US Elections for the Political Noob

Pages

The end is nigh. I, one who has always shunned P&C for fear of treading the treacherous waters, have decided to wade into the deep end. At the suggestion of Certis, our wise and benevolent overlord, I am starting a thread for the few of us who may still be political noobs. Please, teach me your ways. To be clear, I'm trying to get a basic discussion going for those of us who aren't as well versed in politics as some of the experts on here. I have no specific direction in mind, I'm just trying to learn. Please feel free to drop some knowledge on my eager brain. I know there will be controversy, because that's how things roll with politics, but I would appreciate if we kept things civil so I don't run screaming from P&C again.

So, to start, a little about me.

I'm 34 years old and a registered democrat. I live near Washington D.C. and work for the federal government. I have historically not gone too in depth into politics and feel that needs to change. I vote, but I am not a strict party voter. I try to determine which candidates fit my views and vote for them, no matter their party affiliation. I'm planning on voting Clinton this year and not just because Trump terrifies me, I do agree with a lot of what she's trying to do. I tend to classify myself as fairly liberal. I'm also married with two young children and therefore trying to make the country, and world, a better place for them is high up on my list of priorities.

So, based on some discussion in the What's Trump Done This Time Catch-All, I will ask a question to start things off. Other than voting for Clinton, what else can I do to help things move along? Is it as simple as also voting for members of Congress that have similar ambitions that will be able to move things along? What are the best non-biased resources for noobs like me?

P.S. Hopefully the Hero Image is ok. I tried to use one that has the artist and writer listed but it appears to be cutoff at the bottom. Let me know if that's not cool and I will try to find something else.

I guess the best start would be to look at the site and/or plan of potential politicians to see if they align with your ideas. Next would be to see if they actually voted for those things. You can also go and see scores of how these people have voted and how that aligns with certain groups such as Planned Parenthood or the NRA. (Just checked google, if you look for scorecards be mindful of the site. Some are liberal and some are conservative)

karmajay wrote:

I guess the best start would be to look at the site and/or plan of potential politicians to see if they align with your ideas. Next would be to see if they actually voted for those things. You can also go and see scores of how these people have voted and how that aligns with certain groups such as Planned Parenthood or the NRA. (Just checked google, if you look for scorecards be mindful of the site. Some are liberal and some are conservative)

karma, it would probably be even more helpful if you gave sites you do trust. Sounds like Asterith has zero idea which way sites lean or even where to find that out.

There's a podcast feed called "Shields and Brooks - PBS NewsHour" that presents the week's political happenings through the lens of both sides of the aisle in a very reasoned and non-confrontational way. It's only about 15 minutes each week, but if I could only have one resource for political news and opinion, that would be it.

Other than voting for Clinton, what else can I do to help things move along? Is it as simple as also voting for members of Congress that have similar ambitions that will be able to move things along?

Encourage and support others to vote, and to be informed and thoughtful about their votes.

Grab a sample ballot when they're available and research all the lower-level elections that you might be inclined to skip otherwise. Generally, you can find a fair amount of information on those by Googling. Elected judges are often vetted by lawyers associations—which you might not see on TV news, but are easy enough to find via a quick search.

I liked the way CSPAN showed the recent Republican and Democratic conventions without all of the biased commentary that normally happens with the major news networks. Since I don't regularly watch TV, I don't know if it's the way they normally operate, but if so, then it may be one of the best places to watch political events in general without having someone trying to sway you to various opinions.

I like this idea for a thread. I lurk on some of the political ones here in P&C but honestly the discussions in their level of knowledge and nuance are often beyond what I'm comfortable in engaging in. I'll be firmly on the noob side here.

As for my perspective I think that Trump is a national embarrassment and would be an unqualified disaster as POTUS. I'll be voting for Clinton because there really is no alternative.

I believe that HRC is smart and qualified but I also think that some of the criticisms leveled against her are legitimate. I'm also left to hope that her loyalties lie more on the side of average people rather than her fellow one-per-centers. It feels like I'm being naive.

One final aspect that bothers me that I don't hear much discussion about is that even with a best case scenario in this election we will see the same two families passing the most powerful seat on Earth back and forth for decades. If Hillary wins 2 terms it will be 28, albeit non-consecutive, years with they and the Bushes. That will be most of my life by that point and I'm no spring chicken.

