We’re seeing the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, to even Donald Trump being vocal and more able to resonate with an audience than say the likes of Hillary Clinton or other politicians who’ve had their careers firmly entrenched in the political establishment.
So my question is a different, more direct approach to politics gaining traction amongst voters because we’re not buying into the BS soundbites anymore? Or is too much emphasis being placed on these candidates to really make any difference.
It may show people are tired of people entrenched in the political establishment to some extent, but Donald Trump’s soundbites are magnified BS too. He’s currently the lead clown in the circus like atmosphere, and has far more bellow than all of the other candidates combined.
Oh absolutely, but it’s interesting how he taps into the discontent so effectively
If Corbyn, Sanders, or Trump get elected then yes, politics have changed. If they just draw public attention for a while and then the mainstream candidates get elected, then it’s just politics as usual.
I think so-especially as applied to Hillary Clinton. This is a woman who said that she was “broke” leaving the WH-now admits to a fortune of $141 million. She decries high college tuitions-but accepts $200,000 speaking fees. Also claims to have been “poor” as a child. i also like her claims that she and Bill lost money on Whitewater…and her >$100,000 profits on cattle futures trading.
Yep, she is against 'big money" in politics-but has no problem accepting contributions from wall street firms. A dedicated, selfless public servant!
The fact that, last I checked, Deez Nuts is polling at 9% in South Carolina I think indicates that people are starting to get fed up with the establishment. He’s 15 years old, so he’s not even eligible, and he’s obviously not a serious candidate. I also think that the likes of candidates like Bernie Sanders and the amount of support he’s getting, while he actually has a slim but legitimate chance, indicates that while some people aren’t willing to go as far, they don’t want the establishment candidate. Or, on a more local level, I thought the gubernatorial race in Virginia in 2013, that so many people expressed disgust in both candidates, some said they were holding their noses and voting, and the Libertarian candidate got 6.6% when they typically do about half that is similar.
Unfortunately, I’m not really sure this is going to come to much yet. I think there’s a lot of people who really would prefer to start voting third party or for a less establishment candidate, maybe a Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul type, but they’re afraid that the other major party’s establishment candidate will be even worse, so people end up nominating their preferred party’s establishment as damage control then voting for them. At least speaking for myself, if it’s going to be the Democratic establishment candidate vs the Republican one, even if I might slightly prefer one over the other, they’re rarely different enough that I’m significantly more scared of one than the other; usually I find both repulsive. So, I vote my conscience and pick who I think is best. I think, in time, more and more people will start voting for more either fringe candidates in the major parties or third party, and maybe we’ll start getting decent candidates. Who knows?
Politics is a disappointment machine for two reasons.
Because so many disparate interests are participating any agreement means that everyone compromises and no one gets what they want. Thus politicians come in two flavors, do nothing ideologues who never compromise and never get anything done and wishy washy sellouts who compromise with the evil other party to actually get something done. Of course anything that is actually done has been run through so many levels of compromise that if it does what it is intended to do it is probably coincidence.
Voters love politicians who promise the moon and stars. So elections are contests to see who can make the most outlandish promises. Meanwhile the actual power of each politician to influence government policy is small. Most importantly the power of the government to control the world is even smaller. The government does not control the business cycle, technological development, or foreign countries. So a politician gets elected promising to heal the planet, regrow the glaciers, provide health to the sick and jobs to the jobless and then spends their time in office trying to move the capital gains tax up or down a couple of percentage points.
Periodically a new generation comes along and starts to believe that they are unique light bringers and everything will be different this time. They learn otherwise soon enough. Thus an optimism, disappointment cycle.
When has there ever been a frontlash? Seriously, people have been “backlashing” against politics since about ten seconds after the first politician emerged from the primordial soup.
How is that relevant to backlash? Sounds like your usual partisan Hillary-bashing to me, could have been dropped into any political thread.
Agreed. No one remembers Ross Perot? He had a lot more support than that clown Trump has.
I think the overarching trend is globalization and its consequences, and it explains the appeal of both Trump and Sanders.
By Spring 1992 he certainly had more support than it appears Trump has right now. But that was with a fairly clear Democratic frontrunner and an incumbent Republican. Remember that Perot didn’t even announce his candidacy until February of '92, and was always running as a populist independent; he never had to fuck around with this sort of early pre-primary stuff.
I mean, I hope you’re right that under similar circumstances Perot would blow Trump out of the water…but I think it’s still too early to tell.
.
Its only a real backlash if one of them wins. If Trump or Sanders wins in 2016, I’ll call it a backlash. Otherwise, I’ll call it 15-months-before-the-election-itis
Yep. People say the are fed up with politics as usual, and then they go and vote for the same old usual politicians.
We need a real crisis to get the electorate, as a whole, to pick someone truly mavericky. And we’re not there yet. We had the Vietnam War and whom did we elect? Nixon. Twice. We had the Great Recession of 2008 and whom did we elect? Obama. He’s about as mavericky as it gets until a real crisis hits.
I think the political echo chamber of the last 20 years have caused both liberals and conservatives to develop extremely high standards that politicians can’t meet (I’m a liberal, and 80% of the country is not. On the other hand 80% isn’t a tea party conservative but both groups really want their way and neither of us realizes we are the minority).
But it is obvious our entire system is bought and no mainstream politician has any interest in changing that so I’m sure that plays a role too.
Plus our standard of living is declining and I doubt people have faith that that will change. I worry about the next generation’s chances for a decent quality of life in between automation, health care, debt, college costs, resource depletion, climate change, income inequality, etc.
So, having a hypocrite as a candidate makes no difference? how is someone so embedded in the system ever going to upset the system?
Not if you are going to ignore the log in your own eye. Because the OP was saying the voters are tired of the political establishment in Washington. If there is a backlash on that account, both parties are guilty. So unless you are also going to go on a diatribe about the shortcomings of the Republican candidates, your Hillary-bashing really doesn’t address the OP.
There seems to be a “backlash candidate” who gets big headlines in almost every election.
Ross Perot
Jesse Ventura
Ronald Reagan (1976 version)
Jimmy Carter (also the 1976 version)
George McGovern
George Wallace
Jesse Jackson
Pat Buchanan
Dennis Kucinich
And the list goes on.
This is not any kind of politician I am aware of. It’s a hugely successful corporation.
“Do not vote for an illegal war that kills a hundred thousand Iraqis and costs us trillions of dollars,” is not an unreasonable standard to hold a politician to.