POL: What if...Trump or Sanders actually won???

[Dutch]

After 4 years of either, what are some of the expectations...good or bad of them being in office? Foreign Policy...Economy...civil rights...whatever.

I'm keying on them as being the extremes of choices that we have. I personally think both would be a net-negative, but I'm curious what FOFC thinks.

[EagleFan]

If Trump wins I may have to get a rifle. That man is a piece of garbage.

Our economy would be in the toilet, our standing with other nations would be at an all time low, we would take a major step backwards... and we can't afford any more steps backwards...

[JPhillips]

A GOP House, a Dem Senate, and Trump...

The winners would be the media.

[panerd]

A GOP House, a Dem Senate, and Trump...

The winners would be the media.

Yes plus they would likely not greenlight anything he wanted to do and he would probably veto what they want to do so actually he might be a fantastic president.

[panerd]

If Trump wins I may have to get a rifle. That man is a piece of garbage.

Our economy would be in the toilet, our standing with other nations would be at an all time low, we would take a major step backwards... and we can't afford any more steps backwards...

I'm not a fan of Trump at all but aren't businessmen like him the ones who make all of the decisions behind the scenes right now? What exactly would be different about the economy?

[Solecismic]

By executive order, the Miss America pageant will be televised on every channel, and, once Melania has aged a certain amount, the winner will marry the President. And this will make America great again!

[JonInMiddleGA]

If Sanders wins I think he's assassinated before he ever takes the oath of office. No matter how little I think of the current state of the U.S. I just can't quite imagine we're going to let a self-described socialist get to the Oval Office.

If Trump wins I'd say we'll end up with some disappointments but also with steps toward rational handling of immigration, a my way or the highway approach that leads to us pulling out of the U.N., out of all sorts of foreign entanglements that have little to no tangible benefits and Mexico ends up on the very short end of a brief military engagement that re-establishes actual borders.

[JPhillips]

If Trump wins I'd say we'll end up with some disappointments but also with steps toward rational handling of immigration, a my way or the highway approach that leads to us pulling out of the U.N., out of all sorts of foreign entanglements that have little to no tangible benefits and Mexico ends up on the very short end of a brief military engagement that re-establishes actual borders.

But Sanders is the really dangerous one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But Sanders is the really dangerous one.

He's the most sickening excuse for a candidate any major party has ever allowed to seek the nomination afiac.

Everything I mentioned with Trump are net positives afaic, we should have cleared a 25 mile swath of the Mexican side of the border years ago. They've allowed an invasion to be launched from their territory, as far as I'm concerned a state of war already exists, it simply needs to be declared.

The recently revealed inspection deal with Iran should have been the last straw for the U.N., they should have been off U.S. soil before the week ended. If we didn't have a Washington filled with fools & cowards they would have been.

[BillJasper]

He's the most sickening excuse for a candidate any major party has ever allowed to seek the nomination afiac.

Everything I mentioned with Trump are net positives afaic, we should have cleared a 25 mile swath of the Mexican side of the border years ago. They've allowed an invasion to be launched from their territory, as far as I'm concerned a state of war already exists, it simply needs to be declared.

The recently revealed inspection deal with Iran should have been the last straw for the U.N., they should have been off U.S. soil before the week ended. If we didn't have a Washington filled with fools & cowards they would have been.

I think "wow" covers everything for me.

[Solecismic]

I can understand the "punish the bad children" approach to foreign policy. I just don't see how it benefits us.

So, let's assume the UN has jumped the shark. Entirely likely. We step away from membership, give up that permanent seat on the Security Council. What's next?

It's no more a strategy than this recent obsession with worrying whether small countries "like" us. Foreign policy isn't Facebook, either.

[PilotMan]

If Sanders wins I think he's assassinated before he ever takes the oath of office. No matter how little I think of the current state of the U.S. I just can't quite imagine we're going to let a self-described socialist get to the Oval Office.

If Trump wins I'd say we'll end up with some disappointments but also with steps toward rational handling of immigration, a my way or the highway approach that leads to us pulling out of the U.N., out of all sorts of foreign entanglements that have little to no tangible benefits and Mexico ends up on the very short end of a brief military engagement that re-establishes actual borders.

AMERICA!
Letting Jon's dream of an authoritarian military coup down, one non-assassinated president at a time.

[thesloppy]

Yeah, I don't get the assassination thing either, Jon. The last 8 years of reality didn't temper your expectations for a lone conservative nut in the slightest?

[ISiddiqui]

Can we have a politics threat where the batshit craziness of JIMG becomes the basis of conversation?

Anyways, I think if Sanders win, the gridlock will be incredible. I mean the GOP just taunted Obama with the socialist moniker, you think they'll allow an out and out socialist to get anything done? And Sanders strikes me as way too ideologue to cut deals with a more conservative Congress. We could multiple months long government shutdowns in 4 years.

[Kodos]

I'm pretty sure he said Obama would never get to take office either.

[thesloppy]

With Trump, I think regardless of your beliefs the fact that he absolutely stands out as a sociopath, hot-head and egotist among a group of politicians should scare everybody. The thought of giving him the worlds best army on a global stage is obviously terrifying. That said if Trump were to win the Presidency he has a few pieces of his platform that I don't necessarily disagree with, and he has just as much chance as anybody else to kind of stumble into success regarding the economy. Through timing and circumstance, despite being positioned as the left's boogieman, Trump could conceivably be the President who pushes through universal single-payer health care and definitively ends the drug war, which would be massive progressive steps. Likewise his new-deal idea of putting the country to work fixing infrastructure may be simplistic and pandering, but it's certainly not a bad idea. Reducing administration in historically clusterfucked sectors like education, healthcare, veterans administration, etc. causes all leftists too clutch their pearls, but might actually be necessary. It's just so hard to imagine him not crucially fucking SOMETHING up that I'm honestly baffled that anybody can support him.

My concerns for Sanders stretch in the exact opposite direction. His politics more obviously match up with mine on paper, but I think the Presidency requires a bit of despotism, and Bernie seems to eager to let too many voices have their say. He seems ripe for getting caught up in endlessly discussing, debating and parsing radical ideas but never turning them into action, and/or throwing too many (or the wrong) people/resources at too many (or the wrong) problems, so that he just serves to gum up the works rather than fixing any issue(s).

[BillJasper]

My concerns for Sanders stretch in the exact opposite direction. His politics more obviously match up with mine on paper, but I think the Presidency requires a bit of despotism, and Bernie seems to eager to let too many voices have their say. He seems ripe for getting caught up in endlessly discussing, debating and parsing radical ideas but never turning them into action, and/or throwing too many (or the wrong) people/resources at too many (or the wrong) problems, so that he just serves to gum up the works rather than fixing any issue(s).

+1

[bhlloy]

Trump winning on his current platform, or Trump winning on a realistic platform that he'd have to run on to have a chance in hell?

The latter is going to make Jon very disappointed - Mexico isn't going to pay for a wall, the US can't just unilaterally clear a border and a businessman like Trump isn't going to deport the illegals overnight because he's well aware of what that does to the economy.

As for Sanders, if he actually won and took office, I'm not sure he's too far off. An actual socialist, not a black guy with an easily mocked name who is about as center as they come? I'd imagine secession is seriously being talked about in a lot of states.

[EagleFan]

With Trump, I think regardless of your beliefs the fact that he absolutely stands out as a sociopath, hot-head and egotist among a group of politicians should scare everybody.

This, this, a million times this!!!

Though I will make one change to this... see below...

With Trump, I think regardless of your beliefs the fact that he absolutely stands out as a sociopath, hot-head and egotist among a group of politicians should scare the ever-loving hell out of everybody.

[RainMaker]

The guy who earlier in the thread is talking about buying a rifle to kill a politician he doesn't like is calling someone out as a sociopath and hot-head.

[RainMaker]

I also don't think much would change domestically with either in office. I think Presidency is arguably the most overrated position we have right now. Congress is deadlocked on so many issues and that doesn't appear likely to change. Bernie Sanders as President isn't going to get universal health care and Trump isn't going to alter our tax system.

The only real difference we'll see is in foreign policy. Trump is probably too erratic for that and Sanders is too weak. If a major conflict broke out, this is where you'd see them matter. Not stumping on some policy changes they want that doesn't have the support in Congress to ever get passed.

[EagleFan]

The guy who earlier in the thread is talking about buying a rifle to kill a politician he doesn't like is calling someone out as a sociopath and hot-head.

You got a problem with that...?

[molson]

According to my Facebook wall, Sanders will rid America of poverty and all forms of injustice, and Trump will turn the U.S. into a third-world country and cause mass exodus into Canada. So, pretty much what I see predicted before every other election.

