I've recently been batting around the question of whether I really WANT presidential candidates doing deep dives on policy. Ideally, I want that from my Congressional and Senatorial candidates. I'm becoming more interested in how a presidential candidate thinks directionally and what they're likely to do in the foreign policy realm. This is a (severely) outdated example, but FDR didn't campaign in 1932 on a laundry list of legislation proposals. He spoke in larger, directional terms, which, given how rarely a final bill actually resembles the proposed plan, seems like the better way to operate. That doesn't strike me as necessarily a bad thing.
Totally. To paraphrase something Jeff said last week: I don't need Kamala to be a policy expert, I just need her to have policy experts on staff, and trust her to listen to them.
I think you hit on it at the end of your column. As much as it might seem tired to say "this is all Trump's fault!!", it really is all his fault. He encourages the worst in the American electorate and because he's literally incapable of having any kind of policy discussion, asking the Democrat running against him to specify her own position because it's the right thing to do is essentially asking her to play the Conan O'Brien role in Old-Timey Gentleman Boxer sketch.
Perhaps when we have two functional adults running for control of the country, we'll be able to have a real discussion. But it's not possible to have a real conversation between an adult and a toddler.
Another problem is that we punish politicians more for changing their minds on policy than we do for promoting crappy policies well after it’s obvious they are crappy.
A dynamic which leads to stuff like Kamala’s remarkable own goal “my values haven’t changed”.
I am definitely in favor of RCV in the primary and for that matter in the election. As a Republican I would like to have a Republican choice in this election besides Trump. If both major parties had at least two candidates in the general election, there would be more time to examine their ideas and character.
I think it prevents someone with a fanatical base from running away with a small plurality while a crowd of generally palatable but unexciting candidates cannibalize each others votes and prevent the actual consensus from being revealed.
(E.g. arguably Trump won in 2016 not because he had a true majority of Republicans behind him, but because everyone opposed to him didn’t converge on an alternative until too late)
But then again, it doesn’t necessarily make things more moderate if the party actually does have a lot of wingers who want to vote for wingers rather than triangulating to an “electable” candidate.
Jeez, Kamala Harris is trying to set a record for how many lies and misrepresentations she can fit on a billboard. Even PolitiFact rates her statement about [Not Donald Trump's] P2025 banning IVF and contraception as "Mostly False".
Voters demand politicians tell them what they want to hear, and then pretend to be mad that politicians lie.
I've recently been batting around the question of whether I really WANT presidential candidates doing deep dives on policy. Ideally, I want that from my Congressional and Senatorial candidates. I'm becoming more interested in how a presidential candidate thinks directionally and what they're likely to do in the foreign policy realm. This is a (severely) outdated example, but FDR didn't campaign in 1932 on a laundry list of legislation proposals. He spoke in larger, directional terms, which, given how rarely a final bill actually resembles the proposed plan, seems like the better way to operate. That doesn't strike me as necessarily a bad thing.
Totally. To paraphrase something Jeff said last week: I don't need Kamala to be a policy expert, I just need her to have policy experts on staff, and trust her to listen to them.
I think you hit on it at the end of your column. As much as it might seem tired to say "this is all Trump's fault!!", it really is all his fault. He encourages the worst in the American electorate and because he's literally incapable of having any kind of policy discussion, asking the Democrat running against him to specify her own position because it's the right thing to do is essentially asking her to play the Conan O'Brien role in Old-Timey Gentleman Boxer sketch.
Perhaps when we have two functional adults running for control of the country, we'll be able to have a real discussion. But it's not possible to have a real conversation between an adult and a toddler.
First prize for you today for most brilliant similes and comparisons
Another problem is that we punish politicians more for changing their minds on policy than we do for promoting crappy policies well after it’s obvious they are crappy.
A dynamic which leads to stuff like Kamala’s remarkable own goal “my values haven’t changed”.
I am definitely in favor of RCV in the primary and for that matter in the election. As a Republican I would like to have a Republican choice in this election besides Trump. If both major parties had at least two candidates in the general election, there would be more time to examine their ideas and character.
Curious as to how RCV solves the ideological race to the wings in the Primaries. Not saying it doesn’t. Just curious as to how you think it does.
Kudos to your wit and your “take”.
I think it prevents someone with a fanatical base from running away with a small plurality while a crowd of generally palatable but unexciting candidates cannibalize each others votes and prevent the actual consensus from being revealed.
(E.g. arguably Trump won in 2016 not because he had a true majority of Republicans behind him, but because everyone opposed to him didn’t converge on an alternative until too late)
But then again, it doesn’t necessarily make things more moderate if the party actually does have a lot of wingers who want to vote for wingers rather than triangulating to an “electable” candidate.
Makes sense. I can see that. Thanks Gbdub
Wait... You can get herpes from a waterslide?!? Like I don't have enough on my plate already :(
“Feckless Whinging from Pundits” would be a great band name, though I don’t know what kind of music they’d play.
Jeez, Kamala Harris is trying to set a record for how many lies and misrepresentations she can fit on a billboard. Even PolitiFact rates her statement about [Not Donald Trump's] P2025 banning IVF and contraception as "Mostly False".