If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Is it possible to make any conclusion about what motivates our populace or drives their politics from looking at the last four people elected to represent the entire country?
To me the fundamental problem is this: An increasing share of the US population has a strong disdain for government, one that has been cultivated deliberately at times. (Just look no further than the approval numbers for Congress and all the nick names and analogies for both sides of the aisle — Trump ran on “Drain the swamp!”, for example.) And the winner-takes-all (as opposed to proportional representation system) created an environment where there are only two viable parties — and people pick their party and stick with it, even if it decides to put sex offender on the ballot. There are extremely few inner city Republicans and rural Democrats. People feel as if they are wasting their votes. Sometimes you despise both options, but because you don't want to waste your vote, are forced to vote for the “lesser evil”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
The populace wants government to DO stuff for them, they just have different ideas of what that means. When they get tired of one party's corruption & forget how angry it made them, they elect the opposite party, preferably a candidate that will 'punish' the last candidate's policy. Rinse & repeat. The populace is motivated by hate, anger, laziness, characters & fad/extremism. The fad extremism part is the exciting part of politics; like marketing a product... Notice how none of the presidents are just middle of the road people, they all extremists in some respect and fit a caricature pretty easily.
Clinton was an extremist? I seem to recall the criticism on him was his views followed the political winds.
To me the fundamental problem is this: An increasing share of the US population has a strong disdain for government, one that has been cultivated deliberately at times. (Just look no further than the approval numbers for Congress and all the nick names and analogies for both sides of the aisle — Trump ran on “Drain the swamp!”, for example.) And the winner-takes-all (as opposed to proportional representation system) created an environment where there are only two viable parties — and people pick their party and stick with it, even if it decides to put sex offender on the ballot. There are extremely few inner city Republicans and rural Democrats. People feel as if they are wasting their votes. Sometimes you despise both options, but because you don't want to waste your vote, are forced to vote for the “lesser evil”.
That's rather neither here nor there to me. What is the link between your post and the OP?
I recall a lot of disillusionment with Bush I, after he broke his no new taxes pledge. Clinton was the first time we "rocked the vote" and got younger people back into voting. Guess who younger people vote for.
Is it possible to make any conclusion about what motivates our populace or drives their politics from looking at the last four people elected to represent the entire country?
I recall a lot of disillusionment with Bush I, after he broke his no new taxes pledge. Clinton was the first time we "rocked the vote" and got younger people back into voting. Guess who younger people vote for.
I was younger but my impression was weak economy and weak personality did him in.
Was a dem president not seen as tax and spend back then?
Clinton had done a good job in Arkansas with their budget. He ran very heavily on "it's the economy, stupid" and cutting back on cruft. I recall Al Gore breaking a $500 ashtray on Letterman's desk, saying the process for getting things approved was too costly and wasteful.
What sticks out in my mind is Clinton and Brown were the first politicians in a long time, from either party, who weren’t dull.
Look at who came before... Carter, ****in Walter Mondale, Dukakis, and Bush. Reagan was interesting, but only with a script. By the end, the guy could barely make a coherent sentence when he was off-book.
Gary Hart disappeared too quickly for me to get a read other than he slept with a woman who wasn’t his wife. Can you imagine?