[cthomer5000]

If Trump wins, we can use the film Idiocracy as a reference material for how the next 4 years will go.

[RainMaker]

You got a problem with that...?

Just found it ironic

[JonInMiddleGA]

The latter is going to make Jon very disappointed - Mexico isn't going to pay for a wall, the US can't just unilaterally clear a border and a businessman like Trump isn't going to deport the illegals overnight because he's well aware of what that does to the economy.

"can't"? No, you mean "won't"

And maybe, just maybe, Trump has figured out that the cost is worth it. Pretty much any cost is worth it.

[sabotai]

My own personal conspiracy theory is that Trump is just as liberal as he's always been, and that he's saying crazy stuff the gain the support of the crazies. He won't win the primary, as most people will run from him once that race actually becomes real instead of a reality show. He'll then run as an independent, taking 5-7% from the right. Enough to guarantee victory for his friend and true ally in all of this....Hilary Clinton.

Coming November 2016. Rated R.

[Solecismic]

I think there's a perspective Jon doesn't take into account:

http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Hunger/Static_Images/The-World-Population-over-the-last-million-years-and-projections-for-this-century_Max-Roser.png

We've taken evolution in the last couple of hundred years and we've given it a foam finger the size of which Miley Cyrus can't even imagine.

Life expectancy has tripled since the 1800s. The mathematics of population is changed to a point which will eventually threaten our existence.

We can moan about who deserves to be where - but, by and large, the US isn't doing as badly as some places in this respect. Our children and grandchildren are going to face population issues we can only understand today if we visit a large city in a less technologically advanced part of the world.

People might migrate today because of political unrest or economic issues. Tomorrow, it's going to be about resources. A hundred years from now, our way of life will probably be very different.

China thought it had an answer by heavily restricting reproduction after 1980. Not a terrible theory, but, since life expectancy went up so much, they have our aging Baby Boomer issue in steroids and they've had to make modifications. And there's a whole generation with far fewer women (since parents may well be dependent on one child for retirement help, they will choose a male child if they're limited to one). And their population is still up considerably.

As the population continues to increase in this manner, the corresponding value of an individual life will inevitably decline. We may think we can shut the borders, but if we try, someone eventually will open them for us - and they won't be gentle about it.

[JPhillips]

"can't"? No, you mean "won't"

And maybe, just maybe, Trump has figured out that the cost is worth it. Pretty much any cost is worth it.

We will do whatever it takes to make produce more expensive!

[cthomer5000]

My own personal conspiracy theory is that Trump is just as liberal as he's always been, and that he's saying crazy stuff the gain the support of the crazies. He won't win the primary, as most people will run from him once that race actually becomes real instead of a reality show. He'll then run as an independent, taking 5-7% from the right. Enough to guarantee victory for his friend and true ally in all of this....Hilary Clinton.

Coming November 2016. Rated R.

A week after he declared two friends and I had a very long discussion while making a 3 hour drive - I semi-jokingly suggested that he was a double-agent sent to make the Republican Party look like a bunch of clowns. What has happened since I don't think ANYONE could have imagined.

It could be a 'Producers' situation at this point.

[rowech]

I think there's a perspective Jon doesn't take into account:

http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Hunger/Static_Images/The-World-Population-over-the-last-million-years-and-projections-for-this-century_Max-Roser.png

We've taken evolution in the last couple of hundred years and we've given it a foam finger the size of which Miley Cyrus can't even imagine.

Life expectancy has tripled since the 1800s. The mathematics of population is changed to a point which will eventually threaten our existence.

We can moan about who deserves to be where - but, by and large, the US isn't doing as badly as some places in this respect. Our children and grandchildren are going to face population issues we can only understand today if we visit a large city in a less technologically advanced part of the world.

People might migrate today because of political unrest or economic issues. Tomorrow, it's going to be about resources. A hundred years from now, our way of life will probably be very different.

China thought it had an answer by heavily restricting reproduction after 1980. Not a terrible theory, but, since life expectancy went up so much, they have our aging Baby Boomer issue in steroids and they've had to make modifications. And there's a whole generation with far fewer women (since parents may well be dependent on one child for retirement help, they will choose a male child if they're limited to one). And their population is still up considerably.

As the population continues to increase in this manner, the corresponding value of an individual life will inevitably decline. We may think we can shut the borders, but if we try, someone eventually will open them for us - and they won't be gentle about it.

It won't be long before wars are fought over water. All you say is why I believe so strongly we need to really start to figure out a way to start to get people off the planet and onto the moon and/or planets. I realize the difficulty of this prospect which is why we should be working on it yesterday instead of completely making that area of humanity off limits now because it costs too much. The cost will be far greater if we don't get serious about leaving this planet and finding other places to live.

[ColtCrazy]

With 4 kids, I look at Sanders and see a lot of positives for my children. Education. Environment. I am no where near making up my mind, but he seems better than the vast majority out there. I don't think we'd be in bad shape with him.

Trump is simply a loose cannon. I have no doubts that we'd probably survive with him, I do agree that our foreign policies and reputation would take a serious hit just due to his lack of filter.

[SackAttack]

A GOP House, a Dem Senate, and Trump...

The winners would be the media.

There's a lot of talk in some quarters about a "Democratic Firewall." I'm not saying that's an actual thing, but I AM saying the road to 270 is such an uphill one for a Republican candidate that I'm not sure I can see a Republican Presidency that carries with it a Democratic Senate. Not in the times we inhabit.

Yeah, the incumbent/open seats up for election to the Senate in 2016 would tend to favor the Democrats, demographically, but c'mon: if Trump beats Clinton or Sanders (or, really, any Democrat) for the White House, what are the odds that the same voting patterns that elect Trump ALSO give the Democrats a +5 in Senate seats held?

Yeah, I don't get the assassination thing either, Jon. The last 8 years of reality didn't temper your expectations for a lone conservative nut in the slightest?

The thing is that Jon IS the lone conservative nut. It's just, y'know. So much work, you know? It's exhausting.

Can we have a politics threat where the batshit craziness of JIMG becomes the basis of conversation?

Anyways, I think if Sanders win, the gridlock will be incredible. I mean the GOP just taunted Obama with the socialist moniker, you think they'll allow an out and out socialist to get anything done? And Sanders strikes me as way too ideologue to cut deals with a more conservative Congress. We could multiple months long government shutdowns in 4 years.

Isn't that what every political thread turns to, eventually?

As for Sanders, I don't think any Democratic candidate is likely to "get anything done." The Republicans just wrote the playbook for how to be obstructionist and get the people to blame the other party for your shittiness. They ran it to perfection with Barack Obama, and if their nominee loses the White House, they'll run it again. Except this time the Democratic President-elect will step directly into headwinds instead of having around a year and a half of two legislative chambers supporting his or her goals (despite obstruction). It'll be, at best, a split legislative branch, and it really doesn't matter whether it's Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or hell, former Reagan cabinet member Jim Webb. None of those individuals will get one iota of cooperation from the House, and that puts paid to that.

I don't think the GOP will even need to beat the socialism drum if Sanders gets elected. They just won't take up any bills that come from the Senate, and since revenue has to originate from the House, Sanders' priorities will more or less die on the vine.

The impact a Democratic win in 2016 will have is probably going to be limited to judicial nominees, frankly.

[bhlloy]

As for Sanders, I don't think any Democratic candidate is likely to "get anything done." The Republicans just wrote the playbook for how to be obstructionist and get the people to blame the other party for your shittiness. They ran it to perfection with Barack Obama, and if their nominee loses the White House, they'll run it again. Except this time the Democratic President-elect will step directly into headwinds instead of having around a year and a half of two legislative chambers supporting his or her goals (despite obstruction). It'll be, at best, a split legislative branch, and it really doesn't matter whether it's Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or hell, former Reagan cabinet member Jim Webb. None of those individuals will get one iota of cooperation from the House, and that puts paid to that.

I don't think the GOP will even need to beat the socialism drum if Sanders gets elected. They just won't take up any bills that come from the Senate, and since revenue has to originate from the House, Sanders' priorities will more or less die on the vine.

The impact a Democratic win in 2016 will have is probably going to be limited to judicial nominees, frankly.

Yeah, if Sanders got past the nuclear options I reckon this is the most likely option. Hell, it probably happens with any Dem that won anyway, but Sanders would essentially be four years of government shutdown.

Topic for another thread, but I just don't know what you do in a two party democracy when two sides just will not work with each other (other than make it not a two party democracy, one way or the other. But those seem like pipe dreams). Does anyone see anything coming back to the center, ever?

