Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign • Hacker News Board

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#131

Post by tptacek » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:40 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #121

tptacek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the three major candidates in 2000, there's no question Nader was the least likely to support military intervention anywhere. His policy intentions, many of which I support unreservedly, aren't the issue. The issue is that he had no chance of winning the 2000 election, and by staying in, he probably cost Gore the Presidency. There's a "dispute" over whether Nader was a spoiler, but that dispute relies on the notio…

Yes, it was totally Nader and Nader voters that caused the invasion of Iraq, not the 50 million people who voted for Bush, nor the hordes of people who cheered on going to war, nor the butthurt NYPD that suppressed protests (only mentioned due to personal experience), nor the mass media that started fanning the flames and beating the drums before the dust had even settled. Let us remember, Bush II ran on a platform o…

This argument might make you feel better, and it sure sounds sympathetic, but it doesn't change the fact that Nader's hopeless campaign gave the election to Bush. It's not as if the concept of spoiler candidates is new to US politics; it's how we got Clinton, the President in office at when Nader ran!

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#132

Post by tptacek » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:41 PM UTC

pen2l wrote: post #126

tptacek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a total of zero serious observers who believe Al Gore would have "nuked Afghanistan", but there's a nonzero number who believe 9/11 might not have happened had he been elected. Al Gore is not a particularly great human being, but in addition to the banal malevolence George Bush shares with Al Gore and every other politician, and the additional evil he shares with the Neoconservative political movement he be…

I think when in the hot seat most actors gravitate toward a status quo equilibrium. The left presidents will lean a little more right, the right will lean a little more left. Obama took us to Syria, would you have guessed he would do that when he was campaigning? I think Gore would have been walked into Iraq warring and more by his advisers.

This perspective totally ignores the history of the Iraq war, and the distinctive influence of Bush's idiosyncratic cabinet and vice president, all of whom had outsized influence due to Bush's own weakness.

The idea that Gore would have invaded Iraq in response to an attack from Afghanistan is not well supported by evidence, and not common among historians.

Just making this argument is a kind of "tell" that the arguer refuses to entertain the idea that third-party candidacies can harm the country by splitting the vote. I guess there are intellectually consistent ways to make that argument, but "Gore would have invaded Iraq" is not one of them.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#133

Post by Bud » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:43 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #41

smacktoward wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't any victory necessarily include a major sea change in congress? No, not really. Barack Obama's 2008 victory only came with very very very slim Democratic majorities in both houses, for instance, and then those got overturned two years later. This myth that a presidential candidate can sweep huge Congressional majorities into office on his coattails is derived from exactly one real-life example: FDR's victo…

I agree with you it's probably not necessary. But Obama in an exceedingly bad example in that respect: Obama is firmly in the centre of the current US political landscape. You can be a moderate Republican and be to the left of Obama on many issues. That's presumably a large part of why he won, and why so many "progressives" have been disappointed at the lack of change. The shift from Bush to Obama was a tiny shift co…

>The shift from Bush to Obama was a tiny shift compared to what going from Obama to Sanders would be.

Nope. The shift from Bush to Obama was immense. It resulted in two Supreme Court nominations by a Democrat instead of a Republican. What would the Obama to Sanders change be? Zero. Nothing.

The shift from Bush to Obama resulted in every Cabinet position becoming Democratic too, of course. Obama to Sanders? Basically no shift would result here; possibly a couple nominations that are slightly further leftwards.

Legislatively, what would Sanders veto that Obama hasn't? Very little.

Would Sanders have more or less luck than Obama at passing major legislation with a hostile Congress? Hard to say for sure, but I'd argue he'd have less luck, simply because he's less moderate.

You're right, of course, that Obama is a moderate, but still wrong about your overall point.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#134

Post by RealGeek » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:48 PM UTC

dankohn1 wrote: post #34

I supported Lessig's presidential campaign monetarily, even though I never thought he had a snowball's chance and also didn't think that his model of affecting change was fully thought through. As entrepreneurs, I think many of us can sympathize with the idea of knowing that there is a huge, massive problem that needs to be fixed, without necessarily having the solution fully formed. It would have been so easy for Le…

Even though he didn't have a chance in the Presidential race. If he built a serious campaign, he could have made an impact in the debates and push for change.

I support his work and message, but even I couldn't take his campaign seriously because of his plan to resign as President after elections and campaign reform.

Bernie Sanders may or may not get the nomination; but regardless, he is making a big impact in the debate and influencing the agenda.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#135

Post by decisiveness » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:56 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #70

ThomPete wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of michael_nielsens comment has to be seen in the context it was posted. To tell the majority if the comments that it's easy to just critique but har to do things. In that context it was actually a pretty relevant quote. Someone putting themselves out no matter whether it turns good or bad always requires something most people don't have. It's rarely elegant or clean. Mostly just brute force and that of cou…

Of course it's easy to "just be a critique". But critiques of Lessig aren't "just critiques". Lessig's critics understand something Lessig himself seems not to: his campaign is quixotic, his goal of being a "single-issue President" is incoherent given the structure of the US government, and, in a close election year, his prospects of somehow acting as a spoiler for the party he purports to support are far greater tha…

Whether or not you agree with this it has always been the core message of Lessig's campaign: Getting special interest money out of politics should be first priority, and until we get enough citizens to care about that, it'll be extremely difficult to pass legislation that goes against any special interest.

Yes, his strategy for getting the message out was broken, but he understands his campaign was quixotic in its initial state (referendum president), and has since agreed the idea was "stupid". Since the beginning, he made known what he really wanted, at a minimum, was the chance to make this issue more of a priority among all candidates.

