A Waste of Political Capital

[Natural Citizen]

I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

I would never vote for him. And that's okay. Maybe someone else will. And that's their right. I have voted for Dems in the past. Rarely.

But you've done something here that isn't often witnessed out in the wild. And voluntarily, no less. You took a little bit of initiative to write something practical that might be productive in some way to other people around you. That's what leaders do. It goes back to what I was saying about lighting the brushfires of freedom into the electorate.

Instead of creating sub-forums for safe spaces,however, I think you'd likely provide the forum/platform a better service by creating a sub forum for campaign evaluations. For any candidates. Local, national, whatever. And from any State or District. Honest evaluations, of course. By everyone. No debate. Only campaign evaluation. If someone has a candidate for local or national office that they would like to offer up for campaign evaluation, then everyone may contribute. Nicely and to scope. Maybe a 1-5 scale. And no disrespecting the candidates, no matter who they are.

Of course, the candidate would ultimately be graded and graded upon a set scale of preconfigured standards. Preferably standards that measure his or her platform's ability to protect Individual liberty. But whatever. This board doesn't seem to have a common goal, so maybe it could be something in the middle.

From experience, I can tell you that such a template stimulates positive discussion and a bit of synergy where it might otherwise be missing from your community.

As an example, Lee Bright ran back in 2013-14

Candidate Name: Lee Bright
Office Sought: U.S. Senate, South Carolina
Website: Brightforsenate.com
Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

Candidate Profile: On the Issues
Civil Liberties: ★★★★★
Constitutional Issues: ★★★★★
Economic Issues: ★★★★★
Foreign Policy: ★★★★★
Social Issues: ★★★★★
Overall Issues Rating: ★★★★★

Race Profile: Competition & Demographics
State: South Carolina
District: N/A
Incumbent: Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Other Primary Candidates: Richard Cash, Nancy Mace
Non-Incumbent Candidates from Other Parties: Jay Stamper (D)
Cook PVI: R+8 (Solid Republican)
Relevant poll numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Carolina,_2014
Graham 45.9%
Bright 17.4%
Mace 5.1%
Cash 4.9%
Conner 4.2%
Overall Race Profile Rating: ★★★ (needs more funding)

Miscellaneous Pros/Cons

Key strong points:

Unknown points for further research:

Possible weak points:

Possible deal breakers:

Overall Rating: ★★★★ (needs more funding and to maintain continued upswing)


But whuheva. It's just a thought.

Anyway. Good for you for taking initiative like that for a specific candidate you thought might be interesting.

 

[flacaltenn]

Unless the person has run for the presidential nomination running as an independent is not really in the cards

The presidency will always be subject to "hijacking" by party extremists and populists who don't have "the party" as one of their priority interests

This is more about reforming Congress. Which has been re-designed as a 2 party machine. There's no Constitutional basis for having 2 parties control the process and power as they have. Congress SHOULD have an Indie Caucus and/or floor rules that DON'T all go thru the 4 party bosses for approval. When all votes are party line and NOTHING gets done (or done right) -- it's time to have a some UNmuzzled and UNleashed voices there that do NOT play "by the rules"..

 

[flacaltenn]

Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..

A party ANY party NEEDS a charter. It tells your voters what princables you defend.

Fine. If you want to another representative droid that IGNORES stuff like "party principles" -- nothing will ever change for the good. YOUR principles don't matter a good dump once Pelosi, Ryan, McConnell and Schumer own your ass and your voice.

We all KNOW that. So why not elect a handful of principled, proven LEADERS who "just say no" to answering to the partisan slave drivers and masters that run Congress. That's a MIGHTY principle right there. A guy like Bredesen who was your governor for 8 years HAS a record of performance. Even if he's a Democrat declaring his INDEPENDENCE from his party -- MANY Tennesseans would trust him MORE.. It's guys like this who COULD cause a massive upheaval in the party domination of Congress.

 

[flacaltenn]

The D's and R's entered an alliance ages ago to make it near impossible for any third party to run against them. A third party candidate is required to get more signatures and to pay a crap ton more money just for the 'chance' to get on a ballot, they have to get something like 50k sigs (vs and rep or dem only needs 10k) It's completely rigged in R and D's favor. And that's not even talking about the media who intentionally ignores third party candidates at the behest of the two party system...