[thesloppy]

I can't deny that the GOP are a bunch of obstructionist fucktards, but I also feel like the Dems need to get called out on something like 50-straight years of not following through on hollow promises. From an admittedly shallow and liberally-biased perspective it feels like modern Republican Presidents have been able to do whatever the hell they wanted, regardless of the political climate, whereas the Dems promise all sorts of radical, progressive stuff, scrap it without much fight, and then point at the GoP and foster argument rather than action, while corporate/industrial interests continue on.

It's not hard to see why more and more folks who might identify as either liberal or conservative feel disenfranchised and unrepresented, and consequently how an independent (leaning) candidate could actually make some sort of noise in our current political climate.

[SackAttack]

Yeah, if Sanders got past the nuclear options I reckon this is the most likely option. Hell, it probably happens with any Dem that won anyway, but Sanders would essentially be four years of government shutdown.

Topic for another thread, but I just don't know what you do in a two party democracy when two sides just will not work with each other (other than make it not a two party democracy, one way or the other. But those seem like pipe dreams). Does anyone see anything coming back to the center, ever?

Not without proportional representation or a shock to the nation so great that it causes a "rally 'round the flag" effect.

I can't deny that the GOP are a bunch of obstructionist fucktards, but I also feel like the Dems need to get called out on something like 50-straight years of not following through on hollow promises. From an admittedly shallow and liberally-biased perspective it feels like modern Republican Presidents have been able to do whatever the hell they wanted, regardless of the political climate, whereas the Dems promise all sorts of radical, progressive stuff, scrap it without much fight, and then point at the GoP and foster argument rather than action, while corporate/industrial interests continue on.

It's structural, is the thing. The sort of promises the Democrats make, the sort of things they want to do to society, I'm not saying they're good or bad, but they ARE grand visions. And you don't get those through Congress on a simple majority vote. Not in the last 20 years, if ever.

"It's easier to destroy than to build," as the saying goes. Look at ACA. The Democrats had, nominally, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but between Al Franken's election certification getting held up for six months, Ted Kennedy's health, and a Nebraska Democrat saying "I'm the 60th vote; if you want me to help you avoid the filibuster, what's in it for me?", we wound up with an ACA that, before conference, had Nebraska exempted from paying their share of Medicaid expansion costs.

People go "lol they had 60 votes and couldn't do anything," but the reality is that Democrats AREN'T a political monolith, despite the GOP's best efforts at painting every last Democrat as more socialist than the last. You get moderates/conservatives who represent "purple" and (occasionally) otherwise "red" states and so even when they have the numbers, their legislative membership isn't necessarily all on board with those grand visions. You either get horse trading of the sort Ben Nelson engaged in, or you get 'their mouths write checks their ass can't cash."

Republicans, on the other hand, run on the notion that government is bad and needs to be dismantled, and that's far easier to accomplish. Not necessarily the big things, like privatizing Social Security, but you can run on a promise to defund ACORN or Planned Parenthood or whatever else and, if you have control of the House, you have the leverage to do that. Or else shutdowns.

It's much tougher to run on a platform of 'fix ALL the infrastructure' or 'end poverty' or 'guarantee living wages,' because of the structural way the legislative branch exists.

[thesloppy]

Well said. I certainly can't argue that the current game might be rigged against the Dems, but to me that still comes down to further fundamental failures of the party, rather than an acceptable excuse/explanation for why they can't effectively compete. They were just as fundamental in defining the rules of the busted game as the GoP, and I think the fact that they have historical problems getting a collective effort to fulfill their collective promises could/should at the very least result in more truthful promises, rather than pandering for votes based on a platform of things they know they will never achieve.....completely wishful and unrealistic thinking, I know.

[Dutch]

Part of the problem for the Democrats is that have championed the notion Agents of Change. When the US has arguably been the most prosperous nation over the last century, its a tough sell to people that are buying into this system of government vs everything else that is being employed globally. It's seen as a front again capitalism. The center-left is not againt capitalism and so their agendas come off as flat. The GOP is seen as the champions of capitalism and if they do nothing, its viewed as successful because they maintain the status quo. When the Democrats win, its usual because more people are hurting financially.

Eventually, and unfortunately, I think Marx was right when he said government evolution will always lean towards socialism vs capitalism. So guys like Sanders are probably still before their time here...but eventually those guys will win.

The challenge for the GOP, and why I am not happy with them, is they need to get minorities more involved in the successes of capitalism. If they overlook them, this progression happens faster.

And yes, that is all said with a very broad brush.

[RainMaker]

The Democrats had a supermajority and a popular President years ago and didn't do squat. I don't know how they can blame the lack of action on Republicans anymore.

[JPhillips]

Well said. I certainly can't argue that the current game might be rigged against the Dems, but to me that still comes down to further fundamental failures of the party, rather than an acceptable excuse/explanation for why they can't effectively compete. They were just as fundamental in defining the rules of the busted game as the GoP, and I think the fact that they have historical problems getting a collective effort to fulfill their collective promises could/should at the very least result in more truthful promises, rather than pandering for votes based on a platform of things they know they will never achieve.....completely wishful and unrealistic thinking, I know.

But, "we'll work with our GOP colleagues to pass a small infrastructure bill combined with a lower capitol gains rate," isn't much of a platform.

[JPhillips]

Part of the problem for the Democrats is that have championed the notion Agents of Change. When the US has arguably been the most prosperous nation over the last century, its a tough sell to people that are buying into this system of government vs everything else that is being employed globally. It's seen as a front again capitalism. The center-left is not againt capitalism and so their agendas come off as flat. The GOP is seen as the champions of capitalism and if they do nothing, its viewed as successful because they maintain the status quo. When the Democrats win, its usual because more people are hurting financially.

Eventually, and unfortunately, I think Marx was right when he said government evolution will always lean towards socialism vs capitalism. So guys like Sanders are probably still before their time here...but eventually those guys will win.

The challenge for the GOP, and why I am not happy with them, is they need to get minorities more involved in the successes of capitalism. If they overlook them, this progression happens faster.

And yes, that is all said with a very broad brush.

That implies that there are two fixed points with nothing in between. The Democrats aren't anti-capitalism and the Republicans aren't really anti-socialism(although they like to say they are). The whole discussion over the past fifty years has been about where on a fairly narrow portion of economic policy should the U.S. reside.

[mckerney]

The Democrats had a supermajority and a popular President years ago and didn't do squat. I don't know how they can blame the lack of action on Republicans anymore.

It is amazing they didn't manage to pass their entire agenda in 4 months.

[SackAttack]

Well said. I certainly can't argue that the current game might be rigged against the Dems, but to me that still comes down to further fundamental failures of the party, rather than an acceptable excuse/explanation for why they can't effectively compete. They were just as fundamental in defining the rules of the busted game as the GoP, and I think the fact that they have historical problems getting a collective effort to fulfill their collective promises could/should at the very least result in more truthful promises, rather than pandering for votes based on a platform of things they know they will never achieve.....completely wishful and unrealistic thinking, I know.

Not sure there's a way to make that work, though. "Vote for me; I'll work to ensure that despite my party's dysfunction, we protect the gains of the past" really isn't the sort of rallying cry that drives voters to the polls. It gets employed on some level, certainly, but when it's your first appeal, you aren't asking voters to vote for you, but against the opposition.

So instead you say "if you send me to Washington, here are the things I'll work towards!" And maybe that's even true. But, structurally, it takes more than one person to make that work. In a contemporary sense, as we've seen, 60 votes in the Senate isn't enough. You need more than that. 65, 70, maybe. Otherwise your choice is a) let obstructionism win or b) make unpalatable concessions to your "allies" so that they don't roll over for the obstructionists.

And, as I said, the Democratic Party, for all that the GOP would have you believe otherwise, isn't a monolithic liberal entity. They really do run the gamut.

When the Democrats win, its usual because more people are hurting financially.

Man, the subtext here...I don't know if you meant it the way I'm reading it, but damn.

Eventually, and unfortunately, I think Marx was right when he said government evolution will always lean towards socialism vs capitalism. So guys like Sanders are probably still before their time here...but eventually those guys will win.

The challenge for the GOP, and why I am not happy with them, is they need to get minorities more involved in the successes of capitalism. If they overlook them, this progression happens faster.

And yes, that is all said with a very broad brush.

The problem is that...hm.

Okay. Minority success has had generational roadblocks to deal with. To the extent that there have been successes in the last 150 years, it's been because some minority entrepreneurs have been able to overcome all the OTHER shit non-minorities don't have to deal with. So, I mean, part of getting minorities more invested in the successes of capitalism involve tearing down those roadblocks, and a certain amount of socialism is required to make that happen, because all things AREN'T equal.