Thanks for all the input so far everyone. Norman, I'll definitely check out that podcast. A buddy of mine here at work has also said that NPR is a pretty good place to listen for information so I'll check that out as well.

Wordsmythe, I didn't even know the sample ballot was a thing. Where would someone go to typically check that out? Is there a single website or is it based per county/city/state?

Another question I've had is based around the party system. Right now it seems that unless you are the Republican or Democratic nominee, you aren't getting into the White House and that's a problem in my mind. The question is, is there any way of fixing the way the system works without totally tearing it down and starting it back up in a different way? Do we need some miracle independent candidate to come in that somehow manages to get the needed votes?

NPR is good, but they're definitely left leaning a bit. They're nowhere close to, say, MSNBC, but they do skew left.

PBS in general tends to be better about stuff than most other places where they've gone more sensationalist (MSNBC, Fox, CNN, all nightly/evening news). I swear, it's almost like PBS is run by mature adults and not shortsighted money grub execs.

garion333 wrote:

NPR is good, but they're definitely left leaning a bit. They're nowhere close to, say, MSNBC, but they do skew left.

PBS in general tends to be better about stuff than most other places where they've gone more sensationalist (MSNBC, Fox, CNN, all nightly/evening news). I swear, it's almost like PBS is run by mature adults and not shortsighted money grub execs.

NPR news is decent in terms of less bias/leaning. OTOH the shows (such as Diane Reehm or Fresh Air) have, to me, a more pronounced leftward bent.

Dr_Awkward wrote:

I believe that HRC is smart and qualified but I also think that some of the criticisms leveled against her are legitimate. I'm also left to hope that her loyalties lie more on the side of average people rather than her fellow one-per-centers. It feels like I'm being naive.

In my opinion you are being naive in a sense; However, I also think that there's nothing you can do about that right now. Once someone gets to the point where they are a legitimate Presidential candidate, they already represent powerful interests far more so than they do average people. That's also mostly true of congress and even somewhat true of our supreme court.

So what do we do?

1. We get average people more involved, which is what this thread is about. Involvement and education can make the people a more powerful interest which can unite parties on issues, force compromise, and demand accountability.

2. We work to change our system and the parties within it from the local level on up. Politicians rise through the ranks, and the skillful ones are approached by powerful interests at every level. I know this from having family in government. You'd be amazed at who is interested in smaller things like an individual city council meeting in Durham, NC.

3. We take a long term viewpoint. This is not something which happens in 1, 2, or 4 election cycles. Progress will likely be frustratingly slow even if 'smarties within the parties' predict the change, catch on, and facilitate it. There will be attempts to steer individual movements toward the goals of the powerful. You also won't "win this and go home". The need for involvement and representation in our government is neverending.

One final aspect that bothers me that I don't hear much discussion about is that even with a best case scenario in this election we will see the same two families passing the most powerful seat on Earth back and forth for decades. If Hillary wins 2 terms it will be 28, albeit non-consecutive, years with they and the Bushes. That will be most of my life by that point and I'm no spring chicken.

Yeah. That sucks. Let's not lose hope though. The President is very powerful and influential across our entire federal structure, but that's still only one government position. They might have the wheel of the ship, but we're the wind.

Some suggestions:

1. Make sure to get registered and make sure you're actually on the roll. In the 2008 election there was a mix up and I had to take a provisional ballot which may or may not count depending on state.

2. Give yourself plenty of time to vote.

3. Don't forget to focus on local races. This is where you can have the greatest impact.

4. I personally think its ok to vote for your interests as long as the candidate isn't a total a-hole. So for example if there's a Republican that supports your agency I think it's ok to cross vote as long as doing so won't hurt other vulnerable populations. This is something I'm trying to get across to my step brother who's a federal customs agent. Trump would mean boon times for his agency but be a disaster for the country.

5. A great conservative voice I can recommend is Michael Medved. Don't always agree with him but he's logical and well informed.

garion333 wrote:

NPR is good, but they're definitely left leaning a bit. They're nowhere close to, say, MSNBC, but they do skew left.

PBS in general tends to be better about stuff than most other places where they've gone more sensationalist (MSNBC, Fox, CNN, all nightly/evening news). I swear, it's almost like PBS is run by mature adults and not shortsighted money grub execs.

