2020 presidential candidate 'crats

[Kat Kid]

joe biden had like 3 dollars in the bank on february 28, kat kid.

and bloomberg spent $1 billion....

you think this is what people mean by "money in politics?"

[sys]

what does it mean to you?

[star seed 7]

I'm a bit disappointed in sys here too

[sys]

I'm a bit disappointed in sys here too

one has to go where the data takes you.


i do think money influences electoral outcomes to a much greater degree in races for lesser offices, but it's actually not as easy to tease apart as one might think - the person that raises the most money almost always has other advantages (incumbency, party support, name recognition, etc) that confound effects.

[Spracne]

money, as we all know, controls politics.

https://twitter.com/Robillard/status/1252344635558514689

With the money he spent running for President, he could have given even single American $3,000,000 

[Kat Kid]

I'm a bit disappointed in sys here too

one has to go where the data takes you.


i do think money influences electoral outcomes to a much greater degree in races for lesser offices, but it's actually not as easy to tease apart as one might think - the person that raises the most money almost always has other advantages (incumbency, party support, name recognition, etc) that confound effects.

“Electoral outcomes” has been lessened because of small donor campaigns. But I think “money in politics” is not just campaign contributions. But just as a for instance, Jim Clyburn is the number 1 recipient of pharma money. Do we think this had zero to do with his views or that this is just dumb on the part of the pharma companies?

[sys]

“Electoral outcomes” has been lessened because of small donor campaigns. But I think “money in politics” is not just campaign contributions. But just as a for instance, Jim Clyburn is the number 1 recipient of pharma money. Do we think this had zero to do with his views or that this is just dumb on the part of the pharma companies?

it's all the same thing.  clyburn takes the pharma money because he thinks it will help him get reelected (a little bit of other motivation, some legit and some less so, speaking as a rule not for clyburn specifically).

if the end result is falsified, then the whole chain is either a self-perpetuating delusion or will eventually fall apart.

[MakeItRain]

I'm a bit disappointed in sys here too

one has to go where the data leads me to the conclusion that I want to see.

[MakeItRain]

I will give sys credit for consistency. I believe it was he who, a couple of years ago, tried to convince me that NRA's money didn't buy the influence that we think it does.

[sys]

I will give sys credit for consistency. I believe it was he who, a couple of years ago, tried to convince me that NRA's money didn't buy the influence that we think it does.

has it been that long already?  seems more recent.  or maybe we had the same disagreement and discussion on israel more recently.

but yeah, the money in politics critique is at least partly a rationalization people engage in to avoid recognizing that positions they disagree with have significant support among fellow voters.

[MakeItRain]

I will give sys credit for consistency. I believe it was he who, a couple of years ago, tried to convince me that NRA's money didn't buy the influence that we think it does.

has it been that long already?  seems more recent.  or maybe we had the same disagreement and discussion on israel more recently.

but yeah, the money in politics critique is at least partly a rationalization people engage in to avoid recognizing that positions they disagree with have significant support among fellow voters.

No, you're turning a conversation into a chicken or egg conversation that isn't one. Money in politics, particularly in the areas of two-party politics, guns, and health care does two things. First, it's used to get people to act against their own interests. Secondly, allows decision-making pols to ignore the will of their constituents. A lot of opinions are formed by money. I won't limit these to conservative causes either, the same could be said about how we view education in this country. The NEA is largely influential and they absolutely use their money and power to shape opinions.

[sys]

i should add that it also allows people to absolve themselves of their shared responsibility, in a democracy, for the decisions of their elected representatives.

[Kat Kid]

I will give sys credit for consistency. I believe it was he who, a couple of years ago, tried to convince me that NRA's money didn't buy the influence that we think it does.

has it been that long already?  seems more recent.  or maybe we had the same disagreement and discussion on israel more recently.

but yeah, the money in politics critique is at least partly a rationalization people engage in to avoid recognizing that positions they disagree with have significant support among fellow voters.