I mean, things like public roads, public education...those are the very basics of socialism. And they're also necessary to any capitalistic success one enjoys.

But the GOP decries socialism in all its forms, and that, I think, is the problem. That's where they leave the door open for a candidate like Bernie Sanders. Rather than set up a Thunderdome scenario between capitalism and socialism, the Republicans could effectively neuter a candidate like Sanders by finding a way to use socialism to perfect capitalism. Most of the rest of the Western world has already done that to greater or lesser degrees.

Pure, unfettered capitalism will almost always result in a race to the bottom, and that brings you right back to "people vote for Democrats when they're hurting financially." Unfettered capitalism results in a small class of winners and a much greater class of losers. There really is no middle ground there. Using socialism to provide a base level of existence for everybody and capitalism as the carrot to encourage people to try to do better than that base existence probably works out better in the long run, but it's anathema to conservatives.

[SackAttack]

The Democrats had a supermajority and a popular President years ago and didn't do squat. I don't know how they can blame the lack of action on Republicans anymore.

60 votes is a supermajority. 60 votes will not "get shit done" if you have united 40-vote opposition to anything you want to do, because it means that 59th and 60th vote will start operating in the best interests of their state (and thus re-election). "Okay, you need me if you want to even have a vote on this; what's in it for me?"

And as mckerney pointed out, it wasn't just an unfettered supermajority. The Republicans held up Franken's seating in court, and then Kennedy got sick, and then he died and Scott Brown (briefly) won his seat. The Democrats had both houses for two years, and were able to actually WORK with both houses for much less than that.

And then people threw a shit fit that the Democrats weren't getting much done in the face of united obstructionism in the Senate and stayed home in a snit. I was knocking on doors for Russ Feingold in 2010. You know what I heard way, way too much of?

"I don't like Ron Johnson, but the Democrats just haven't gotten it done, so I'm staying home this year."

The Republicans banked on being able to turn their obstructionism against the Democrats in 2010, and it worked. It didn't get them the Senate back immediately, because the Senate doesn't completely turn over every two years the way the House does. It DID get them control of a number of state legislatures, allowing them to redraw lines in such a way that 60% of a state's population can vote for one party and get something like 40% representation for that party (hi, Wisconsin!). And once the Republicans had the House back and safely gerrymandered for a decade, that was pretty much the end of the grander of Barack Obama's ambitions. He still had the Senate, but a lot of what came out of the senate was DOA in the House, and the House attempting to attach "defund Obamacare" to everything they sent the Senate meant that not a lot happened in the other direction, either.

A 60 vote supermajority might have gotten shit done 75 years ago. You really need a margin for error on that these days, though, or else that 60th vote will work his or her leverage for all it's worth.

I don't expect the Republicans to have 60 Senate seats anytime soon, but if and when they do, they'll find quickly that the same thing is true, and that the 60th Republican will act like he might vote with the Democrats on an issue unless you scratch his back.

[stevew]

A Trump or Sanders presidency would at least be interesting. 4 years of Jeb or Hildawg is just more of the same.

[molson]

It's structural, is the thing. The sort of promises the Democrats make, the sort of things they want to do to society, I'm not saying they're good or bad, but they ARE grand visions. And you don't get those through Congress on a simple majority vote. Not in the last 20 years, if ever.



And yet, the promises continue. I wonder why this part of why moderates tend to lean more right as they get older. You see it over and over again, and yet the dishonesty persists. I remember Hillary Clinton sounding almost exacerbated during her debates with Barrack Obama, knowing that he was being deceitful and that so many people in her party were buying it. Obama turned out to basically be the president Hillary Clinton said she'd be then. (I'm sure Hillary was dishonest to some level as well, but nothing close to what Obama was throwing out there in terms of what he'd be able to do.)

Notwithstanding the dishonest way he got the job, I kind of liked Obama the president, so Hillary Clinton makes sense for me. Especially since the Republican party seems hell-bent on nominating on one crazy person or another. I don't know if there's a Republican out there I'd vote for over Clinton, but he's probably in the single digits in the polls right now. And I'm a moderate conservative. I'm happy to have "more of the same" in the executive branch. It's the legislature that needs to be cleaned out.

[AENeuman]

That implies that there are two fixed points with nothing in between. The Democrats aren't anti-capitalism and the Republicans aren't really anti-socialism(although they like to say they are). The whole discussion over the past fifty years has been about where on a fairly narrow portion of economic policy should the U.S. reside.

Well that type pragmatic talk has no use here :rant:


Trump kind makes that point. He is not in to party ideology, rather power idolatry.

[RainMaker]

60 votes is a supermajority. 60 votes will not "get shit done" if you have united 40-vote opposition to anything you want to do, because it means that 59th and 60th vote will start operating in the best interests of their state (and thus re-election). "Okay, you need me if you want to even have a vote on this; what's in it for me?"

And as mckerney pointed out, it wasn't just an unfettered supermajority. The Republicans held up Franken's seating in court, and then Kennedy got sick, and then he died and Scott Brown (briefly) won his seat. The Democrats had both houses for two years, and were able to actually WORK with both houses for much less than that.

And then people threw a shit fit that the Democrats weren't getting much done in the face of united obstructionism in the Senate and stayed home in a snit. I was knocking on doors for Russ Feingold in 2010. You know what I heard way, way too much of?

"I don't like Ron Johnson, but the Democrats just haven't gotten it done, so I'm staying home this year."

The Republicans banked on being able to turn their obstructionism against the Democrats in 2010, and it worked. It didn't get them the Senate back immediately, because the Senate doesn't completely turn over every two years the way the House does. It DID get them control of a number of state legislatures, allowing them to redraw lines in such a way that 60% of a state's population can vote for one party and get something like 40% representation for that party (hi, Wisconsin!). And once the Republicans had the House back and safely gerrymandered for a decade, that was pretty much the end of the grander of Barack Obama's ambitions. He still had the Senate, but a lot of what came out of the senate was DOA in the House, and the House attempting to attach "defund Obamacare" to everything they sent the Senate meant that not a lot happened in the other direction, either.

A 60 vote supermajority might have gotten shit done 75 years ago. You really need a margin for error on that these days, though, or else that 60th vote will work his or her leverage for all it's worth.

I don't expect the Republicans to have 60 Senate seats anytime soon, but if and when they do, they'll find quickly that the same thing is true, and that the 60th Republican will act like he might vote with the Democrats on an issue unless you scratch his back.

How many Democrats are required for them to get shit done? Because Republicans seem to pass bills they like all the time when they are in charge. They don't even need a supermajority to do it.

The Democrat platform is "we need more people in power and then we will totally start doing stuff we promise". If you can't get some stuff done when you have a popular President and a huge advantage in both the House and Senate, you never will.

[Antmeister]

If Trump wins, we can use the film Idiocracy as a reference material for how the next 4 years will go.

Yay cthomer5000 sighting!

[AENeuman]

How many Democrats are required for them to get shit done? Because Republicans seem to pass bills they like all the time when they are in charge. They don't even need a supermajority to do it.

The Democrat platform is "we need more people in power and then we will totally start doing stuff we promise". If you can't get some stuff done when you have a popular President and a huge advantage in both the House and Senate, you never will.

Very interesting pov. There has been significant economic and social change since 2008, just ask Jon and all the Republican candidates. Yet, you are saying none of the change is due to stuff passed by Dems and/or an Obama agenda. So who gets the blame? Bilderberg?

[thesloppy]

Very interesting pov. There has been significant economic and social change since 2008, just ask Jon and all the Republican candidates. Yet, you are saying none of the change is due to stuff passed by Dems and/or an Obama agenda. So who gets the blame? Bilderberg?

Well, I will only speak for myself, but Obamacare stands as the obvious example of how this administration can institute a massive progressive change that is legitimately disappointing to both conservatives and liberals. While there's surely been too much social and economic change from the conservative point of view, that doesn't necessarily mean there's been enough change to satisfy every opposite, liberal view, or more crucially, to satisfy promises of fundamental change.

...that said, I feel like I should acknowledge that the Obama administration has been effective and pro-active in the last couple years, and I'd probably be a lot less disappointed in him/them if their first six years were like the last two. Sometimes it feels like they're doing some version of half-assed cramming homework before the big test.

[thesloppy]

But, "we'll work with our GOP colleagues to pass a small infrastructure bill combined with a lower capitol gains rate," isn't much of a platform.

Too true. I feel like if fractured focus/power and disparate beliefs are legitimate threats towards the Democrats' abilities to ever properly fulfil their campaign promises than maybe the hypothetical campaigns/platforms should be focused on fixing and/or focusing the efforts of their own party, rather than promoting Republican wrestling.