Problem being that bias is still largely the imagining of politicians and isn't really reflected by reality. NPR's liberal bias is basically a bias towards reality.

IMAGE(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a3/a3ce35f78672af69face50682d41a992bf440720be13d2db45acbca70acdade9.jpg)

Not trying to fight but I hate that phrase. Reality is just reality, and there have been times where conservative leaders have supported great technological and social advancements (ie, Lincoln and Eisenhower), and times were liberal leaders really took society backwards (FDR's treatment of Japanese). I'll give you the current situation is bad on the Republican leadership side, but there are plenty of conservatives who recognize climate change is real and a problem. They want a common solution but are anxious about government solutions vs market ones.

jdzappa wrote:

Not trying to fight but I hate that phrase. Reality is just reality, and there have been times where conservative leaders have supported great technological and social advancements (ie, Lincoln and Eisenhower), and times were liberal leaders really took society backwards (FDR's treatment of Japanese). I'll give you the current situation is bad on the Republican leadership side, but there are plenty of conservatives who recognize climate change is real and a problem. They want a common solution but are anxious about government solutions vs market ones.

Consider the poster.

jdzappa wrote:

Not trying to fight but I hate that phrase. Reality is just reality, and there have been times where conservative leaders have supported great technological and social advancements (ie, Lincoln and Eisenhower), and times were liberal leaders really took society backwards (FDR's treatment of Japanese).

Liking is insufficient for how much I agree with you on this point.

Identity politics and cheering for a particular side at the expense of an examination of the facts at hand is a problem that transcends any particular ideology.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Not trying to fight but I hate that phrase. Reality is just reality, and there have been times where conservative leaders have supported great technological and social advancements (ie, Lincoln and Eisenhower), and times were liberal leaders really took society backwards (FDR's treatment of Japanese). I'll give you the current situation is bad on the Republican leadership side, but there are plenty of conservatives who recognize climate change is real and a problem. They want a common solution but are anxious about government solutions vs market ones.

Consider the poster.

Also the source, which was, itself, a joke.

Lincoln and Eisenhower, and their parties, were liberals by today's standards, remember. In Lincoln's case, Progressives, especially socially. (Lincoln's policies evolved from Northeastern college circles, the elites that Republicans today love to hate.) If you can honestly claim that Lincoln and Eisenhower are your guiding stars, you are literally a modern Democrat in your policy desires.

You don't need to listen to NPR on the radio to get it's political news. You can download NPR One and set it to play the political articles, or you can check out NPR News Politics. You can decide really quickly if it's to your taste or not.

The news coverage is not terribly biased; they have many more conservative interviewees than Fox has liberal ones, that's for sure. But many of the PRI shows on your local NPR station will be unabashedly liberal.

Dr_Awkward wrote:

I like this idea for a thread. I lurk on some of the political ones here in P&C but honestly the discussions in their level of knowledge and nuance are often beyond what I'm comfortable in engaging in. I'll be firmly on the noob side here.

Honestly, I think there's a point at which I feel over-invested. I think it's important to acknowledge when, for example, Trump says something awful and toxic, but I find I need to keep pulling back and reminding myself that there's no positive change associated with me feeling outraged and righteous while looking at my phone while pooping, and there's very little likelihood that any amount of resharing or retweeting is going to convince a Trump supporter to change their vote.

Asterith wrote:

Wordsmythe, I didn't even know the sample ballot was a thing. Where would someone go to typically check that out? Is there a single website or is it based per county/city/state?

Another question I've had is based around the party system. Right now it seems that unless you are the Republican or Democratic nominee, you aren't getting into the White House and that's a problem in my mind. The question is, is there any way of fixing the way the system works without totally tearing it down and starting it back up in a different way? Do we need some miracle independent candidate to come in that somehow manages to get the needed votes?

Yeah, sample ballots and the like are put out at a local level. Check here for details on how to make sure you're registered and prepared for voting where you live: Vlogbrothers' "How To Vote In Every State" Project. I think they give you at least a starter on where to look—it'll likely be your local board of election commissioners, but probably isn't ready yet.

