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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

Sweet sassy molassy.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by molson

I bet the murderer would get at least 18%.

27%

Crazification Factor

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

Originally Posted by molson

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."

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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]

Congrats @LindseyGrahamSC. You just got 4 points in your home state of SC—far better than zero nationally. You’re only 26 pts behind me.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2015

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Subby

Congrats @LindseyGrahamSC. You just got 4 points in your home state of SC—far better than zero nationally. You’re only 26 pts behind me.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2015

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.