HOWEVER -- and this is important -- MOST states have very low bars for Independents. It's only the 3rd parties that have to fight that abuse. Independents HAVE no primaries. They just go on to the "big show" ballot in November. They can RUN a primary campaign if they wish, but their names will go on the Nov ballots, not on the primary ballots (in most states and races) Primaries should be a PARTY function. Not a "menu" for "open primaries" and other hijinks.

And then you the Cali "Top 2" system. Where the "primary" is now the "big show". And only 2 names appear on the Nov. ballots. That's appalling. Especially when you disenfranchise 60% of the votes with NO CHOICE on the main ballot.

 

[flacaltenn]

The D's and R's entered an alliance ages ago to make it near impossible for any third party to run against them. A third party candidate is required to get more signatures and to pay a crap ton more money just for the 'chance' to get on a ballot, they have to get something like 50k sigs (vs and rep or dem only needs 10k) It's completely rigged in R and D's favor. And that's not even talking about the media who intentionally ignores third party candidates at the behest of the two party system...

HOWEVER -- and this is important -- MOST states have very low bars for Independents. It's only the 3rd parties that have to fight that abuse. Independents HAVE no primaries. They just go on to the "big show" ballot in November. They can RUN a primary campaign if they wish, but their names will go on the Nov ballots, not on the primary ballots (in most states and races) Primaries should be a PARTY function. Not a "menu" for "open primaries" and other hijinks.

And then you the Cali "Top 2" system. Where the "primary" is now the "big show". And only 2 names appear on the Nov. ballots. That's appalling. Especially when you disenfranchise 60% of the votes with NO CHOICE on the main ballot.

 

[EverCurious]

I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

He wouldn't receive attention from the media. They decide the questions and control the responses.

The DNC changed some rules so people like Sanders can't run as a Democrat. On the one hand, I am ok with this as I don't want anything to do with the Democratic Party. On the other hand, it's a demonstration on how ignorant they really are.

I have always thought we the people could change the political landscape by controlling the conversation. I think that, in and of itself, would allow for Independents to rise. Right now the tail is wagging the dog.

We would have stick to the issues.

Changing their rules to keep socialists and communists out is a really smart move, but I don't know that it'll win them anything, the damage is pretty bad and the fall out hasn't even fully hit yet. We'll see if they can come back to the center and stop projecting hatred and violence at everyone who's not far left. I'll be watching.

 

[flacaltenn]

I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

This is exactly why I don't understand how red States keep sending Democrats to DC. Sure, they may have been bipartisan as you point out with Republican legislatures. But in DC, they vote down the line with Chuck and Nancy. They pad their campaign when they can vote against the most leftist measures as long as they are assured of passage. But when Democrats need their vote, they get it 100% of the time. Like the ACA

In fact the ONLY TIMES they are allowed to vote AGAINST extremist party lines, is when the party leadership calculates that they may LOSE THAT SEAT if they force a candidate to vote their way. It's all about the 2 parties obtaining and keeping that power franchise in Congress.

 

[EverCurious]

Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..

The problem here, and I suspect the reason we're still stuck in this binary two-party system, is that the vast middle includes people who lean Left and who lean Right. It's therefore much more difficult to corral these people politically than it is with wingers, who are already obedient and predictable. And it only gets worse with time, as our divisions increase.

My guess (and granted, I'm terrible at political stuff) is that it would take a very charismatic individual to break through as an Independent. It would have to be someone we already know, someone who already has our attention and a degree of trust and respect. I don't see anyone on the current political scene with both that kind of charisma and that kind of trust.

In a perverse way, Trump is an example. His own brand of "charisma" shook things up and worked. The problem is, he's not the right guy to do what I'm talking about.

Further, that person's message would have to be more than just ideas and issues, it would have to be about (a) the damage done to this country by the wings, and (b) a call for reason and communication. A clear reminder that the best ideas can come from the creativity of collaboration. I'm confident there are still a lot of Americans who would be attracted to such a message. At least I hope so, because otherwise this decay continues.
.

You're right on much of that, unfortunately you're wrong on other key bits. It doesn't matter what kind of charisma any middle roader has; the media decides what the people are allowed to see, and thus think, about every single candidate...

 

[flacaltenn]

He wouldn't receive attention from the media. They decide the questions and control the responses.

That would true of the initial election cycle, because the media will slant attention to party candidates. That's why you need folks with a bankfull of good will and political capital like a Phil Bredensen. He GOVERNED as Blue Dog Democrat. That's a GOOD thing in the New South. He doesn't have an extremist bone in him. And he SHOULD be Independent.

