2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[kellyb]

In my opinion, one of the great strengths of the American system is that it's virtually impossible to have a dynasty in the conventional sense. None of the high offices are hereditary. There's no mechanism to install favorites. Your family connections only matter if you can sell them to the voting public. And at that point, it's the same "electability by association" advantage that anyone else associated with a successful politician would have.

George H. W. Bush succeeding Reagan was probably the most dynastic outcome we've had in recent presidential elections. Biden is making a similarly dynastic play right now.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush got flatly rejected by voters. And Hillary's campaign got vehemently split response from voters. So bring 'em on. Let Michelle Obama run if she wants to. Let Jeb try again if he dares. Let Chelsea Clinton throw her hat in the ring, if that's her pleasure. Hell, let Ivanka run. It's not like Donald Trump can reach out from beyond the presidency to install her, the way Vladimir Putin installed Medvedev, and later reinstalled himself. To me, that kind of thing is actually dynastic, in a way that a relative of a US president running for office, partly on the strength of the name and the association, isn't.

Have you forgotten that Bush Jr was elected? Or does it not count because of the Clinton intermission?

 

[Brainster]

In my opinion, one of the great strengths of the American system is that it's virtually impossible to have a dynasty in the conventional sense. None of the high offices are hereditary. There's no mechanism to install favorites. Your family connections only matter if you can sell them to the voting public. And at that point, it's the same "electability by association" advantage that anyone else associated with a successful politician would have.

George H. W. Bush succeeding Reagan was probably the most dynastic outcome we've had in recent presidential elections. Biden is making a similarly dynastic play right now.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush got flatly rejected by voters. And Hillary's campaign got vehemently split response from voters. So bring 'em on. Let Michelle Obama run if she wants to. Let Jeb try again if he dares. Let Chelsea Clinton throw her hat in the ring, if that's her pleasure. Hell, let Ivanka run. It's not like Donald Trump can reach out from beyond the presidency to install her, the way Vladimir Putin installed Medvedev, and later reinstalled himself. To me, that kind of thing is actually dynastic, in a way that a relative of a US president running for office, partly on the strength of the name and the association, isn't.

Some of the congressional seats have become dynastic.

According to a David Hawkings column for Roll Call in honor of the royal wedding, the percentage of members of Congress preceded on Capitol Hill by family members has for the last two decades ranged from 4 to 6 percent. Right now it’s at 5 percent, or 29 members, 15 of them Democrats and 14 Republicans.

One member or another of the late John Dingell's family has held a congressional seat from Michigan since 1933. Dingell's father was a congressman for 22 years, Dingell himself served for 59 years, and he was succeeded by his (younger) wife who's held the seat for the last 4 years.

 

[Distracted1]

Some of the congressional seats have become dynastic.



One member or another of the late John Dingell's family has held a congressional seat from Michigan since 1933. Dingell's father was a congressman for 22 years, Dingell himself served for 59 years, and he was succeeded by his (younger) wife who's held the seat for the last 4 years.

That is only accounting for the members whose offspring hold similar positions of public trust. It does not take into account the lesser offices, and appointed positions (for example, Sarah Huckabee) currently held by members of political families in Federal ,State, and Municipal Government.
I favor legal roadblocks to this kind of "soft" nepotism.

 

[Distracted1]

No. No more Obamas. No more Bushes. No more Clintons.

No... more.. dynasties.

Amen.

They are an insult to the foundation of our society.

 

[theprestige]

Have you forgotten that Bush Jr was elected? Or does it not count because of the Clinton intermission?

I had not forgotten that George W. Bush was also elected. However, in my concentration on non-familial examples of dynasty in American politics, I forgot about Bush Jr's election. You're right that it fits under my definition of "American dynasty". Right up there with Bush Sr's election, Hillary's campaign, and Biden's campaign. Oh, and Al Gore's campaign, which was a total dynasty play in the American tradition. Thanks for the correction.

---

My point is, in the American system, "dynasty" isn't a matter of getting installed due to hereditary entitlement or family connections. It's about selling your relationship with another politician to the voting public and hoping they'll put value on it. If JoeMorgue is against dynasties, then he should probably look beyond family relationships. Former vice presidents, at least, should probably be out of the running - especially if they're campaigning for a "third" term of the previous administration (Bush Sr., Gore, quasi-Biden).