Like maybe it's time to change the underlying collective platform from "We promise to stick it to the GoP!" or even "We promise to compromise & co-operate with the GoP!" to "We promise to figure out how to better focus and push further our own efforts."

[Julio Riddols]

I think if Sanders gets elected, it will speak more to the desire of the people to see real change. If capitalism is based around the idea of catering to the largest audience possible to make as much money as possible, then maybe the people really running things will look at that and take a somewhat different approach to how they do business. Maybe new candidates more in line with what the people want will step forward. I want to believe in a prevailing good, I want to see some kind of change in the status quo that trends toward sanity.. I would hope that maybe the election of a guy like Sanders could help catalyze that. A man winning the presidency without the help of corporate sponsors or attack ads would be so damned refreshing it might just make the current state of the country a little more palatable, even if it did lead to even more intense partisan behavior on capitol hill.

From the vibe I am getting, even most republicans I know hate just about everyone they have to choose from on the republican side. Most of the democrats I know can't stand the idea of Hillary taking office either. People want something different from where I am sitting, and maybe a loud enough unified voice speaking with their votes would make a difference in the way things run down the line.

Again, I realize this is incredibly wishful thinking. I would rather indulge in that than just apathetically cast a vote for another shill from either side of the aisle.

[EagleFan]

This thread is a perfect example of why politics is f'd up now. They are not elected to "get stuff done for the party" they are elected to "get stuff done for the people who elected them".

[ISiddiqui]

As for Sanders, I don't think any Democratic candidate is likely to "get anything done." The Republicans just wrote the playbook for how to be obstructionist and get the people to blame the other party for your shittiness. They ran it to perfection with Barack Obama, and if their nominee loses the White House, they'll run it again. Except this time the Democratic President-elect will step directly into headwinds instead of having around a year and a half of two legislative chambers supporting his or her goals (despite obstruction). It'll be, at best, a split legislative branch, and it really doesn't matter whether it's Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or hell, former Reagan cabinet member Jim Webb. None of those individuals will get one iota of cooperation from the House, and that puts paid to that.

Here's the thing, though. I think Hillary knows enough about the political process and the nitty gritty of working for compromise that she can actually get things done. Almost be more like an LBJ type in cajoling, threatening, wine-and-dine to get her platform done. You have prominent GOP Senators like McCain who have said nice things about her in the past (even if they turn on her now), indicating that she may be able to leverage some of that past experience. She's a wonk and can do some compromising, which will help matters somewhat.

I don't see Sanders really being all that into the nitty gritty of compromise - I think he'll consider it "selling out" some group or another.

[molson]

Here's the thing, though. I think Hillary knows enough about the political process and the nitty gritty of working for compromise that she can actually get things done. Almost be more like an LBJ type in cajoling, threatening, wine-and-dine to get her platform done. You have prominent GOP Senators like McCain who have said nice things about her in the past (even if they turn on her now), indicating that she may be able to leverage some of that past experience. She's a wonk and can do some compromising, which will help matters somewhat.

I don't see Sanders really being all that into the nitty gritty of compromise - I think he'll consider it "selling out" some group or another.

I agree and think Clinton is our best shot at making federal government just a little more functional. To turn that tide, just a little, from where we've been the last 15-20 years. I think the more exciting candidates are much more likely to result in "more of the same". Having worked in and with a lot of government agencies, I care less about which side of political spectrum people are on, than I do about having really smart people in important government positions who actually understand that world and can maneuver through it effectively. (and when you're a moderate, there's really not THAT much difference in the candidates you like across parties).

Edit: That's just much more appealing to me than an over-promising blow-hard who sees these government campaigns more as platforms to express their "grand visions". I'd rather those people be writing books and columns and maybe giving fiery speeches at conventions. An effective president needs more than just the ability to express a message you like.

[JPhillips]

There's some things a president can do with smart relationship building, but at the end of the day, if the GOP decides to block everything the way they did in 2008, it won't matter. LBJ was only LBJ because he had a Congress that was Dem controlled with enough GOP members willing to work with him to overcome the Dem racists. Reagan was only Reagan because O'Neill and other Dems were willing to work with him. Hell, W was only W because Dems were willing to let the tax cuts pass.

The absolute worst part of the Obama years is the realization that absolute refusal to work with the President is a net positive for the obstructionists.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes, but all you need is a handful of people from the other side. And I think that Clinton is much more able to do that than Sanders or Obama.

[JPhillips]

Maybe. Certainly Obama could do a lot more with relationship building on both sides of the aisle. But look at the stimulus package. The GOP just came off an historic ass kicking, the economy was in the worst shape since the Great Depression, Obama agreed to GOP tax cuts for a third of the total amount of the bill, and not a single GOP representative voted for it and the GOP senators filibustered. Three GOP senators voted for it, but only one of them is left in the Senate.

edit: And you're going to need more than a handful over the first two years at least. The House will remain strongly in GOP hands and the Senate will be close to fifty/fifty, but with filibusters on everything.

[molson]

The political climate was different 25 years ago and it will be different 25 years from now (probably sooner). There's no overnight fixes, but with the limited power of a vote, you can at least do your small part to push us towards wherever you'd like to see us go. I think a vote for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump is a vote for even more dysfunction. It does feel like a natural cycle though. The more extreme candidates get more and more appealing as there's more and more dysfunction and team-politic warfare. But at some point, it gets ridiculous, and we go back to being more practical. Maybe this the election cycle that happens.

[ISiddiqui]

I agree there is a lot of GOP intransigence, but you know, when you can do the one on one glad handing and whatnot, stuff can get done. I mean look at how much Bill Clinton was able to get done while being loathed by the entire GOP. It's about playing the game - I think Obama really didn't know how to do it when he got in; that's why you have what thesloppy indicated; where the last 2 years have been much more pro-active and effective than the first 5. It always seemed that Obama was reactive and on his back foot too much.

[jeff061]

The political climate was different 25 years ago and it will be different 25 years from now (probably sooner). There's no overnight fixes, but with the limited power of a vote, you can at least do your small part to push us towards wherever you'd like to see us go.

As long as you live in a swing state.

/cynical

[JPhillips]

I definitely agree that Obama was outplayed, but the effectiveness of the last year has been in spite of GOP obstruction. He's finally decided to stop worrying about working with a party that has sworn to oppose everything. Clinton never had that to worry about. Sure the GOP was out to get him, but many more were willing to work with him if their interests aligned. He couldn't get big things done, but there was a lot of room to work on small initiatives. I don't think the next president is going to have that, regardless of how much they are willing to build relationships. If they are going to get things done they'll have to take Obama's recent lead and see what can be done without worrying about getting GOP votes.

I wish it were different, in particular I wish there was some cost to using the filibuster, but the game right now works to the advantage of congressional obstructionism.

[Dutch]

Checks and balances. Never disenfranchise the 48% of voters who lost. Work with them. I recall the Democrats fighting GWB every step of the way. Maybe, just maybe, massive change isn't best for everybody.

[JPhillips]

Well except for the tax cuts, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, Partial Birth Abortion ban, and the AIG bailout just to name a few.

Sure the Dems were the opposition party, but a fair number voted with Bush on many of these and the party never went to the unified and all out opposition that the GOP has taken as strategy. I expect the Dems will now do that if they can keep together as they've seen the power of that, but during the Bush years they simply didn't obstruct in the manner that the GOP has under Obama.

[Dutch]

Then the Dems will exacerbate the problem instead of putting forth legislation that will draw some members of the opponent party? I've seen CSPAN where DEMs all vote together and the GOP is fragmented. It goes both ways.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I agree and think Clinton is our best shot at making federal government just a little more functional.

But if nearly everything it does is wrong, how is "more functional" better?

And that's not even a partisan crack either. There's a GOP supermajority in the Georgia legislatures and I still refer to their sessions as "THE most dangerous time of the year".

In the absence of meaningful positive change gridlock IS a better option, at least that limits how much worse things get fucked up.

[JPhillips]

Then the Dems will exacerbate the problem instead of putting forth legislation that will draw some members of the opponent party? I've seen CSPAN where DEMs all vote together and the GOP is fragmented. It goes both ways.

Obama spent a year negotiating a GOP healthcare plan and got no votes. He spent weeks negotiating the stimulus and got almost nothing. He was willing to do a longterm deal on Social Security and Medicare and got nothing.

Admittedly, lately he's decided to go on his own, but that was only after years of offering concession after concession and getting nothing.

