1) For the sake of this argument, I think we can agree that "establishment" should be deemed synonymous with "political experience."
2)If you think about the current political system that is used in the United States, seniority is one of the most important elements to the Senate and the Congress because these individuals are given preferential treatment for their desired committee positions. These appointments, in turn, make it easier for candidates to get re-elected because they are able to tout their positions and the legislation that their seniority allowed them to successfully pass for their respective constituents.
3)As you might expect, the implications for individual candidates is rather undesirable given the fact that holding onto power becomes tougher (instead of easier) with each successful election.
4) And yet, the implications for a political party are even more daunting if that hatred for political experience is not evenly spread between the two political parties (and it is currently does not). If you hate political experience, then a logical extension of that philosophy is that you will hate having your own political party in the majority. The only way that a political party maintains a majority status in our current political system is to have a significant mix of senior politicians along with a minority mix of fresh individuals (who would subsequently become experienced as the older individuals retire)....
5) Now I recognize that if you put these two questions - "Do you want political experience from your candidate?" And "Do you prefer that your political party be in the majority?" - to the voters that dislike political experience, then you are very likely to receive a "No" as a response to the later question.
1) I disagree (as have others) with your definition of "establishment". The establishment, as the word is used currently in politics, refers to the political machine of each party. It is a group of well connected politicians and those who support them blindly in exchange for the favor of said machine. Funded (and directed) by various sectors of Corporate America (depending on the party), their goals are not the peoples goals. Their goals are to increase and maintain their own power, pass and strike down the regulations their donors want (so they remain donors), and to make sure the will of the people doesn't get in the way. The democratic establishment has shown how much better it is at this game this cycle. Like FT pointed out, Bernie is outside the establishment yet very experienced politically. It has to do with sacrificing your principles and supporting the machine blindly in exchange for the success/advancement/money that the machine brings to most of its supporters.
2) This is mostly true. The more experience, the more contacts and connections, the more likely you are to get something done generally speaking. However, for those that are part of the machine, their goals are not beneficial to America, just Corporate America and the Establishment. So this, like a sword, is good or bad depending on who holds it. Its my opinion that most anti-establishment types see things this way. Every crowd has a certain % of dumb ****s though.
3) Not necessarily. I want to say it gets harder to fake the longer your in office, but some really have no problem with it, and some even seem to have a natural talent for it. For a politician of principle though, the people either like you or they don't, time likely won't change that a great deal.
4) A lot of this stems from your definition of "establishment". The hatred isn't evenly spread no, but it has a strong presence in both parties at the moment. The democratic machine is much better at managing this sentiment, and has all those fail safe measures they've set up in case someone like Bernie surges enough and threatens their favorite. If such hatred were blind you would be correct. However, that hatred is not blind, but directed at the Establishment as I defined it. Not all politicians of experience are part of the Establishment.
5) I would say you're technically correct, but the results of such questioning wouldn't represent what you think. If you added a condition like "If you could remove establishment politicians from your party...." and then follow with those questions, the answers would be the opposite. The principle at work in all of this is people want the (entirely separate) machines that have hijacked the 2 major political parties gone, because they're starting to understand that what the people want comes second to what the establishment wants, and if the 2 conflict, the people go without, and always will until something changes.
I'm starting to feel that corporate money and politicians should be separated like church and state.