But once elected, that non-aligned representative will upstage everyone in Congress because that person is the swing vote, the true and honest voice and the media will be all over them on every showdown for "their view".

Because the "view" of someone who CAN speak their mind without fear of retribution from their party is FAR more interesting and valuable than interviewing dozens of party droids all mumbling the same party crapfest.

 

[EverCurious]

The D's and R's entered an alliance ages ago to make it near impossible for any third party to run against them. A third party candidate is required to get more signatures and to pay a crap ton more money just for the 'chance' to get on a ballot, they have to get something like 50k sigs (vs and rep or dem only needs 10k) It's completely rigged in R and D's favor. And that's not even talking about the media who intentionally ignores third party candidates at the behest of the two party system...

HOWEVER -- and this is important -- MOST states have very low bars for Independents. It's only the 3rd parties that have to fight that abuse. Independents HAVE no primaries. They just go on to the "big show" ballot in November. They can RUN a primary campaign if they wish, but their names will go on the Nov ballots, not on the primary ballots (in most states and races) Primaries should be a PARTY function. Not a "menu" for "open primaries" and other hijinks.

And then you the Cali "Top 2" system. Where the "primary" is now the "big show". And only 2 names appear on the Nov. ballots. That's appalling. Especially when you disenfranchise 60% of the votes with NO CHOICE on the main ballot.

I agree on Cali, but its what they wanted apparently.

I'd have to do some research on the individual states and I don't think I care enough so I'll take your word for it. Alaska must be an outlier in that case then. We did just go to the supreme to even allow an independent to run in primes though so it's progress - Independents can run in party primaries, Alaska Supreme Court says, opening door for Gov. Walker

 

[flacaltenn]

Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..

A party ANY party NEEDS a charter. It tells your voters what princables you defend.

I don't care about charters. I wanna know policy. Tell me what you want to achieve. Tell me what you can do. Tell me what you can't control. Tell me about possible hiccups. Tell me in detail how you plan to go about it.

Principles are a dime a dozen.

That's because Ideals are not as valuable as Ideas.. Ideals are easy to sell to the younger, more "inexperienced" voters.

 

[flacaltenn]

44% of Americans today identify not with the 2 inept, corrupt parties but as Independents. THESE are the real swing voters. High numbers amongst the 18 to 30 demographic across all race, income, education lines.

Home | Independent Voting

 

[candycorn]

I take a bit of a different view. Here is my angle. Do with it what you will.

John Smith, mild mannered lawyer from Anytown, USA wants to make a difference. So he runs for council in his town. He is somewhat successful, well spoken, thoughtful, has the wife and 2.5 kids. He decides to run for the State Legislature. He must choose a ticket. One is red and one is blue. This is where being a well-spoken, thoughful attorney who wants to make a difference meets with the stark reality of politics. If Smith beats out the other blues or reds running for office he wins the primary and gets into the district wide race for the seat in the State Capitol. Now he has to lose most of his thoughts and amend the four core principles he was able to keep to coincide with how the Democrats or Republicans brand themselves nationwide. Before you know it, whatever thoughfulness he once had has been sacrificed on the altar of funding his next campaign.

Now...imagine if you will, a world with 4 political parties. Blues, Reds are still there but now we have greens who are an offshoot of the Democrats and lets call them yellows who are an offshoot of whatever becomes of the Republicans once Trump leaves office and they have to distance themselves from the disaster. What happens to Mr. Smith in that scenario? Pretty much the same thing. He may get to keep 8 core principles instead of 4 but the difference that the women and men who seek public office wish to make is quickly lessened by the funding and what you have to do to get the funding. If You want to change the system, change the way that campaigns are financed and eliminate the need for raising so much money, you have to cater to groups you'd do better to aoid anyway.

Decreeing that every 2 years during mid-term and Presidential elections the local television, local radio, and local printed newspapers give the party candidates who have X% in polling. Each locality could set the percentage where they want.

Now, as for what happens when they get in office, the OP is right that independents don't have a voice and that needs to change. I think they would be saddened once we got more parties up there though because quite quickly...they too would become top-down managed groups designed to do things; get power and keep it. As long as you have humans as your candidates or representatives, you'll have that drive/desire.... So, how do you get around that? One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

 

[Disir]

He wouldn't receive attention from the media. They decide the questions and control the responses.