As to the two-party system, I have hope that this year will have enough break-away voters for Johnson that the Libertarian Party will be officially in the mix next time. Other non-noobs can back me up, but i think at 10% of the popular vote, there are more systematic things that trigger.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Identity politics and cheering for a particular side at the expense of an examination of the facts at hand is a problem that transcends any particular ideology.

It's a problem in the long term. In the short term? It's saving lives. So go with it.

jdzappa wrote:

I'll give you the current situation is bad on the Republican leadership side, but there are plenty of conservatives who recognize climate change is real and a problem. They want a common solution but are anxious about government solutions vs market ones.

Except they practically universally reject cap and trade now...

Conservatives fight so much about climate change because, deep down, they understand that the only way to effectively combat it is to have the government take a more active role via taxes, actions, regulations, and the like. And they all absolutely hate that idea so it's just easier to claim that climate change really isn't that bad (or doesn't exist at all).

Robear wrote:

Lincoln and Eisenhower, and their parties, were liberals by today's standards, remember. In Lincoln's case, Progressives, especially socially. (Lincoln's policies evolved from Northeastern college circles, the elites that Republicans today love to hate.) If you can honestly claim that Lincoln and Eisenhower are your guiding stars, you are literally a modern Democrat in your policy desires.

Yeah, having been part of the Republican Party doesn't mean they were conservatives. The platform and voting base of the GOP has changed a lot in the past 162 years.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Not trying to fight but I hate that phrase. Reality is just reality, and there have been times where conservative leaders have supported great technological and social advancements (ie, Lincoln and Eisenhower), and times were liberal leaders really took society backwards (FDR's treatment of Japanese).

Liking is insufficient for how much I agree with you on this point.

Identity politics and cheering for a particular side at the expense of an examination of the facts at hand is a problem that transcends any particular ideology.

This is the same attitude I'm trying to approach politics with. To me, it doesn't matter what party affiliation you are, it just matters that I believe you're going to try to use your office to make the USA, and by extension, the world, a better place. Unfortunately, as people keep pointing out, it seems like a significant portion of the population is of the mindset that they will stick with their party till the end, even if it means watching the world burn. Maybe I need to start looking at it as a parent. I can do my best to educate my kids but in the end they will believe what they believe. I just have to keep doing what I think is best for them and they will learn in time... hopefully.

I also throw in my dime for the slate political gabfest. David and Emily definitely lean left but David often takes interesting positions that aren't typically liberal, and Emily is wonderful on legal issues. And John Dickerson rounds out the trio, providing the closest thing to non biased reporting and commentary that I've heard. He also has an outstanding podcast called The Whistlestop, where he revisits the many interesting moments in presidential campaign history.

edit: eh, on second though, I don't think this was what the thread was for. My bad.

Hmmmm... Maybe I should start adding things to the first post. Podcasts, recommendations, etc. Yes. I should do this and I shall, just probably not till tomorrow. Please let me know if I post something incorrectly.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to say, it's just a joke. That wasn't my defense or anything, just noting the origin of the quote (which was from Colbert's presentation at a White House correspondent's dinner)... but as a reference to NPR being pretty balanced as a national news source. They're liberal, yes, but not nearly as liberal as many conservative commentators make them out to be.

I maintain that a decent chunk of the implied bias is usually because of the perception (which I'd actually agree with) that outside of their news/politics stuff... they tend to be very artsy and somewhat outside the mainstream.

IMAGE(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/files/2011/03/twitter-politics-full-chart.png)

One of the things I like to do with local elections is track down videos of newspaper panel interviews with the candidates. One of our local alt weeklies does this for every election, and for all but the most obscure offices. It's a great resource, because it lets you form your own opinions, rather than those of the newspaper editor. And a lot of times, the recounting of these interviews is very different from what shows up on video.

That chart is interesting, in that the most liberal source (well into the "check before you post" terrain for me) is Ezra Klein, but 10 of 19 conservative sources are all more biased than that. So consider your sources carefully.

Robear wrote:

That chart is interesting, in that the most liberal source (well into the "check before you post" terrain for me) is Ezra Klein, but 10 of 19 conservative sources are all more biased than that. So consider your sources carefully.

True, but note the source's time too, that is a few years back now. I'd be surprised if, say, MotherJones or Salon isn't likely a bit further to the left at this point... but I'm having trouble finding a newer version of such a study.

Pages