Hillary and the ordinary people

[barmar]

the remaining 20% are often low information voters, they don't read the forums.

I suspect the portion that are "low information voters" is comparable in all 3 categories. But the 80% that are committed to a particular party just don't matter for this discussion.

[cherdano]

I suspect the portion that are "low information voters" is comparable in all 3 categories. But the 80% that are committed to a particular party just don't matter for this discussion.

Why make "suspicions" when there has been a lot of effort put into studying this question systematically? Truly uncommitted voters are low information voters, on average.

[cherdano]

Btw, I also want to reply to something else in Timo's post:

(...) the people who has not committed their life time votes to a specific party and not be one of their blind followers or soldiers, (...)

 

Ironically you also said that those 40+40 % will vote with loyalty, regardless of what one of the candidate has to say or do. I guess this must be due to their "highly informed" mindsets.

 

(...) it saddens me if what you say is true and %80 of voters have created such a wall between themselves and reality in a fanatic team supporter fashion and won't change their mind regardless of what others have to say, what people need, what country needs in a very fast changing environment, relations and necessities.

I just don't understand these kind of statements. I don't know who the two presidential candidates are going to be. But I already with which of the two I will agree on abortion, on economic redistribution, on health care, and on global warming! If someone has a fairly clear opinion on all these things, then it's perfectly rational to vote for the party rather than the candidate.

 

Would I prefer that there was a consensus in the US about such issues, so that voters could vote for whoever is going to send less troops into war, or whoever is going to legalise weed? Sure. But things as they are, I think the mind of a well-informed partisan voter is much easier to understand as the one of a well-informed uncommitted voter.

[hrothgar]

 

I don't know who the two presidential candidates are going to be.

 

On the Democratic side, I think its fairly well understood that the Democratic ticket is going to be Hillary Clinto + Julian Castro.

 

The Republicans almost always chose the establishment candidate. This time around, its Jeb Bush.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the nut cases last longer than usual during the parade of clowns that is the republican primary process, however, I'd be surprised if Cruz or some other were able to win the nomination. I could well be wrong (the fundraising process is very different than past cycles). Even so, I think it will be Hillary v Jeb.

[awm]

On the Democratic side, I think its fairly well understood that the Democratic ticket is going to be Hillary Clinton + Julian Castro.

 

The Republicans almost always chose the establishment candidate. This time around, its Jeb Bush.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the nut cases last longer than usual during the parade of clowns that is the republican primary process, however, I'd be surprised if Cruz or some other were able to win the nomination. I could well be wrong (the fundraising process is very different than past cycles). Even so, I think it will be Hillary v Jeb.

 

Not sure the VP spot is so clear on the Dem side although I agree Hillary is a lock.

 

You may be underestimating Scott Walker on the Republican side. Unlike the other crazies he has been elected (three times counting a recall attempt) as governor in a blue state. His appeal to the far right is stronger than Jeb Bush, but he is probably "mainstream" enough for the establishment to accept. He also has some "not elitist" credit as a guy who never finished college (and who doesn't have a brother/father who was president). Jeb has been out of politics for a long time, the Bush brand is still fairly toxic, and his positions on immigration and education are not acceptable to the crazy wing.

 

I wouldn't count Walker out until/unless his scandals catch up to him.

[gordontd]

Still it wasn't all bad - the 'special relationship' strengthened under Bush/Blair.

Did you miss out an emoticon?

[wanoff]

Did you miss out an emoticon?

 

Correct but having just alluded to electoral fraud I thought that enough of a clue.

[y66]

Correct but having just alluded to electoral fraud I thought that enough of a clue.

 

That and putting 'special relationship' in quotes. I see that gordontd's reply didn't have an emoticon either. Perhaps we've reached a new level of ironic appreciation in the water cooler and emoticons are no longer needed.

[mycroft]

Yes, well, the special relationship (and the one that MulroHarper has with the US, and...) is working really well these days.

 

It just seems that it's *primarily* used to pass information about our country's citizens that by law we can't get ourselves - and to be able to very carefully say "We follow all our laws, and they explicitly stop us from spying on our own citizens."

 

ISTR in the "bad old days", we used to spy on our enemies and pass the information on to our friends. Now it seems it's the same, but government's definitions of friends and enemies are ... more insular.

