The Ask a Politician Thread

Transferred from that other thread:

I don't completely understand it, but I have a calming influence on agitated people.

Probably this was a skill I needed as a child, growing up with a mentally ill parent.

It does involve speaking calmly, an open posture, active listening, taking the person seriously, and honestly discussing whatever it is that bothers them.

(Presumably it helps that I'm the boss, a public figure, so my attention is "worth more" than a subordinate's attention.)

An anecdote:

As for spin, I find that, when possible, it's generally better to be open and consistent about my position, rather than leave room for doubt.

 

Better to be hated for who you are than loved who you are not....of course some people are first class idiots who make it easier to dislike them.

 

I have a question on politicians and fundraising, mostly at the national level:

I understand that in many ways fundraising is a necessary part of the political process. Politicians are not alone in having tangential responsibilities in their profession. Priests still have to fill the pews and fundraise to pay for the heat, doctors have to deal with insurance paperwork, teachers have to deal with administrative tasks outside of the classroom. I understand that a politician can be as concerned as they want to about public service; but if they don't play the game well and stay in office, they are not in a position to serve anybody.

I am curious as to what kind of broad consensus there is among politicians about the citizen's united ruling. I am familiar with the basic water-cooler version of the conversation, which tends to echo the opinions expressed on the daily show and NPR. How do politicians tend to feel about it? Is there a sense that we are locked into a financial arms race that they would like to find a way out of? Do they tend to just accept the status quo as the price of staying in the game? Or are there significant numbers who would extoll the positives from the supreme court ruling?

To the extent that there is a diversity of opinion, does it tend to split by party? by region? by office? I would be very interested in a perspective on the issue from somebody who is actually inside the political process and has contact with some of these people affected by the decision in their daily work.

 

Thank you @Speed Gibson, leads me to this,@StreetPattern, I truely do not understand politics, However I have been watching and listening to the media since Mr. Obamas first run. And have now a festering hatred for Mr. John Bainer. Everything he has said and done in the last 6 yrs, IMO has proved that he's a racist and does not put the American people first, he did in fact put the t-party first. So how does a guy that is portrayed as an idiot and a money monger keep his job? why not limit the term any elected office across the board?

 

Bear with me, some questions are at the end of my rant.

I find the bipartisan fighting among Democrats & Republicans, and the lesser parties which have gained mementum recently, disgusting. I know that politicians have to stick with the respective party platform to a certain extent, but the 'We're Going To Fuck The Other Party Every Chance We Get' attitude has gotten very old for me.

With some politicians it's just posturing & rhetoric for the media to appease voters, but in many cases it becomes a matter of policy. It's almost like members of one party secretly think, "That's a pretty good idea." But they take the position, "Since we didn't introduce it we won't support it. In fact we'll fight it every step of the way just on principle."

Now some actual questions--Does the above apply to local lower level government? If yes, how often and to what degree?

 

Myself, I don't like Citizens United, but I think its impact is overrated. See response #5 to this item for my views on the power of money in electoral politics.

Generally speaking, Democratic politicos are outraged, Republicans politicos are not. This reflects the political realities that Republicans have considerably easier access to campaign money than Democrats do. As I pointed out in response #5, that seeming imbalance makes less difference than you might think.

I'm guessing that those who really love the decision are keeping quiet about it, given that (1) voters might react negatively, and (2) the decision stands on its own and doesn't require any political defense.

Remember, too, that Citizens United is about campaign expenditures by independent entities, not direct donations to political campaigns. Such independent expenditures are getting more common, but are still rare outside presidential and congressional elections.

 

Theh biggest issue with Citizens United is not just independent spending, but the significant rise in "dark money" with no accountability as to the source of that money. The impact is hard to measure but it certainly lessens transparency in the electoral process.

The cost of elections has reached obscene levels, regardless of the impact....somewhere in the neighborhood of costing $1 million to run for a House seat and $10 million to run for a Senate seat. With the announcement of the retirement of Barbara Boxer in Cali, there is talk of the first $billion Senate campain in 2016!

Unfortunately, we wont see serious campaign reform by either party. If it happens, it will only be a result of grass roots efforts and I wouldnt expect to see much.
--- merged: Jan 15, 2015 at 5:30 PM ---

Democrats raised more in direct contributions to candidates or parties; Republicans raised more in "dark money" contributions to independent groups.

 

Note that it's a German-American name, pronounced "Bainer", but spelled "Boehner".

If everybody saw him that way, he would have been gone long ago. Plainly his actions are approved by the majority of people in his district and the majority of congressmen in his party.

Term limits are popular, but they are very bad for governing. When you force constant turnover among the senators and representatives, none of them will have much experience or independence. They will vote even more party-line than they do now, and they will be even more captive of interest groups than they are now.