If you think the vast majority of the American public has anything that might be considered a political ideology than I think you are nuts. People consume politics as a spectacle now (not that this is new, but it is by far the dominant lens) and there is seemingly no relationship between policy preferences and voting other than some culture war proxies. No one really gives a crap about achieving policy goals, just owning the other side. The people that stand to materially benefit from any actual change to the system don’t participate in it because they view it (rightly) as corrupt and (wrongly in my opinion) not worth participating in.

[sys]

If you think the vast majority of the American public has anything that might be considered a political ideology than I think you are nuts.

people have opinions, whether you or i would judge those opinions to form a coherent ideology means little.  i agree with you (at least i think we're in agreement) that negative partisanship rules the day.

[catastrophe]

I definitely think if we had limits on campaign spending you’d end up with a pretty different candidate pool. My guess is for the better but who knows. Right now it definitely seems to consistently end up being pretty swampy/gross, independently wealthy, and crazy nutso.

[catastrophe]

I think the difference is that in the current system candidates focus on building a coalition of donors first. I think in a reformed campaign contribution system the initial focus would be building a coalition of voters and special interest groups. I assume that would result in different candidates in the later stages.

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/1252928498974498816

[Kat Kid]

Sys / Chings /everybody

Read one of the best Kansans there is—Thomas Frank—on populism.

https://harpers.org/archive/2020/05/how-the-anti-populists-stopped-bernie-sanders/

[sonofdaxjones]

https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/1252928498974498816

A month (or more) into a near G20/Global shutdown of industry and dramatic reduction in fossil fuel level consumption (to the point there's a world wide oil glut and oil is essentially worthless).

Virtually no drop in CO2 levels outside of what would be considered natural variability.

[CHONGS]

Sys / Chings /everybody

Read one of the best Kansans there is—Thomas Frank—on populism.

https://harpers.org/archive/2020/05/how-the-anti-populists-stopped-bernie-sanders/

A nice read, but it misses the point Eco (a non American) makes about the links between,  populist movements and fascism.  In fact, Frank makes an error (IMHO) in carelessly linking elitism to being wary of populist movements.
 
You should read that Eco essay.

[chum1]

I don't think a comparison between Trump populism and Bernie populism is very accurate. They differ significantly by both breadth and depth.

[Katpappy]

Sys / Chings /everybody

Read one of the best Kansans there is—Thomas Frank—on populism.

https://harpers.org/archive/2020/05/how-the-anti-populists-stopped-bernie-sanders/

Like I been stating in my posts, ppl don't get involved in politics enough to realize this started back in the turn of the century.  The rich and business class run this country and they're not going to do crap for the working class.  They enforce it by brainwashing rubes into fear to support and elect anyone that wants to fix this crap before it's to late.

[Kat Kid]

Sys / Chings /everybody

Read one of the best Kansans there is—Thomas Frank—on populism.

https://harpers.org/archive/2020/05/how-the-anti-populists-stopped-bernie-sanders/

A nice read, but it misses the point Eco (a non American) makes about the links between,  populist movements and fascism.  In fact, Frank makes an error (IMHO) in carelessly linking elitism to being wary of populist movements.
 
You should read that Eco essay.

I did. He’s obviously brilliant and I enjoyed it immensely. I definitely think fascists in Germany appealed to the “volk” but I think it was insidious that sys used it in the context of Bernie. I also think the Italian/German fascist examples were very different and that they are often conflated by American audiences. I also thought of it when Macron was talking about the threat of populism to the European project at the same time the Netherlands and Germany were putting the squeeze on Italy and Spain and thought he was either being hopelessly cynical or that the Europeans have a similar definition of populism to sys which seems to be “bad stuff I don’t like.”

[sys]

the Europeans have a similar definition of populism to sys which seems to be “bad stuff I don’t like.”

it's funny you used that phrase as it was exactly my reaction to the frank excerpt you posted - he seems to be making the argument that true populism is only the stuff he likes and not at all the stuff he doesn't.

i wish him luck with the rebranding, but if i had any advice, it'd be to worry more about convincing the people to like the stuff he likes, as right populism appears broadly ascendant, while left populism, sanders aside, retreats.

[sys]

oh no.

https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1254202718987653120