[cherdano]

So this is a NY times article about Hillary's order at Chipotle. Except they didn't know what she ordered.

 

Ladies and gentleman, I hereby present the US presidential campaign. It'll be a long 19 months.

[kenberg]

 

Ladies and gentleman, I hereby present the US presidential campaign. It'll be a long 19 months.

 

You got that right.

 

A semi-serious question: Has anyone attempted to classify the personality trait (personality disorder imo) that would lead to someone putting himself/herself through the idiocies of a campaign? Me, I would look at it and think "I have to do what? I have to say what? No thank you". Not that anyone would vote for me anyway. The way I see it, anyone willing to engage in such activity should automatically be judged as too loony to be trusted with serious responsibility.

[helene_t]

Has anyone attempted to classify the personality trait (personality disorder imo) that would lead to someone putting himself/herself through the idiocies of a campaign?

 

In terms of the four subscales, politicians scored the highest on the Leadership/Authority subscale, and clergy scored the lowest on the Exploitativeness/Entitlement subscale. In other words, politicians did score higher than the other three groups in total narcissism, but the differences seemed mainly due to their high scores on the Leadership/Authority scores. Interestingly, although the differences did not reach statistical significance, politicians also had the highest scores on Superiority/Arrogance and Exploitativeness/Entitlement subscales and professors had the highest scores on Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration. Without statistical significance, however, these last differences could be due to chance.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-psychology-answers/201101/the-psychology-politics

[NickRW]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-psychology-answers/201101/the-psychology-politics

 

So if I got that right if in my estimation I have good leadership and don't think I exploit people I can become a leading politiciancult leader. :o

[y66]

David Foster Wallace made this semi-serious attempt to describe the personality traits of presidential candidates in 2000:

 

Think back to the sort of kids in high school who were into running for student office: dweeby, overgroomed, obsequious to authority, ambitious in a sad way. Eager to play the Game. The kind of kids other kids would want to beat up if it didn’t seem so pointless and dull. And now consider some of 2000’s adult versions of these very same kids: Al Gore, best described by CNN sound tech Mark A. as “amazingly lifelike”; Steve Forbes, with his wet forehead and loony giggle; G. W. Bush’s patrician smirk and mangled cant; even Clinton himself, with his big red fake-friendly face and “I feel your pain.” Men who aren’t enough like human beings even to hate—what one feels when they loom into view is just an overwhelming lack of interest, the sort of deep disengagement that is often a defense against pain. Against sadness. In fact, the likeliest reason why so many of us care so little about politics is that modern politicians make us sad, hurt us deep down in ways that are hard even to name, much less talk about. It’s way easier to roll your eyes and not give a *****. You probably don’t want to hear about all this, even.

[kenberg]

Random thoughts

 

Yesterday I played bridge at the local club and when I got back Becky asked what I had for lunch. I first replied that I didn't think I had anything, but upon reflection I mentioned that I had stopped at Starbucks for coffee and a cheese danish. I never wish to have a job where what I eat or where I eat it is of interest to anyone other than myself and perhaps Becky. And she was just making conversation, not evaluating my lifestyle.

 

 

George Bush the elder was our most recent one-term president. It seemed to me that his heart was not really in the 1992 re-election campaign and I imagined him saying to himself something like "Folks, I have been president for three and a half years now, if some of you have not yet decided whether or not you like me, I really can't imagine what I could now say or do to help you decide".

 

It might be fun to take the Narcissism exam mentioned in the article Helene posted. I can see how profs might score high on self-absorption. Not me, of course.B-)

 

Al Gore as "amazingly lifelike" Yes, I like that.

[Trinidad]

A semi-serious question: Has anyone attempted to classify the personality trait (personality disorder imo) that would lead to someone putting himself/herself through the idiocies of a campaign?

I don't think that politicians have a personality disorder. But now I am thinking of the average, mediocre politician. Think of school boards, city councils, etc. They are driven by ideals. They will have to campaign, but it will be limited: An article in the local newspaper, handing out flyers, discussing with the public, handing balloons to the kids, you know. I can even see that it mighht be fun to do.

 

Neither do I think that athletes, actors or entrepreneurs have a personality disorder. They are driven by different characteristics, but that is all normal.