 

[theprestige]

Some of the congressional seats have become dynastic.



One member or another of the late John Dingell's family has held a congressional seat from Michigan since 1933. Dingell's father was a congressman for 22 years, Dingell himself served for 59 years, and he was succeeded by his (younger) wife who's held the seat for the last 4 years.

"Dynastic." Unless you're alleging ballot fraud or other illegal methods of installing people in elected positions, each one of those office-holders had to sell their relationship to the voting public, and hope that the voting public saw enough value there to elect them. This is, to me, a significant difference from dynasty as it is commonly understood.

 

[theprestige]

That is only accounting for the members whose offspring hold similar positions of public trust. It does not take into account the lesser offices, and appointed positions (for example, Sarah Huckabee) currently held by members of political families in Federal ,State, and Municipal Government.
I favor legal roadblocks to this kind of "soft" nepotism.

That seems profoundly undemocratic, impractical, and unfair. To me, "sorry, your older brother already chose a career in politics, so you can't have that option for your own life" is a way worse solution than "sure, campaign on your brother's reputation if you think it'll help. As long as you can convince voters, it's all good."

 

[Distracted1]

I had not forgotten that George W. Bush was also elected. However, in my concentration on non-familial examples of dynasty in American politics, I forgot about Bush Jr's election. You're right that it fits under my definition of "American dynasty". Right up there with Bush Sr's election, Hillary's campaign, and Biden's campaign. Oh, and Al Gore's campaign, which was a total dynasty play in the American tradition. Thanks for the correction.

---

My point is, in the American system, "dynasty" isn't a matter of getting installed due to hereditary entitlement or family connections. It's about selling your relationship with another politician to the voting public and hoping they'll put value on it. If JoeMorgue is against dynasties, then he should probably look beyond family relationships. Former vice presidents, at least, should probably be out of the running - especially if they're campaigning for a "third" term of the previous administration (Bush Sr., Gore, quasi-Biden).

Your point is that you wish to expand the definition of "dynasty" beyond the common perception of it? Then argue it's merits based upon your new definition?

 

[Distracted1]

That seems profoundly undemocratic, impractical, and unfair. To me, "sorry, your older brother already chose a career in politics, so you can't have that option for your own life" is a way worse solution than "sure, campaign on your brother's reputation if you think it'll help. As long as you can convince voters, it's all good."

I would not expect such a supporter of the Electoral College system to consider "undemocratic" to be a bug.

 

[theprestige]

Your point is that you wish to expand the definition of "dynasty" beyond the common perception of it? Then argue it's merits based upon your new definition?

My point is that I want to contract the definition of dynasty to something more like its original connotations of hereditary and nepotistic offices. And then argue for the merits of the American system based on its significant differences from traditional dynastic arrangements.

We call it a "dynasty" when a relative of a successful politician campaigns for office themselves, sustained partly by the positive name recognition they enjoy from their relationship to the other guy. I think we call it that mainly because we don't have a better word for it. But it's not really the same thing as a "dynasty" in the other sense.

 

[Distracted1]

"Dynastic." Unless you're alleging ballot fraud or other illegal methods of installing people in elected positions, each one of those office-holders had to sell their relationship to the voting public, and hope that the voting public saw enough value there to elect them. This is, to me, a significant difference from dynasty as it is commonly understood.

Before selling their relationships to the voting public (considering only elected positions, setting aside appointed ones for now), the first had to "sell" their value to the Party which would nominate them- that Party being one partially shaped by the previous officeholders of the candidates' family. A decidedly "unfair" leg up.

 

[theprestige]

I would not expect such a supporter of the Electoral College system to consider "undemocratic" to be a bug.

I worry that your expectations are based more on a caricature you have of me, than on conversing with me about what I believe and why.

This one, in particular, seems more about hate than understanding. You've started from a position that the electoral college is equivalent to ballot tampering. I don't see much room for productive conversation, with a starting point like that. The whole thing reads like "I hate you, I don't trust you, I don't want to understand you, and I don't actually even want to talk to you." If that's not the message you want to send, please let me know.

 

[Distracted1]

My point is that I want to contract the definition of dynasty to something more like its original connotations of hereditary and nepotistic offices. And then argue for the merits of the American system based on its significant differences from traditional dynastic arrangements.