That would true of the initial election cycle, because the media will slant attention to party candidates. That's why you need folks with a bankfull of good will and political capital like a Phil Bredensen. He GOVERNED as Blue Dog Democrat. That's a GOOD thing in the New South. He doesn't have an extremist bone in him. And he SHOULD be Independent.

But once elected, that non-aligned representative will upstage everyone in Congress because that person is the swing vote, the true and honest voice and the media will be all over them on every showdown for "their view".

Because the "view" of someone who CAN speak their mind without fear of retribution from their party is FAR more interesting and valuable than interviewing dozens of party droids all mumbling the same party crapfest.

The media is made up of conglomerates. The people that sit on the board over here sit on the board over there. If any candidate is saying something the board doesn't profit from then it doesn't get heard. If it disagrees with or in someway impacts their finances then the correct narrative is issued.

WE have to force them to pay attention.

Also, 3rd rum and coke....

 

[flacaltenn]

He wouldn't receive attention from the media. They decide the questions and control the responses.

That would true of the initial election cycle, because the media will slant attention to party candidates. That's why you need folks with a bankfull of good will and political capital like a Phil Bredensen. He GOVERNED as Blue Dog Democrat. That's a GOOD thing in the New South. He doesn't have an extremist bone in him. And he SHOULD be Independent.

But once elected, that non-aligned representative will upstage everyone in Congress because that person is the swing vote, the true and honest voice and the media will be all over them on every showdown for "their view".

Because the "view" of someone who CAN speak their mind without fear of retribution from their party is FAR more interesting and valuable than interviewing dozens of party droids all mumbling the same party crapfest.

The media is made up of conglomerates. The people that sit on the board over here sit on the board over there. If any candidate is saying something the board doesn't profit from then it doesn't get heard. If it disagrees with or in someway impacts their finances then the correct narrative is issued.

WE have to force them to pay attention.

Also, 3rd rum and coke....

Are you saying you're starting the "rum and coke" 3rd party?

I don't agree on the media blockade. Fact is -- they have the attention of squirrels and dont have the knowledge or persistence to cover issues and problem solving. All you have to do to GET coverage is to be bombastic and outrageous. Trump PROVED that.

They cover politics like a sporting match-up. I passed a memo in the Libertarian party after watching Trump get HUNDREDS of hours of free press for being an egotistical ass. I suggested that Gary Johnson -- known for his Triathlons and mountain climbing and extreme sports to HANG GLIDE into a series of scheduled events. Everyone LOVED the idea. After 2 or 3 circus events like that -- we'd have full press coverage for nothing. There were concerns about "accidents" that could end the campaign tho. Like having fire dept. pulling him out of a tree or off of a roof.

You're gonna see campaigns look more like sideshows now. All competing for the 5 minutes on the evening news tho..

 

[flacaltenn]

John Smith, mild mannered lawyer from Anytown, USA wants to make a difference. So he runs for council in his town. He is somewhat successful, well spoken, thoughtful, has the wife and 2.5 kids. He decides to run for the State Legislature. He must choose a ticket. One is red and one is blue. This is where being a well-spoken, thoughful attorney who wants to make a difference meets with the stark reality of politics. If Smith beats out the other blues or reds running for office he wins the primary and gets into the district wide race for the seat in the State Capitol. Now he has to lose most of his thoughts and amend the four core principles he was able to keep to coincide with how the Democrats or Republicans brand themselves nationwide. Before you know it, whatever thoughfulness he once had has been sacrificed on the altar of funding his next campaign.

Absolutely.. Even WORSE if you're running for Congress because that BUILDING has become the seat and symbol of 2 party power and control..

Now...imagine if you will, a world with 4 political parties. Blues, Reds are still there but now we have greens who are an offshoot of the Democrats and lets call them yellows who are an offshoot of whatever becomes of the Republicans once Trump leaves office and they have to distance themselves from the disaster. What happens to Mr. Smith in that scenario? Pretty much the same thing. He may get to keep 8 core principles instead of 4 but the difference that the women and men who seek public office wish to make is quickly lessened by the funding and what you have to do to get the funding. If You want to change the system, change the way that campaigns are financed and eliminate the need for raising so much money, you have to cater to groups you'd do better to aoid anyway.

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

The obvious split for 4 parties would be Dem/Socialist and Libertarian pragmatists/Conservative. It would cover a LOT of ground and principles.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, The American Democrat

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

 

[Marion Morrison]

The 2-party monopoly needs trust-busted.

 

[candycorn]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

 

[candycorn]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.