair. That way each person's votes has the same weight.

As a check and balance I don't mind the two senators per state.

The key is to win the state legislatures. Its the legislatures that do the redistricting.
 
There is a definite trend there, but that will likely slightly reverse at the next election (or at least slow) as Obama won unprecedented numbers of african-americans, and that campaign's ability to get out the vote was immense. Even so, I'd say there's a pretty strong probability of it going blue again in 2016.

There are a number of states that are trending Blue - not necessarily because of Obama, but rather because of demographic shifts, changing norms on issues like gay rights, weed legalization, etc, as well as the usual, gradual migration of people from rural to urban areas. That's not to say Virginia will go democratic next time, but certainly it is no longer the somewhat solid GOP lock in Presidential elections.

What's particularly interesting is Texas - the Dems are putting a lot of money to "turn Texas blue". It certainly won't happen in this next election, especially if its Hillary vs Jeb, but down the road, there is a progressive strain growing in the bigger Texan cities, as well as a very high hispanic population who aren't fans of GOP immigration policies. If the right candidate combinations were in place, I would say Texas might be in play in 2020.
 
I can't be the only who think it's a bit mental that Hilary will most likely be President. For a place were everyone is told that anyone can be President they sure like to keep in the family.
 
I can't be the only who think it's a bit mental that Hilary will most likely be President. For a place were everyone is told that anyone can be President they sure like to keep in the family.

The name recognition obviously helps her, as well as Bush.
 
The name recognition obviously helps her, as well as Bush.

I can see why people would vote for her and the first women for the US will be another big step. It just the idea of the president in the US is view with such importance (and it seems at times too much importance) that they seem quite happy to give someone who so close to a former president(same with Bush as well).

 
Money and connections helps a lot too.
 
Bush has a very good chance imo. He's pragmatic enough to get independent voters and has the name recognition to get conservatives over to his side, especially if he picks someone like Rubio.
 
Anti-Bushness must still be pretty prevalent over there though? Or has that begun to evaporate?
 
I doubt it would matter since his policies would be different than Dubya, especially if his time in Florida is anything to go by.
 
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

On the other hand:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.

"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."

This is the "Duh Report", says Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.

"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here."
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

On the other hand:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.

"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."

This is the "Duh Report", says Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.

"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
 
I wouldn't think that the power structures of society being dominated by wealthy elites should come as a surprise to anyone. That doesn't reduce the democratic process as some might suggest though. People are still allowed to vote for whoever they please, and there are usually multiple candidates in each political race to choose from. What needs to be reduced is the ability for corporations and action committees to donate large sums, which I'm sure will happen once one more Democratic leaning Supreme Court justice is nominated.
 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_worl...n_s_pregnancy_if_it.html?wpisrc=hpsponsoredd2

If It Happened There: America Awaits Royal Baby

The latest installment of a continuing series in which American events are described using the tropes and tone normally employed by the American media to describe events in other countries.


WASHINGTON, United States—Though free of monarchy for more than two centuries, Americans this week were strangely fascinated by the news that one of the country’s pre-eminent political families will be producing its next heir. The news has produced baby fever in the nation’s often sensationalist and highly partisan media and sparked a new round of discussion about the role of powerful clans in the nation’s public affairs.

The politics of the world’s second-largest democracy have long been dominated by a handful of influential families. In recent decades, it has often been a brutal contest of wills between two rival clans in particular.

For the past year, however, neither of the country’s most powerful dynasties has had a member serving in the executive mansion or the Cabinet—something that has not happened in 34 years. This week’s news comes at a time when speculation is high that the Clinton dynasty may be angling to take the reins of power once more.

More than two decades ago, the Clintons swept out of the country’s southern heartland—an economically depressed region with a bloody history—to storm the capital. They have dominated the national conversation ever since, as much for family patriarch Bill’s prodigious appetites and often controversial public statements as their fairly staid brand of center-left politics.

After Bill was forced by term limits to surrender power in 2000, his wife, Hillary, entered the national legislature and in 2008 followed in the footsteps of a number of the Western Hemisphere’s first ladies in recent years by running for the presidency herself.

She would have been the first female president of a country that, while highly Westernized in many respects, still has an overwhelmingly male-dominated political culture. In a shocking result, voters rejected the Clintons’ bid to return to the executive mansion and Hillary was forced to settle for a four-year tenure as foreign minister.

The couple’s daughter, Chelsea, grew up in the public eye, and the announcement of her pregnancy this week drew attention from the normally staid broadsheets read by the country’s elite as well the gossip-focused publications more popular with the general public here. The family’s political opponents, meanwhile, griped that the timing of the announcement was not coincidental.

For while the country’s next presidential election is more than two years away, speculation is already running high that Chelsea’s mother will be making another bid to return the family to power. (Unlike nearby Guatemala, America has no law barring spouses of ex-presidents from seeking office themselves.)

At the same time, Chelsea—a frequent presence on a pro-government broadcasting network—has recently suggested that she may have designs on public office herself at some point, raising the possibility that, like the Nehru-Gandhis of India or Aquinos of the Philippines before them, the Clintons could create a multiple-generation political dynasty. (Chelsea’s child will not be eligible to occupy the country’s highest office until the 2052 election.)

Meanwhile, the Clinton restoration may face a challenge from their longtime rivals the Bushes. Jeb, the younger brother of one former president and son of another, has lately been courting the support of the nation’s growing foreign-born population but is mistrusted by many in his party’s hardline nationalist wing.

The Bush family recently welcomed a new member as well, raising the possibility that the bitter feud that has dominated and at times crippled this economically struggling nation’s politics may last decades into the future.


These crack me up.
 