[Dutch]

Obama spent a year negotiating a GOP healthcare plan and got no votes. He spent weeks negotiating the stimulus and got almost nothing. He was willing to do a longterm deal on Social Security and Medicare and got nothing.

Admittedly, lately he's decided to go on his own, but that was only after years of offering concession after concession and getting nothing.

Don't know what to tell you, maybe GWB was more effective at dealing with the other side. All part of being the Prez. Maybe it was Obama constantly saying he inherited all problems from the GOP that made him so unlikable? Maybe it was him constantly bashing the GOP in every speech? None of it matters now though, maybe the next president will learn from his mistakes.

[JPhillips]

Or maybe it had something to do with the meeting of GOP congressional heads before the inauguration where they decided to provide as few votes to Obama as possible regardless of the issue so as to avoid the appearance of bipartisanship.

In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

“If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said.

[Dutch]

Meh, doesnt sound nearly as bad as some of the flip-flopping the Dems were doing during the Bush years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Or maybe it had something to do with the meeting of GOP congressional heads before the inauguration where they decided to provide as few votes to Obama as possible regardless of the issue so as to avoid the appearance of bipartisanship.

One of the few times the "leaders" got together & got something right.

The very last thing I want to see is an elected official collaborating with the enemy ... and if you think a very large swath of those who put them in office see D's as anything but that you're kidding yourself.

I hold ISIS in higher regard than I hold the Democrats. That makes me an extremist outlier ... but mostly because I say "higher", at least a plurality of conservative voters would only go so far as to hold them in equal contempt.

[molson]

I hold ISIS in higher regard than I hold the Democrats.

Sweet sassy molassy.

That makes me an extremist outlier.

I believe that's true, yes.

CNN or Quinnipiac should run a Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi v. Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential election poll. I'm pretty sure Clinton would win, but I wonder by how much. Or how about, "A psychopathic murderer holding your child's severed head v. Hillary Clinton". I bet the murderer would get at least 18%.

[Dutch]

Deez nuts still wins.

[Dutch]

"Sweet sassy molassy"....I want to use that in a conversation with a girl.

[molson]

If you do, you won't sleep alone that night.

[JPhillips]

I bet the murderer would get at least 18%.

27%

Crazification Factor (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crazification_factor)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sweet sassy molassy.

It's really not that tough a call.

ISIS is evil ... but they're pretty up front & honest about that.
D's are evil ... but they refuse to be honest about it.

It's a narrow margin but I can at least respect the honesty. Not much else mind you, but at least the honesty. There really isn't anything at all I find to respect about the Democratic* Party in many many years.


*(Did I do that right? Honestly, I don't remember which spelling of it upsets people, if I got it wrong it's genuinely accidental)

[molson]

It's really not that tough a call.

ISIS is evil ... but they're pretty up front & honest about that.
D's are evil ... but they refuse to be honest about it.

It's a narrow margin but I can at least respect the honesty. Not much else mind you, but at least the honesty. There really isn't anything at all I find to respect about the Democratic* Party in many many years.

*(Did I do that right? Honestly, I don't remember which spelling of it upsets people, if I got it wrong it's genuinely accidental)

Well, for starters, the leader of ISIS as the president of the United States would probably declare America a Muslim State and ban Christianity. Sure, that would be "unconstitutional" but he would be undeterred and would try to kill you and your family. And I don't think he'd use his soldiers to guard the border, he's use them to drive out people like you into refugee camps in the Mexican desert, or just slaughter you en masse (by decapitation) if that's easier.

Clinton would support a slightly higher tax rate (but wouldn't have the support to actually get it implemented.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, for starters, the leader of ISIS as the president of the United States would probably declare America a Muslim State and ban Christianity. Sure, that would be "unconstitutional" but he would be undeterred and would try to kill you and your family. And I don't think he'd use his soldiers to guard the border, he's use them to drive out people like you into refugee camps in the Mexican desert, or just slaughter you en masse (by decapitation) if that's easier.

I'm okay with open conflict.

Having people pee on my leg & insist it's simply rainwater ... that's past annoying.

Neither produces an nation that fits for a decent (or relatively sane) person to live in, the biggest difference is whether or not I'm stuck enduring it.

[SackAttack]

And yet, the promises continue. I wonder why this part of why moderates tend to lean more right as they get older. You see it over and over again, and yet the dishonesty persists. I remember Hillary Clinton sounding almost exacerbated during her debates with Barrack Obama, knowing that he was being deceitful and that so many people in her party were buying it. Obama turned out to basically be the president Hillary Clinton said she'd be then. (I'm sure Hillary was dishonest to some level as well, but nothing close to what Obama was throwing out there in terms of what he'd be able to do.)

I think part of it with Obama was setting himself apart from Clinton. This wasn't any ordinary insurgent campaign against a frontrunner; it was a campaign against the closest thing the Democrats have to a political dynasty these days. If you're going to win that, you have to stand out. Maybe Candidate Obama underestimated the level of opposition he'd face in the Senate, and thought getting elected plus having legislative majority support would be enough. Maybe he was focused on outmaneuvering Clinton and figured the rest would take care of itself. Maybe both. Who knows?

[/quote]Notwithstanding the dishonest way he got the job, I kind of liked Obama the president, so Hillary Clinton makes sense for me. Especially since the Republican party seems hell-bent on nominating on one crazy person or another. I don't know if there's a Republican out there I'd vote for over Clinton, but he's probably in the single digits in the polls right now. And I'm a moderate conservative. I'm happy to have "more of the same" in the executive branch. It's the legislature that needs to be cleaned out.[/QUOTE]

There are one or two Republicans I'd consider. I don't know if that consideration would ultimately earn my vote. I do know that Scott Walker would be a slam dunk Hillary vote for me, and I wouldn't even have to hold my nose to do it.

To the extent that "moderate conservative" isn't an oxymoron, I think that describes me as well. Most of my positions are rooted in the opinions I formed growing up in the 90s, but some of them have moderated over time. For example, I still consider myself "pro-life," but not to the point of restricting access to abortions. I would choose life, were I in a position to choose, and I would support measures that put pregnant women in a position where they felt like they COULD choose life, but so many of those who espouse pro-life positions stop giving a political shit once the child is born. I have a problem with that. When I was 16, I wouldn't have considered "what comes after?" at all. So I'm still pro-life, but...a much more moderate pro-lifer.

How many Democrats are required for them to get shit done? Because Republicans seem to pass bills they like all the time when they are in charge. They don't even need a supermajority to do it.

What was it Will Rogers once said? "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat." One thing Democrats have historically struggled with when in the minority is holding the line. There were Democratic filibusters in the first six years of the Bush Administration, to be sure, but Republicans used that procedural tool *twice* as often in the final two years of the Bush Administration when they were in the minority, and then used it more than THAT in the first two years of the Obama Administration.

The number of Republican filibusters during that four-year period was just shy of all the filibusters offered by Democrats during the TEN year period preceding it. You want to know why Republicans have passed bills they like when in power? Because Democrats haven't offered anything like the united "NOPE" Republicans offered during the first two years of Obama's term. Then he lost the House, which makes reconciliation that much harder. When the opposition party's stance is "don't give the President anything he wants," how do you get a compromise bill between the House and Senate under those terms?

The Democrat platform is "we need more people in power and then we will totally start doing stuff we promise". If you can't get some stuff done when you have a popular President and a huge advantage in both the House and Senate, you never will.

Once more, with feeling: when you have a structural incentive for the minority party to block every fucking thing you want to do, even a supermajority of 60 votes is not necessarily going to carry the day. The higher priority the bill is. When you're right at 60, you need to whip EVERY. FUCKING. VOTE. if you want to overcome that filibuster. I'm gonna make a prediction here: if a Republican wins the Presidency, the Republicans will also retain control of the Senate, and absent a decision to go ahead with the full nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster entirely, Democrats are going to look to make life as miserable for the Republican President as Republicans tried to do for Obama.

That will be doubly true if Republicans pick up seats in 2018 when the Democrats are on defense in the Senate, and don't appreciably exceed 60.

And then maybe you'll understand that it's not as fucking simple as 'if you can't do it when you have a popular President and a supermajority and let's just ignore the united, total obstruction that was going on because acknowledging it doesn't fit my narrative you'll never get it done.'

[BillJasper]

One of the few times the "leaders" got together & got something right.

The very last thing I want to see is an elected official collaborating with the enemy ... and if you think a very large swath of those who put them in office see D's as anything but that you're kidding yourself.

I hold ISIS in higher regard than I hold the Democrats. That makes me an extremist outlier ... but mostly because I say "higher", at least a plurality of conservative voters would only go so far as to hold them in equal contempt.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exactly what is wrong with our country.