 

The personality disorder lies in the hunt for success, the drive to want to be the very best. It doesn't matter whether it is in politics, sports, entertainment, or business. But when you want to be the very best, you will have to do things that normal people would not do. No normal person would want to be scrutinized for one and a half year. But a normal person would not give his whereabouts so that he can get drug tested at any given time or place. But if you want to win the Olympics, you will have to do that.

 

I am a scientist. I like to think that I am a good scientist. But I don't have the drive to be the best scientist in the world (or the city where I live). I am a father. I like to think that I am a good father. My kids seem happy and are doing well. I don't think I am the best father in the world. I am a bridge player. I like to think... you get the picture.

 

I just think it is okay to be just "good" at the things that you are good at (and "good enough" at the things that you are not so good at). That doesn't make me really successfull in any single thing that I am good at. But I think it makes normal people succesfull overall.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

It might be fun to take the Narcissism exam mentioned in the article Helene posted. I can see how profs might score high on self-absorption. Not me, of course.B-)

I really don't understand why we need the term "narcissism". After all, I am not a narcissist... ;)

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

Comparing now, has the Obama presidency been as successful as Clinton's? Can the Rs produce a better candidate than GWB? I think the answers are no and probably. So it would seem that the Rs have a very good chance.

 

Personally, I think that managing to get Obamacare passed will be Obama's legacy. And that, by itself, will make his presidency better than Clinton's presidency.

 

Can the Rs produce a better candidate than GWB? You are really placing the bar high. When I look at the potential Republican candidates, .... Oh, I guess they might not be able to do that.

 

I am part of the 40% who will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. Sometimes it is because I like the Democratic candidate. But, above all else, it is because of what I see in the Republican party and my dislike of virtually everything that the Republicans stand for. Typical of the Republican mentality is the rejection of the expansion of Medicaid in the Red States. Here we have a program that will help tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of poorer Americans at virtually no cost to the states, and Republican governors have opted out of Medicaid expansion. All because of their hatred for Obamacare and everything it represents (healthier citizens?).

 

I would say it was cutting off their noses to spite their faces, but the noses they are cutting off are not there own.

 

I will never forget the video of my Congressman, Frank LoBiando, a Republican from Atlantic/Cape May Counties NJ, angrily pursuing John Boehner as he was leaving the House floor after refusing to keep the House in session to pass relief measures for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Boehner, like most Republicans, would rather see the Northeast US fall of the face of the earth than reach out to help people in distress. And, I am sure that the news footage of NJ Governor Chris Christie (another Republican) together with President Obama visiting Brigantine Beach (just north of Atlantic City) after Hurrican Sandy was also eating away at most of the Republican leadership. I like Frank LoBiando. He is a good guy and a good Congressman. His opponent in the last election was a collegue of mine in my law firm, so I voted against LoBiando, but he won anyway. Chris Christie is an entirely different matter. He cares about New Jersey, but he does so many truly strange things that I can't possibly support him.

 

My impression of the Republican thought process in analyzing an issue is essentaily this:

 

1) Will it promote the national Republican agenda?

2) See point 1.

3) See point 1.

......

 

10) Will it be of benefit to the people of my district and the United States?

 

I may be giving them too much credit. Most of them don't get to point 10.

[barmar]

I don't think that politicians have a personality disorder. But now I am thinking of the average, mediocre politician. Think of school boards, city councils, etc. They are driven by ideals. They will have to campaign, but it will be limited: An article in the local newspaper, handing out flyers, discussing with the public, handing balloons to the kids, you know. I can even see that it mighht be fun to do.

I suspect that most politicians start out that way. By the time they get to the level of campaigns that receive grueling scrutiny the media, politics has become their career. They learn to live with the pain, because it's the only way to continue in the profession they think they're good at. Is it really a "personality disorder" to be able to grin and bear it? IMHO, it shows fortitude, an admirable character trait.

 

And politics is hardly the only profession where things like this happen. In most professions, as you advance in experience, you also usually get more responsibility heaped on you, and this makes your job more difficult. You might get promoted from an individual contributor to a team leader and then to a manager. You no longer have to just be good at the technical details, but also deal with supervising and reporting on others, planning large projects, etc. That's often not what you signed up for when you first learned to do your job, but someone has to do it.

 

I've steadfastly avoided letting myself get promoted into jobs like that. But I don't have a family to provide for, so my needs are meagre, and I can afford to be unambitious.

