Hacker News Reader

>It's one reporter's take on current events.

Where "one reporter" was once Secretary of Labor.

Fine, whatever. It's still bad analysis. He makes sweeping conclusions built on little but a smattering of incoherent facts. He's pandering to an audience.

There's something different this time, though. I have paid some attention to the last three or four of your primaries and there has always been a guy in the role that Sanders is playing now.

Sanders still seems to have a chance after a handful of states. That's a change for sure. And the explanation seems plausible. Unless you think Sanders is charismatic leader, worshipped by the masses, it must be a change in the voters part.

Sure, something's different. It's the nature of politics. The game is changing. This guy makes the argument that America has changed. It hasn't. Still the same ole' 'Murica. What's changed is social media.

Everybody gets excited over their pet independent candidate every single election. But now these indies can get their issues taken seriously by end-running establishment control over the news cycle.

The media creates the perception of who is winning and who is losing. Politicians trick the media into giving them coverage. They can build momentum by building awareness. Voters can only choose who they're aware of, for the reasons the media gives them. American voters are only a fraction of the population, only a quarter of Americans vote.

Three quarters of Americans don't care enough about politics to cast a vote. I'm one of them. This 4 year endeavor to place someone in the most powerful office in the world better resembles a bush-league pro wrestling circuit than anything like Serious Business.

But that's not even the strangest part. The strange part is that this is how it's been running for decades.

Sanders is not worshipped by the masses. He's merely running a flashier campaign than Hillary, so we see him more in the media. Ditto for Trump.

America is the same, it's politics that's changing. I'd prefer Hillary over Trump or Sanders, but any of them would do a decent job. Trump's basically a liberal anyway, if you look at his positions over time, he actually looks fairly reasonable. I'd prefer Hillary because she'd be able to actually get things done with Congress.

> be able to actually get things done with Congress

What kind of things do you expect Congress to do? Generally it's better when Congress does only absolutely necessary things and does not do anything else.

> I'd prefer Hillary because she'd be able to actually get things done with Congress.

No chance. Not with Congress the way it is now, and run by Republicans. Neither will Sanders.

They said that about Obama, but he still got shit done. The Repubs can't obstruct forever, and the Dems have learned how to deal with those tactics.

The weird thing out our democracy is, it's getting more democratic, even with pathetic turnout, the public exerts more of an influence on the news cycle, and that drives the political agenda.

> They said that about Obama, but he still got shit done.

Mostly in the first half-term, with a Democratic Congressional majority -- his signature legislative accomplishments (Affordable Care Act, ARRA) were achieved then.

> The weird thing out our democracy is, it's getting more democratic

No, its not.

> even with pathetic turnout, the public exerts more of an influence on the news cycle, and that drives the political agenda.

There's a number of forces steering things in between there, assuring that the impact that the news cycle has (because of the spin on the events, even if the public exerts more influence on which events get attention -- which is a dubious proposition, I think) reflects a fairly narrow set of biases held by the powerful.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the substantive policy output of the political system is becoming better aligned with the strength of views in the public, such that the net effect of any of this would be "more democratic."

> No chance. Not with Congress the way it is now, and run by Republicans. Neither will Sanders.

100% of the House and 1/3 of the Senate is up for election at the same time as the President. There's no particularly strong reason to believe that the next Congress must look like the current Congress.

Clay Shirky recently tweeted (yeah, that's right) an interesting analysis of this:

https://storify.com/cshirky/republican-and-democratic-partie...

Thanks, this is much better. The "quasi-parliamentarianism" bit was fascinating.

I'll think you'll find that Robert B. Reich's expertise extends a bit further than "reporting".

I'd argue he's part of the 'establishment' he's purporting to analyze from the outside, however.

What is your point? Who better to tell us how the establishment thinks and perceives than someone inside of it?

Right but he can only tell us what he thinks from that framework but that framework is failing to understand what is actually happening, so the conclusions are only useful knowing they are incorrect.

Well if someone from the perceived establishment presents an analysis saying the establishment's thinking is flawed, wouldn't their own analysis be questionable, given they are a part of the group they are claiming has flawed thinking?

The form of your argument is: Tesla says 19th century scientists have flawed thinking about alternating current, Tesla is a 19th century scientist, therefore Tesla has flawed thinking about alternating current.

More generally, no member of any group can ever say that the group is wrong, because they're a member of the group.

But stated differently, the flaw becomes apparent: "No member of any group can ever say that the group consensus is wrong, because they are a member of the group." But the one criticizing isn't a member of the group who shares the consensus, and the contradiction evaporates.

To which you could add that Trump and Cruz are benefiting from a large number of relatively low-profile candidates vying for the role of the "establishment candidate" which will soon be pared down, and the rules of the Democratic contest mean that Sanders either has to persuade a lot of party grandees to nominate him or win the caucus votes by a large margin.

The chances of both of them being on the ballot are pretty slim, and the likelihood of one of them being able to win an election in a head-to-head race with a non-alarming establishment candidate is slimmer still. Radical candidates can shift the political agenda, but the closer they get to actual power, the more likely they are to shift it in the opposite direction to the one they intend.

That is the conventional wisdom. This cycle conventional wisdom has lower than usual predicting power. The way I see Nevada - 52-47 is bad news for Hilary. She not only has to win by delegate count - she should win legitimacy with the Bernie supporters

Yeah, its hard to believe that the super delegates will override a popular victory. It would destroy the party.

>We're still in the primary phase, and primaries are conducted in rural areas where the most provincial Americans live. The messaging needs to be kept simple.

Primaries are conducted everywhere, so I don't understand this part. And wouldn't "provincial" people be less likely to vote in the primary than they would be to vote in the general?

Fascinating article about stumping for primaries:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/10/white-man-pat...

So rural voters are more susceptible to populism than urban voters?