Just because I'm not a Republican, I've never seen them as an/the enemy. Hell, under the right circumstance, I'd vote for them.

[SackAttack]

Here's the thing, though. I think Hillary knows enough about the political process and the nitty gritty of working for compromise that she can actually get things done. Almost be more like an LBJ type in cajoling, threatening, wine-and-dine to get her platform done. You have prominent GOP Senators like McCain who have said nice things about her in the past (even if they turn on her now), indicating that she may be able to leverage some of that past experience. She's a wonk and can do some compromising, which will help matters somewhat.

I don't see Sanders really being all that into the nitty gritty of compromise - I think he'll consider it "selling out" some group or another.

Republicans have spent the last 20 years setting up the Clintons as the bêtes noire of American politics. They had to refocus the rage after Obama got elected, but I really think there's zero chance Hillary gets elected and faces anything but shrill screams of "BENGHAZI" for whatever duration her Presidency lasts. Does she have the political savvy to do it? Sure. Can Republicans work with her without losing serious face with the base they've spent the last two decades whipping into an anti-Clinton frenzy? Hm.

I agree and think Clinton is our best shot at making federal government just a little more functional. To turn that tide, just a little, from where we've been the last 15-20 years. I think the more exciting candidates are much more likely to result in "more of the same". Having worked in and with a lot of government agencies, I care less about which side of political spectrum people are on, than I do about having really smart people in important government positions who actually understand that world and can maneuver through it effectively. (and when you're a moderate, there's really not THAT much difference in the candidates you like across parties).

Edit: That's just much more appealing to me than an over-promising blow-hard who sees these government campaigns more as platforms to express their "grand visions". I'd rather those people be writing books and columns and maybe giving fiery speeches at conventions. An effective president needs more than just the ability to express a message you like.

That's part of why when some of my more liberal friends squee over Elizabeth Warren, I have to tell them "look, she's going to do more for your policy preferences in the Senate than she ever could in the White House. You don't want an ideological firebrand in the White House. You want that firebrand crafting the legislation that gets sent to the White House; what you want in the White House is someone who's enough of an ally to sign your legislation and milquetoast enough to get elected."

The absolute worst part of the Obama years is the realization that absolute refusal to work with the President is a net positive for the obstructionists.

In 2008, there was hand-wringing over the Republicans being in the political desert after the disaster President Bush presided over in his final months. Woe is them, how will they ever return? And they turned a playbook of total obstruction into a comeback that's locked them in control of the House through at least 2020, barring some major demographic changes before then. They have history to point to now. If the Democrats win in 2016 and take the Senate, they'll just run that playbook a second time. It was successful, after all.

I agree there is a lot of GOP intransigence, but you know, when you can do the one on one glad handing and whatnot, stuff can get done. I mean look at how much Bill Clinton was able to get done while being loathed by the entire GOP. It's about playing the game - I think Obama really didn't know how to do it when he got in; that's why you have what thesloppy indicated; where the last 2 years have been much more pro-active and effective than the first 5. It always seemed that Obama was reactive and on his back foot too much.

I think part of that is that Clinton wasn't all that liberal. He was a "Third Way" Democrat, remember. The reason he was able to get stuff done is that, policy-wise, a lot of what he supported wasn't far off from what Republicans wanted. Obama has governed similarly to Clinton, but the difference is that it doesn't matter if he is or isn't willing to work with the Republicans on the margins. He won't give them what they want - his complete and utter capitulation on "Obamacare," for starters - and so they won't work with him on much of anything else. I am gobsmacked that they were willing to give him fast track authority on the TPP. They wouldn't even trust his judgment on Iran, but the TPP, they were good with?

Without that "we can't let you have any victories at all" obstructionism, you might have seen similar governance to Clinton out of Obama. He sure as hell spent his first eighteen months in office trying to get bipartisan support for stuff. He spent the next 54 months having given up on getting much bipartisanship and just trying to get what he could out of Congress, and the last year-plus has been basically senioritis. "Fuck it, I'm done soon with both the Presidency and Republican bullshit. Chips to the center of the table."

Well, for starters, the leader of ISIS as the president of the United States would probably declare America a Muslim State and ban Christianity. Sure, that would be "unconstitutional" but he would be undeterred and would try to kill you and your family. And I don't think he'd use his soldiers to guard the border, he's use them to drive out people like you into refugee camps in the Mexican desert, or just slaughter you en masse (by decapitation) if that's easier.

Clinton would support a slightly higher tax rate (but wouldn't have the support to actually get it implemented.)

Yeah, but molson, when Jesus said "render unto Caesar" and "the love of money is at the root of all evil," what he really meant was "if your political leaders tax you it means they're going to hell with the baby-killers."

C'mon, man. This is basic stuff. ;)

[molson]

I kind of want to run a President Forever 2016 scenario playing as the leader of ISIS now.

[miked]

You guys are arguing with stupid, you will never win.

[RainMaker]

Once more, with feeling: when you have a structural incentive for the minority party to block every fucking thing you want to do, even a supermajority of 60 votes is not necessarily going to carry the day. The higher priority the bill is. When you're right at 60, you need to whip EVERY. FUCKING. VOTE. if you want to overcome that filibuster. I'm gonna make a prediction here: if a Republican wins the Presidency, the Republicans will also retain control of the Senate, and absent a decision to go ahead with the full nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster entirely, Democrats are going to look to make life as miserable for the Republican President as Republicans tried to do for Obama.


I guess I don't understand why Republicans don't seem to run into this problem. When they're in full control, they pass a whole lot of stuff that they want. Heck, even when they don't have a President in power they manage to pass bills they want (like welfare reform and Glass-Steagel under Clinton).

Both parties are operating under the same system.

[SteveMax58]

If Trump wins, we can use the film Idiocracy as a reference material for how the next 4 years will go.

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho approves this message.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just because I'm not a Republican, I've never seen them as an/the enemy. Hell, under the right circumstance, I'd vote for them.

Under the right circumstances, I'd happily vote for a D.

The "right circumstances" however consist of them, you know, actually being RIGHT. I see that happen so rarely, it's virtually impossible for them to have a shot at a vote from me.

I mean, it's not a matter of the mere label or something, it's what is done under that label.

And I'm hard pressed to find any reason to vote for someone who willingly associates themselves with that brand, it creates an immediate & enormous doubt about the judgement of the candidate.

[AENeuman]

It's really not that tough a call.

ISIS is evil ... but they're pretty up front & honest about that.
D's are evil ... but they refuse to be honest about it.

It's a narrow margin but I can at least respect the honesty. Not much else mind you, but at least the honesty. There really isn't anything at all I find to respect about the Democratic* Party in many many years.


*(Did I do that right? Honestly, I don't remember which spelling of it upsets people, if I got it wrong it's genuinely accidental)

This makes sense, you both are clearly comfortable hijacking things. ;)

Your ability to define yourself and the world in a macro way, and yet maintain a normal, even thriving, micro/ interpersonal world is impressive.

I've mostly been able to dismiss your rhetoric because what shines the most is you seem like a good friend, parent, etc. I may be naive, but I really don't think a good person can also be filled with wrath.

[Groundhog]

To an outsider, Trump really seems like the right wing version of Obama's 'Change' campaign... Instead of a fresh, young African American guy promising a bright, new future, here's an old, rich white guy looking to drag things back 50 years to the good ole' days.

Either way, it will probably amount to much the same. /pessimism

[mauchow]

Man, my boss is showing a little crazy against Dems.. sounds like JimGA. I figured being down here in Tennessee I'd run into this more and more but I didn't expect to see it in the extreme that my boss showed today. I told my employees, uhh, let's keep politics out of the office when he's here from here on out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I may be naive, but I really don't think a good person can also be filled with wrath.

I've never particularly laid claim to that title, not that I recall anyway.
(No, you didn't say that I had, just seemed like a reasonable jumping off point)

I'm just me. As often as I can be at least. Whatever that is, good/bad/paradoxical/Shrekian/sinner/saint, it's largely just me & most especially when the filters slip. Second time in 3 days I've felt like the phrase "you honestly have no idea just how much actually IS filtered".

The amount of self-restraint that has been required to keep me out of prison (or a morgue) beggers belief frankly.

[ISiddiqui]

To the extent that "moderate conservative" isn't an oxymoron

One thing I noticed when I moved from New Jersey to Georgia is that Republicans from the Northeast are a vastly different breed which don't necessarily exist in other parts of the country (or if they exist, they are more accurately described as Conservative Democrats).

