Any Democratic President Will Have Problems With The Next Congress
I'd like to take a sober look today at where we could very well be a year from now. One year from yesterday, our next president will be sworn into office. There are two Democrats with a solid shot at reciting that oath. The question for either of them would then become how much they can actually get done with Congress. But I think both Bernie Sanders supporters and Hillary Clinton fans are guilty of glossing over a fundamental problem either one of them will have to face. Because in almost every scenario (excepting the rosiest that can be imagined), Republicans will likely still control at least one chamber of Congress next January.
The Democrats are currently in the minority in both houses, of course. Taking the Senate this year is certainly within their grasp, due to the large number of vulnerable seats Republicans now control, and the near-absence of similar seats on the Democratic side. The situation is exactly the reverse of the situation the Republicans so successfully exploited in 2014, in fact. Democrats only need four seats to regain the majority (assuming for the sake of argument a Democrat wins the White House), and if there's a big wave of Democrats voting, it's entirely conceivable that they could pick up as many as seven or eight seats. This would leave them with a majority, but it would also leave them far short of a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority.
The House of Representatives is another story, though. Some estimates already show that Republicans have enough "safe" districts to retain their majority -- meaning that even in a "wave" election, Democrats wouldn't be able to pick up the seats they need to regain control. This is largely due to gerrymandering, which also means the situation won't change appreciably until 2022 (when redistricting happens after the 2020 census). That's not exactly cause for optimism for Democrats, but it is the current reality. So even assuming Democrats do well up and down the ballot in November (again, we're assuming this for the sake of this discussion), they could win the Senate and seriously cut into the lead Republicans have in the House -- but fall short of winning back a House majority.
This leaves the next president -- Clinton or Sanders -- with a need to get Republicans on board in order to pass anything on their agenda. Seven or eight Republicans might be necessary to move anything in the Senate and perhaps a dozen House Republicans would have to cross the aisle as well. Sanders and Clinton would both try to make the standard argument -- they've got a mandate from the voters, and Republicans should get on board with it or fear for their jobs come the next election. How well this argument would work would be a function of how big a victory was won in the 2016 election, of course.
This is where we get into the mild delusion both the Clinton and Sanders camps are guilty of, though. Clinton is openly making the argument that Sanders wouldn't be able to get anything done because Republicans would be so opposed to his agenda they'd block everything Bernie wanted to do. Sanders supporters are essentially arguing that starting legislative negotiations from a further-left position would result in a better compromise in the end. Hillary's fans darkly warn of nothing getting done, and Bernie's fans argue that Clinton will betray core Democratic principles just to gain tiny little baby steps forward. Nobody really knows who is right -- they might in fact both be correct. It'll be impossible to tell, since only one of them can win in the end.
Clinton is right that Sanders has a built-in disadvantage when it comes to working with Republicans: the word "socialist." But while Bernie hasn't yet made this case, Hillary has a similar one-word built-in disadvantage: the name "Clinton." These arguments are being made more about the general election right now (which one would be more electable and have more appeal to independent voters), but should either of them win it will morph into the problem of getting anything done in Congress.
The delusion from the Clinton camp is easy to spot, at least for anyone who didn't come of age in the past 16 years. Clinton is arguing that Sanders won't be able to get any of his pie-in-the-sky plans through Congress because of the white-hot hatred conservatives will have for a self-professed "Democratic Socialist." At its heart, this argument might be made as: "Hippies sure can dream big, but they can't get anything done." But the flip side of this coin is absolutely laughable to anyone who remembers the 1990s.
One of Hillary Clinton's most famous quotes from when she was First Lady was to identify a "vast right-wing conspiracy" designed (in a well-funded way) to take her husband down. While she was derided by conservatives for coining this term, she was essentially right in identifying how conservatives had begun funding their own infrastructure to push their own storyline to the public. It involved think tanks, book tours, and conservative media outlets. And all this was before the rise of Fox News, mind you. Bill Clinton was called a rapist, a murderer, a liar, a cheat, an abuser of women, and anything else they could think up to throw at him. He became only the second American president to be impeached, almost as a direct result.
Now, for just one minute, think of how Republicans are going to react if Hillary Clinton is sworn into the highest office of the land. Do you think congressional Republicans are going to say: "Well, she won fair and square, let's sit down with her and see what we can get done" -- or do you think it'll be more along the lines of what they did when Barack Obama was elected president? They swore to obstruct everything Obama wanted to do, and they've been straining mightily to do so ever since.