We call it a "dynasty" when a relative of a successful politician campaigns for office themselves, sustained partly by the positive name recognition they enjoy from their relationship to the other guy. I think we call it that mainly because we don't have a better word for it. But it's not really the same thing as a "dynasty" in the other sense.

Again, for elected positions only (ignoring the appointed ones) there is more to it than simply "name recognition".
The influence of an officeholder (partially because of the aforementioned appointments which outlast a particular term of office) extend beyond the ballot box.

 

[theprestige]

Before selling their relationships to the voting public (considering only elected positions, setting aside appointed ones for now), the first had to "sell" their value to the Party which would nominate them- that Party being one partially shaped by the previous officeholders of the candidates' family. A decidedly "unfair" leg up.

Even the parties hold elections by their membership, to choose their nominee. Even the DNC didn't say, "oh, you're a Clinton, no need for primaries this time around!"

 

[Distracted1]

I worry that your expectations are based more on a caricature you have of me, than on conversing with me about what I believe and why.

This one, in particular, seems more about hate than understanding. You've started from a position that the electoral college is equivalent to ballot tampering. I don't see much room for productive conversation, with a starting point like that. The whole thing reads like "I hate you, I don't trust you, I don't want to understand you, and I don't actually even want to talk to you." If that's not the message you want to send, please let me know.

Read it again. Give consideration to your expressed opinion in post #1407 that legal barriers to family members serving in public office is "profoundly undemocratic". Contrast that with any of numerous previous posts wherein you have expressed little or no dismay that the EC is also "profoundly undemocratic" and you will likely piece together the crux what I was trying to express.
I cannot help if you think I "hate" you (or even if you think I love you) based upon your coloration of the posts of an internet foil. "Largely indifferent" outside the context of a discussion is the best I can come up with emotionally.

 

[theprestige]

Read it again. Give consideration to your expressed opinion in post #1407 that legal barriers to family members serving in public office is "profoundly undemocratic". Contrast that with any of numerous previous posts wherein you have expressed little or no dismay that the EC is also "profoundly undemocratic" and you will likely piece together the crux what I was trying to express.
I cannot help if you think I "hate" you (or even if you think I love you) based upon your coloration of the posts of an internet foil. "Largely indifferent" outside the context of a discussion is the best I can come up with emotionally.

Suit yourself. I don't see the EC as being profoundly undemocratic, nor even particularly undemocratic in context. Certainly not the same way that I see ballot tampering as profoundly undemocratic.

I pieced together quite easily the the crux of what you were trying to express. It's based on a faulty assumption, rather than on actually conversing with me about what I think and why.

 

[Distracted1]

Even the parties hold elections by their membership, to choose their nominee. Even the DNC didn't say, "oh, you're a Clinton, no need for primaries this time around!"

Certainly. Yet "you're a Clinton/Bush/Kennedy/Pierce/Daly/Kirkpatric/etc./etc./etc." carries an outsized weight that is based not only on name recognition- but also on the network of appointees and cronies that make up party membership and support. That network outlives the term in office that leads to the creation of the dynasty.

It contributes to a trading of favors (explicit and implicit) that excludes non-family members simply by elimination of the openings available to be filled (and that is the least malevolent interpretation) due to the filling of positions with someones cousin/wife/son/etc.

 

[Distracted1]

Suit yourself. I don't see the EC as being profoundly undemocratic, nor even particularly undemocratic in context. Certainly not the same way that I see ballot tampering as profoundly undemocratic.

I pieced together quite easily the the crux of what you were trying to express. It's based on a faulty assumption, rather than on actually conversing with me about what I think and why.

Have we discussed "ballot tampering" before?

 

[theprestige]

Have we discussed "ballot tampering" before?

I honestly no longer give a **** about this conversation. I thought it might be interesting, but I was wrong. I explored the idea bout dynasties that I wanted to explore. I'm taking into consideration your points about the crony network and its contribution to the success of the nepot or whatever.

Arguing with you about electoral college versus ballot tampering seems like it's not going to yield any interesting results, so I'm out. Whatever point you think you were making, you're welcome to it .

 

[The Atheist]

I thought they all want Michelle Obama to run ...

Duuno about "they", but I said it some time ago, and the polls seem to indicate she'd be an excellent choice.

I reckon she'd be taller than Trump with her heels on, which would drive him nuts.

I stand by my analysis that she would slaughter the orange slug, which should be the number one reason she should run.