[awm]

Consider GW Bush. He was not a particularly compelling candidate, and the country was coming off a Clinton presidency that was successful in some ways, particularly economically. And yet, there was still a very close election that Bush probably won.

 

Comparing now, has the Obama presidency been as successful as Clinton's? Can the Rs produce a better candidate than GWB? I think the answers are no and probably. So it would seem that the Rs have a very good chance.

 

There are a few things missing in this analysis. In particular:

 

1. The country was actually entering a recession at the time of the 2000 election, a fact which people seem to forget due to the overall very strong economy during the Clinton presidency. The current economic perspective at the time of the election is a much better predictor of the winner than the overall economic performance during the incumbent party's term. In fact each time we've had a change of parties in the white house in my lifetime (Carter, Bush 1, Gore, McCain being the losing candidates) we had an economic downturn just before the election. Of course this could happen again (congressional republicans could even CAUSE it to happen by threatening to default on the debt again).

 

2. Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, and likely would have won the electoral college barring some shenanigans involving the Florida ballots.

 

3. The demographics of the country have changed considerably since the 2000 election, in particular with substantially more minority voters (esp. Latino voters). In addition, the Latino vote has moved substantially in the favor of democrats. Given their recent policies on immigration, it will be hard for republicans to reverse this trend (even if they nominate Jeb Bush, who's in favor of immigration reform, the overall views of his party and lack of ticket splitting will pose a serious challenge).

 

4. It's hard to imagine Jeb Bush being a better candidate than GWB, if only because his brother so damaged the family name. What better candidate are they likely to produce? None of the clowns now running would seem to have a legitimate shot...

[cherdano]

I would like to point out that anyone who is confident that either Hillary or the Republicans are going to win this election is throwing away money by not betting for or against her on one of the popular betting markets.

(Or maybe they are not as confident as they are claiming to be on BBF.)

[mike777]

There are a few things missing in this analysis. In particular:

 

1. The country was actually entering a recession at the time of the 2000 election, a fact which people seem to forget due to the overall very strong economy during the Clinton presidency. The current economic perspective at the time of the election is a much better predictor of the winner than the overall economic performance during the incumbent party's term. In fact each time we've had a change of parties in the white house in my lifetime (Carter, Bush 1, Gore, McCain being the losing candidates) we had an economic downturn just before the election. Of course this could happen again (congressional republicans could even CAUSE it to happen by threatening to default on the debt again).

 

2. Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, and likely would have won the electoral college barring some shenanigans involving the Florida ballots.

 

3. The demographics of the country have changed considerably since the 2000 election, in particular with substantially more minority voters (esp. Latino voters). In addition, the Latino vote has moved substantially in the favor of democrats. Given their recent policies on immigration, it will be hard for republicans to reverse this trend (even if they nominate Jeb Bush, who's in favor of immigration reform, the overall views of his party and lack of ticket splitting will pose a serious challenge).

 

4. It's hard to imagine Jeb Bush being a better candidate than GWB, if only because his brother so damaged the family name. What better candidate are they likely to produce? None of the clowns now running would seem to have a legitimate shot...

 

1) enter a recession..leave one is such nonsense feel free to describe and debate

2) popular vote is nonsense/states matter, local districts matter

3) minority votes become majority votes when counting elections in states and local dist.

4) clowns will never win. If you cannot find someone to battle Ms. Clinton, say so.

[gwnn]

Doesn't Rand Paul have a shot? I'm hardly an expert on American politics but he's certainly less nutty and more appealing than his father, and his father won two primaries if I recall correctly?

[mike777]

ms. Clinton may only need fl. to win. ohio and fl to win.

 

not tens of millions.

 

think parts of these states..not whole state.

 

you may keep thinking entire usa...no no no..think

\

part of florida...think part of ohio.

---------

 

 

many keep thinking she needs to win across usa no no no

-------------------

 

think she needs to win tiny tiny parts of fl and ohio.

--------

 

American election is not I repeat not 330 million votes,, this is wrong thinking.

----------

 

election will be tiny tiny votes in few states...

[billw55]

Doesn't Rand Paul have a shot? I'm hardly an expert on American politics but he's certainly less nutty and more appealing than his father, and his father won two primaries if I recall correctly?

Have a shot to win the R nomination? Maybe. To beat Clinton? No.