I wouldn't think that the power structures of society being dominated by wealthy elites should come as a surprise to anyone. That doesn't reduce the democratic process as some might suggest though
What bare-faced bollox. The rich control who gets elected by their control of electoral funds: that leads to their chosen ones getting elected and not tackling their extreme wealth collection and retention.
 
I can't be the only who think it's a bit mental that Hilary will most likely be President. For a place were everyone is told that anyone can be President they sure like to keep in the family.

No you're not. I posted a couple of years ago that I found it hard to view the US as a genuine democracy when a handful of families hold so much power, such as the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons. To be fair no one agreed with me, although I got a lot of laughing smilies for mentioning the Clintons for some reason.
 
:lol: The Kochtopus

http://kochcash.org/

kochtopus.jpg
 
What bare-faced bollox. The rich control who gets elected by their control of electoral funds: that leads to their chosen ones getting elected and not tackling their extreme wealth collection and retention.

If that were true then someone like Obama would never have risen from obscure politician to most powerful man in the world in 4 years. He neither had any money nor the backing of the establishment, and rose to power largely through small donations of individual voters and the way he presented himself when he was given the chance. The amount of money in the system is obviously a problem, but the fact that people who started off with very little can rise to the top, suggests the premise does not always apply - in some cases to the most powerful leaders.
 
Come on, Raul, we all know Obama's timing was perfect. Coming off that disaster of the Bush presidency, the nation wanted change. He was a rockstar, a celebrity politician. Perfect timing. All it proves is that the uber elite/wealthy cannot always buy a presidency but they clearly influence policy across the board.
 
Come on, Raul, we all know Obama's timing was perfect. Coming off that disaster of the Bush presidency, the nation wanted change. He was a rockstar, a celebrity politician. Perfect timing. All it proves is that the uber elite/wealthy cannot always buy a presidency but they clearly influence policy across the board.

That doesn't explain why he came out of nowhere and beat Hillary. She was more or less considered a sure bet to win the Dem nomination as well as the favorite to take the White House. The overarching point here is that exceptional politicians can rise to greatness, out of seemingly very little. Yes money in politics is a problem and needs to be dealt with, but its no substituion for running a good, disciplined campaign based on ideas that connect with people.
 
That doesn't explain why he came out of nowhere and beat Hillary. She was more or less considered a sure bet to win the Dem nomination as well as the favorite to take the White House. The overarching point here is that exceptional politicians can rise to greatness, out of seemingly very little. Yes money in politics is a problem and needs to be dealt with, but its no substituion for running a good, disciplined campaign based on ideas that connect with people.

Because plenty of people dislike Hillary. Obama came across a more likeable and charismatic personality for me and many others compared to Hillary.

And we have to give the most powerful person in the world some credit. That's right, Oprah!
 
Because plenty of people dislike Hillary. Obama came across a more likeable and charismatic personality for me and many others compared to Hillary.

And we have to give the most powerful person in the world some credit. That's right, Oprah!

It seems his likeability and charisma helped him offset the fact that he was a relative political unknown, as well as navigate his way through the primaries and general election campaigns without the institutional financial backing Hillary had. Also, if I recall, his first campaign was largely funded through small pay-pal type contributions donated by individual citizens.
 
It seems his likeability and charisma helped him offset the fact that he was a relative political unknown, as well as navigate his way through the primaries and general election campaigns without the institutional financial backing Hillary had. Also, if I recall, his first campaign was largely funded through small pay-pal type contributions donated by individual citizens.
Yeah, he pissed off a few of the bigger donors in that first campaign if I remember correctly, and had to go back semi cap in hand in 2012 as the small donors weren't going to match up. Hillary has them bought and paid for already, of course.
 
That doesn't explain why he came out of nowhere and beat Hillary. She was more or less considered a sure bet to win the Dem nomination as well as the favorite to take the White House. The overarching point here is that exceptional politicians can rise to greatness, out of seemingly very little. Yes money in politics is a problem and needs to be dealt with, but its no substituion for running a good, disciplined campaign based on ideas that connect with people.


He did have a perfect storm going for him. The repub candidate had no chance of winning barring the Dem candidate eating a baby during one of the debates. But as far as Hillary goes, she is not universally likeable. Obama grab a quick easy message (Hope and Change) and communitcated it well. Then coming after Bush, a good many people wanted a candidate who appeared to be an outsider (even though he really wasn't), someone who they did not see are part of the same old power structure. Obama, at least on the surface, fit the bill better then Hillary, Hillary can claim to be alot of things, but she is a DC insider, among the top of the political power elite.
 
That doesn't explain why he came out of nowhere and beat Hillary. She was more or less considered a sure bet to win the Dem nomination as well as the favorite to take the White House. The overarching point here is that exceptional politicians can rise to greatness, out of seemingly very little. Yes money in politics is a problem and needs to be dealt with, but its no substituion for running a good, disciplined campaign based on ideas that connect with people.

Hilary strategy of just going after the big states was very poor. Obama went for delegates. The delegates were alocated proportionately. By the time the Clintons figured this out..it was too late. They did offer Obama the Vice Presidency though.

Still feel it wont be Grandma Hillary.

The GOP base wants a complete loon.....but the establishment will settle for Loon Jr.
 
Can anyone enlighten me on the logic behind the American prison system.

Since 1980 the population has risen by around 1/3. In the same period, the amount of inmates has risen by 800%. A ridiculous 0.7% of the population is locked up.

Having large portions of the population locked up for years based on repeat crimes they did in their youth growing up in harsh neighborhoods doesnt really seem to serve much purpose. From an outsider perspective there doesnt seem to be any attempts at rehabilitation and reentry into society either.

How do American politicians defend the ridiculous prisoner rates and dysfunctional prison system?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.