This is just my opinion, but being a "spoiler" for the party never really appeared to be a likely outcome for Lessig, nor did being an agent for change. The only prospect he ever really had was one of failure. Failure to deliver his message to the masses. And it's a shame, because I think a grass roots movement focused on this message might be successful with the right person and strategy behind it.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#136

Post by mindslight » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:56 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #131

mindslight wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was totally Nader and Nader voters that caused the invasion of Iraq, not the 50 million people who voted for Bush, nor the hordes of people who cheered on going to war, nor the butthurt NYPD that suppressed protests (only mentioned due to personal experience), nor the mass media that started fanning the flames and beating the drums before the dust had even settled. Let us remember, Bush II ran on a platform o…

This argument might make you feel better, and it sure sounds sympathetic, but it doesn't change the fact that Nader's hopeless campaign gave the election to Bush. It's not as if the concept of spoiler candidates is new to US politics; it's how we got Clinton, the President in office at when Nader ran!

I feel fine with my decision and would do the same thing again. In fact, I voted third party in 2k4 as well.

The thing is, I don't really care that Bush II won. In fact I miss those days when most of my peers were anti-government since their team hadn't won.

I am not particularly interested in what flavor of shit I will be forced to eat, and I won't legitimize the process by asking for the one that seems less foul.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#137

Post by jonknee » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:56 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #130

jonknee wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? He's not going to get any noticeable amount of votes and won't cause any damage to another candidate.

It has only been 15 years since Ralph Nader got W elected for two terms and cost us about $10 trillion in stupid wars and bad economic decisions, and just about destroyed the US economy to boot. Do you already need yet another new lesson on why Lessig running as an independent could easily be disastrous? Really?

The big difference is Ralph Nader had people who wanted to vote for him, Lessig does not.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#138

Post by bsimpson » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:56 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #53

As much as I love Lawrence Lessig, I'm glad for this. "Celebrity single-issue candidate" is a poor role for him, a terrible waste of his talents. He deserves better, and the Democratic Party would do well to recognize him for it. An explicit, high profile advisory role for either Bernie or Hillary (or whoever wins the nomination) would be fantastic. Maybe even a Cabinet seat. But president? What's that supposed to ac…

My biggest concern is that the only official job of the President is to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Lessig is a fantastic policy wonk, but a single-issue candidate has no business leading the military, even though that was effectively the job he was going out for.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#139

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 10:57 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #24

gkoberger wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lessig never wanted to be president; he wanted a podium. But you can't say that. If he indicated he wasn't serious about being president in any way, they never would have let him on stage. That being said, I think it's shameful he hasn't endorsed Sanders. Lessig acts like he's the only one working on it. Whether or not you like Sanders, he is the only viable candidate whose core issue is overturning Citizens United.…

>Lessig never wanted to be president; he wanted a podium. But you can't say that. If he indicated he wasn't serious about being president in any way, they never would have let him on stage. I guess that's the difference between the Democratic party debates and the Republican party debates. I know that sounds like a troll, but it's not. The GOP primary debates had 17 people running, the Democratic primary had 5 (not c…

The difference is really the level of popular support. Even Graham and Santorum, who weren't even on the "main stage" of the recent GOP debate, have won U.S. Senate elections and have national name recognition that far outstrips Lessig.

Lessig seems to think that if he eked his way onto the stage of a televised Democratic debate, he'd have a chance of jump-starting a national political campaign on the issue of campaign finance.

But it's actually the reverse: you only get onto a debate stage if you already have a campaign. The polling criteria is not a gotcha. It's just the easiest way to ensure that only people with actual popular traction get stage time. The debate is not intended to be a "big intro" opportunity. There are other events for that, like the convention (Obama), or big events like the Prayer Breakfast (Ben Carson).

In part the difference in the numbers between the parties is simply that there is no clear favorite on the GOP side, while there is an overwhelming favorite on the Dem side. There are a lot of senior Democrats who have chosen to sit this one out rather than challenge Hillary.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#140

Post by tptacek » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 11:02 PM UTC

decisiveness wrote: post #135

tptacek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's easy to "just be a critique". But critiques of Lessig aren't "just critiques". Lessig's critics understand something Lessig himself seems not to: his campaign is quixotic, his goal of being a "single-issue President" is incoherent given the structure of the US government, and, in a close election year, his prospects of somehow acting as a spoiler for the party he purports to support are far greater tha…

Whether or not you agree with this it has always been the core message of Lessig's campaign: Getting special interest money out of politics should be first priority, and until we get enough citizens to care about that, it'll be extremely difficult to pass legislation that goes against any special interest. Yes, his strategy for getting the message out was broken, but he understands his campaign was quixotic in its in…

People on "our" side of the ideological spectrum are going to have an unpleasant reckoning soon with the fact that the governing that really matters happens at the state and local level. State office campaigns build a back-bench for federal politics, and the states actually do serve as laboratories for democracy, and most of the rulemaking people come into contact with are state and city rules, not federal ones.

If you want to fight corruption in politics, start by finding a way to do it in your city or state, and then try to get the idea to spread to other states. That's how cannabis is going to end up legalized; it's how death- with- dignity legislation will happen; it's also how the GOP is going to carve out reproductive health rights.

Liberals suck at this. We control a fraction of the state legislatures that the GOP does and we haven't managed to leverage control over urban centers to mitigate that.

Meanwhile, the "outsider" liberals all tilt at federal windmills. What did Lessig think was going to happen in the parallel universe where he won? The President doesn't set campaign finance policy.

He could have run for a state government office and won.