Here in Michigan, we have strict term limits on our legislature, and it has been a disaster for the state. Everyone has a lifetime limit of six years in the House of Representatives, so every rep is constantly on the lookout for another job. They don't know much about the state budget, and they don't bother to learn, because they're going to be gone soon no matter what. We used to have a lot of mavericks and moderates, but now there is literally no one, out of 110 reps and 38 senators, who votes independently of their political party.

 

The "dark money" or outside spending to non-disclosing groups - 73% to conservative groups.
2014 Outside Spending, by Group | OpenSecrets

 

No. That kind of statement is only true if you define the parties very narrowly. I think the Republican National Committee has had some trouble fundraising in recent years, so technically the Democratic National Committee has slightly more. But if you were to sum all of the entities that were spending campaign money at all levels, there's no contest: Republicans in general have a huge money advantage.

But as I keep saying, this doesn't make as much difference as you might think. Republicans have fewer volunteers and fewer activists, so they have to use money to make up for that. For example, I was in high school, the county chair of the Young Democrats in the county was a volunteer position, but the county chair of the Young Republicans received a salary.

From the late 1970s until the early 2000s, the number of volunteer hours donated to political campaigns declined tremendously, across the board, in both parties. That, plus technological changes, led to a shift in campaign practice, in both parties, toward buying services rather relying on volunteer workers. Hence, campaigns "need" more money than they used to.

 

Lesser parties? Libertarians and Greens are tiny sideshows with little impact.

Following the realignment of the last few decades, our major parties are now ideological camps with few goals in common.

The constituencies that drive both political parties are the people who vote in primary elections. Those voters have become more and more bitterly partisan, and they vehemently reject old-style politically-moderate consensus-building politicians.

This is a mutually reinforcing trend, because moderates on one side need moderates on the other side to work with. The disappearance of moderates on one side drives politicians on the other side to retreat to the party line.

And with radically different views on all kinds of issues, it is getting uncommon for a Democrat to think a Republican has a good idea, or vice versa.

If it's partisan, definitely, all these tendencies still apply. In nonpartisan bodies like (most) school boards, it's more muted.

 

ok I'm lost or nor living in America, the T-party quickly evolved and publicly announced that they we're going to drive the republican party just due to the fact that they had more money than anyone, and I am certain it was the republicans that shut down our government at the request of this party.

 

The other day my wife asked, "Why don't we have politicians who try to do what's right instead of fighting all the time?". I explained that politicians have to work they their way up the ladder. The senior politicians get to decide who serves on which committee. A freshman or 'newbie' politician has to follow the party line, vote as the senior politicians want them to, or else they'll get assigned to a lower relatively unimportant committee and never get an appointment to an important committee.

 

I am intrigued by California's proposed solution to this issue... where the top two votes getters in the primary square off in the general election, even if they are from the same party... the idea being to encourage those candidates to garner as broad a base as possible, even from the other side, since neither one would have a monopoly on the vote from their own part.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

 

I just want thank Street Pattern for starting thread and anwsering our questions. It's good to have input from someone who is actually involved in politics.

 

@Street Pattern, in the past I was not nice to you and here I apologize. I want your input on if Mr. Trump is truly wanting the Presidency. That man is spending his own money, and has insulted just about everyone I know, and yet we all still like him. Can he do the job in your opinion?

 

@Popeye, seriously, thank you for that first sentence.

All the commentators seem to be taking for granted that Trump is running as a joke, or to maintain his Famous Person status, but I think they may be wrong about that. I think his goal is to win. I think he visualizes himself in the White House and in charge.

His great advantage is that he's not playing by the same rules as everybody else. Comments that would be a career-ending gaffe for some other candidate are minor issues to Trump; people quickly forgive his comments because he is not seen as a politician. He is certainly not under the control of any campaign donors. His popularity has surged and proved wrong the people who dismissed him at the outset. See, for example: Boy, was I wrong about Donald Trump.

Can he do the job? My tentative, instinctive answer is no. Experience running a large business is not necessarily applicable to the government. He can't just fire the Supreme Court or the Speaker of the House. And he comes across as a hothead, a temperament I wouldn't want in a president. That trait might scare people from him if he gets close to winning.

But that being said, he has not run his businesses into the ground. He has managed billions of dollars worth of assets -- something most of us would fail at, or never have the nerve. He is a much smarter guy than people are giving him credit for, and he has plenty of resources for a campaign.
--- merged: Aug 18, 2015 at 8:53 PM ---

Gilbert and Sullivan wrote about this more than a hundred years ago in Britain:

I grew so rich that I was sent​

By a pocket borough into Parliament.​

I always voted at my party's call,​

And I never thought of thinking for myself at all....​

I thought so little, they rewarded me​

By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!​