[Subby]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Congrats <a href="https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC">@LindseyGrahamSC</a>. You just got 4 points in your home state of SC—far better than zero nationally. You’re only 26 pts behind me.</p>&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/636173679093747713">August 25, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[BillJasper]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Congrats <a href="https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC">@LindseyGrahamSC</a>. You just got 4 points in your home state of SC—far better than zero nationally. You’re only 26 pts behind me.</p>&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/636173679093747713">August 25, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

There is something about the Trump run that I find strangely compelling. :lol:

[Subby]

He is a cyborg sent from the future to destroy the Republican party.

[Butter]

The media want Trump to win the GOP nomination so badly, they can barely contain their glee in coverage of him.

[BillJasper]

The media want Trump to win the GOP nomination so badly, they can barely contain their glee in coverage of him.

He is definitely making it entertaining.

[JPhillips]

One thing I noticed when I moved from New Jersey to Georgia is that Republicans from the Northeast are a vastly different breed which don't necessarily exist in other parts of the country (or if they exist, they are more accurately described as Conservative Democrats).

My GOP state senator sent out a flyer titled, "Leading the Fight for Women's Equality." He has a bullet checklist that includes:

Ensure equal pay for women
End workplace sexual harassment
End pregnancy discrimination

Yeah, NY GOPers are a little different than their southern cousins.

[Young Drachma]

Wouldn't happen. Under no circumstances. He's Herman Cain with more bombast and deeper wallets. Lyndon LaRouche without the crazies. George Wallace without the southern coalition.

It's just never going to happen. He's a media proper and good tv.

Sanders is a socialist in the same way that a bear looks at humans standing on two legs and waving and does it too is a human. Obama already proved what rhetoric and no real political capital to back it up bears you; not a lot of policy-related fruit. If a neoliberal health plan that came from the Cato Institute in the 90s and pioneered by a Republican governor is considered progress or if you want to somehow give him credit for a right wing court validating marriage equality, then hey.

We haven't elected an ideologue to the Preisdency in the industrial era, we won't start now.

What would happen? About what's happened recently. The forces that control our policies are much deeper than just one figurehead.

[JPhillips]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/v/t1.0-9/11951954_897551690292439_5395209188914908719_n.jpg?oh=7ee4340f4e0ac2488e27959c8809ed56&oe=5681D8A9

Not sure if this should go here or the pathetic Facebook posts thread.

[Solecismic]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Congrats <a href="https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC">@LindseyGrahamSC</a>. You just got 4 points in your home state of SC—far better than zero nationally. You’re only 26 pts behind me.</p>&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/636173679093747713">August 25, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Basically, he's TRiUMPh, the insult comic dog candidate. Conan would be proud.

He gets 20-30% because a lot of people will vote based on shtick. It's not enough to win the nomination.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Basically, he's TRiUMPh, the insult comic dog candidate. Conan would be proud.

How many candidates are more deserving of some treatment than Graham though? He's a p.o.s., what he gets, he brought upon himself.

And yes, Trump giving him just a bit of the business does make him more attractive as a candidate. It's a fraction of what he deserves.

[SackAttack]

One thing I noticed when I moved from New Jersey to Georgia is that Republicans from the Northeast are a vastly different breed which don't necessarily exist in other parts of the country (or if they exist, they are more accurately described as Conservative Democrats).

One thing I've noticed is that 'RINO' is a far more prevalent term than 'DINO' is. Republicans, for whatever reason, have difficulty accepting that "all politics are local," and that as a result, Northeastern Republicans (say, Mainers) look a LOT different than Arizona Republicans.

I've never seen Democratic grassroots go after a Midwestern Democrat for insufficient liberalism, but they lose their minds when a New York Democrat votes with Republicans to restrict access to abortion or against the social safety net.

[Solecismic]

From what I've seen, each side firmly believes that about the other side.

[JonInMiddleGA]

One thing I've noticed is that 'RINO' is a far more prevalent term than 'DINO' is. Republicans, for whatever reason, have difficulty accepting that "all politics are local," and that as a result, Northeastern Republicans (say, Mainers) look a LOT different than Arizona Republicans.

All politics can be "local" ... when they're local. But that doesn't make them proper policy either.

I think there's a significant gap, or rather the long-standing significant gap is more commonly realized/recognized, between what constitutes "the GOP".

A lot of us who came over in/around the '94 "Republican Revolution" are basically realizing that we have no more use for a lot of "Republicans" than we had for the party that abandoned us in the first place. And that's a very slippery slope for the party to deal with, because if they lose the South as a guaranteed base -- which they're getting closer & closer to doing -- then they are effectively finished as a truly national party.

The White House may be very close to becoming unattainable for anyone other than the (D) for a while, at least for as long as they remain a consistent voting block. I believe a major split is closer than a lot of people think.

The varying bases of a pair of parties could still control Congress (or deny control to the Ds at least) without ever managing to retake 1600 Penn Ave.

[Galaxy]

As for Sanders, if he actually won and took office, I'm not sure he's too far off. An actual socialist, not a black guy with an easily mocked name who is about as center as they come? I'd imagine secession is seriously being talked about in a lot of states.

I actually think the secession talk gets really serious...I can't imagine the states like Texas and Alaska wanting to follow the Bernie Sanders, moving-to-the-left platform. I've always been a believer that a top-down government system, and growing it, is a terrible way to do things for a country as geographically and demographically as large and diverse as ours.

I think if Bernie wins, he'll widely disappoint his followers who don't understand that Congress will be split, at for his first term, and nothing he campaigned on will be achieved.
You have prominent GOP Senators like McCain who have said nice things about her in the past (even if they turn on her now), indicating that she may be able to leverage some of that past experience. She's a wonk and can do some compromising, which will help matters somewhat.

I don't see Sanders really being all that into the nitty gritty of compromise - I think he'll consider it "selling out" some group or another.

McCain is actually trailing in early primary polls right now to a Tea Party candidate and current Arizona State Senator.

[SackAttack]

From what I've seen, each side firmly believes that about the other side.

You may be right. OTOH, I grew up in a Republican household, voted Republican the first few elections for which I was old enough to cast a ballot, and "RINO" was a term I heard with some frequency, between my parents and the circles I ran with then.

My circle of friends these days leans more to the left of those I had as a teenager, but I've never heard equivalent terms come from any of my politically active liberal friends.

I know, personal anecdote isn't proof of anything but personal experience. Still and all.

All politics can be "local" ... when they're local. But that doesn't make them proper policy either.

Yeah, but you'll forgive me if I view with some skepticism your idea of "proper policy."

A lot of us who came over in/around the '94 "Republican Revolution" are basically realizing that we have no more use for a lot of "Republicans" than we had for the party that abandoned us in the first place. And that's a very slippery slope for the party to deal with, because if they lose the South as a guaranteed base -- which they're getting closer & closer to doing -- then they are effectively finished as a truly national party.

Truthfully, we're probably overdue for something like that. The last time we saw a major political party rise and stick was...the Republicans. A hundred and fifty years ago. The labels with which the power brokers draped themselves used to change much more frequently than that.

[PilotMan]

If Trump wins, we can use the film Idiocracy as a reference material for how the next 4 years will go.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11924577_383169021882097_6133105755322297320_n.jpg?oh=0d59fb890ddd4c522e2693841b326e09&oe=5682E05F

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, but you'll forgive me if I view with some skepticism your idea of "proper policy."

That's fine, but what I was trying to say is really independent of any particular policy. I simply meant that whatever "local" was might be acceptable to a plurality in Place X but still be lousy as a broader/national policy.

All politics are, as you referenced, "local" ... but just because it plays in Peoria doesn't mean it doesn't suck. And suck is suck, regardless of what brand name gets put on it.

[RainMaker]

No one is seceding for christ sake. Can't even get people to care enough to vote and you think people are going to start an armed conflict. Come on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No one is seceding for christ sake. Can't even get people to care enough to vote and you think people are going to start an armed conflict. Come on.

Lots of cases where there not a choice worth voting for.

There are an increasing number of cases where there are choices made worth dying to avoid however.

[RainMaker]

It's just extremist talk by crybabies who lost an election. Secession is the right-wing version of "I'm moving to Canada" that left-wingers tout when they lose.

Lives don't dramatically change when a new President is elected and most of the country doesn't care all that much.

[SackAttack]

It's just extremist talk by crybabies who lost an election. Secession is the right-wing version of "I'm moving to Canada" that left-wingers tout when they lose.

Lives don't dramatically change when a new President is elected and most of the country doesn't care all that much.

To be fair, I've seen some right-wingers make the Canada ultimatum. Which is just all kinds of funny.

[Dutch]

I'd imagine its not to unlike the demographics of Wisconsin, actually. :)