Some people see this as nothing more than unadulterated racism. There are admittedly Republicans who hate the president for his skin color, but tarring all Republicans (especially those in Congress) with this brush ignores a much more basic fact. Republicans hate any president with a "D" next to his (or her) name. Obama could have been a good-ol'-boy from the Deep South, and most Republicans would still have fought just as hard to obstruct his agenda. Any generic Democratic president will face such obstructionism, in fact. But a Democratic president with the last name of "Clinton" is going to enrage them even more than usual. So while Clinton's campaign may be right about the level of obstructionism Sanders would face, they conveniently gloss over the fact that she might face an even higher level of obstructionism in Congress.
Sanders supporters are guilty of their own mild delusions as well. "People power" is fine and good, but it's rare indeed that it causes Congress to actually do anything. Bernie can fire the electorate up on any number of middle-class issues, but that doesn't automatically translate into legislative victories. Bernie might even have a hard time convincing all the Democrats in Congress to go along with his proposals, much less getting the necessary number of Republicans to cross the aisle to pass a bill.
There are subtleties to the arguments made by both Clinton and Sanders supporters, though. Assuming Paul Ryan remains in his leadership job, some compromises are going to have to be made. Whether Ryan will be a constructive participant in these compromises remains to be seen -- and may still be an open question a year from now. The House Republicans have already announced that they're essentially going to punt the entire year and just talk about their wonderful conservative agenda -- to better their chances in the upcoming election. They're not even planning to hold votes on any of this agenda, though, because that would mean admitting to the American public what the details of their plans would be (and what the consequences would be if they passed). This may mean an entire year of nothing but political posturing. Because the budget battles have largely been kicked down the road until after the election, there will be no looming deadlines forcing Ryan to lay his cards on the table. No compromises are necessary, so even by January of next year we still may not know how he'll handle the negotiations needed for any crucial compromise legislation.
This is where the arguments coming from both Hillary and Bernie's campaigns get interesting. Clinton claims she'll get more done because she'll be focusing much more on the do-able Democratic agenda items. Single-payer health insurance won't even be discussed (as just one example), because her focus will be on tweaking the existing Obamacare system to make small improvements. Clintonistas argue that such incremental steps could actually be achieved, possibly as tradeoffs for incremental steps Republicans want (either in health care, or elsewhere in a budget bill). This may be correct, but it may also lead to what happened during Obama's first term. Obama truly did want Republican support, and so he began his negotiations with the GOP leadership by immediately making large concessions towards their position. Rather than start in the Democratic end zone, Obama shifted the ball to the 50-yard line. Of course, what this meant is that any compromise wound up on the Republicans' 25-yard line, giving them 75 percent of what they wanted and leaving only a quarter of what Democrats wanted. Time after time, liberals denounced this negotiating tactic as naive and counterproductive, but Obama kept to it for far longer than anyone imagined he would. It wasn't until well into his second term that he completely gave this tactic up, in the face of continued stonewalling obstructionism from Republicans. Hillary, though, is now essentially telling everyone that she's going to return to this tactic.
A good example might be the fight to raise the minimum wage. Hillary has expressed support for hiking it to 12 bucks an hour. Bernie is pushing for $15. So even in the best-case scenario, Hillary might enter into negotiations with Republicans and emerge with something like $9 an hour, as a compromise. Her argument is that Bernie would stick to his guns on $15, and emerge with nothing to show for it. But who knows? Bernie may wind up getting $10 or $11 an hour, since his position has more room in it for compromise to begin with.
The core question in weighing which would be more successful at promoting the Democratic agenda is: "What would either president accept and what would get vetoed?" Would Bernie veto a $9 minimum wage because he deemed it insufficient? Or would he be pragmatic and take half a loaf when he could get it? Would Hillary accept far less than Bernie (and give up more, in exchange), and thus slow down what progress could have been made? Would either of them even get the chance with a Republican-led House?
These are much more realistic questions to ask than trying to hit the other candidate on "you won't get anything done" or "you'll compromise far too easily on core principles." Hillary is trying to argue for a lowered-expectations (but more realistic) agenda. Bernie is arguing that if you don't shoot for the moon, you'll never know how much you can achieve. Both arguments have their strong points and their weak points. It'll be up to the Democratic voters to decide which they find a more compelling argument.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Well, that sounds an awful lot to me like settling for a Republican president might be the way to go.
Elizabeth (1): No, because Repubs are out of their minds. Hillary or Bernie will definitely have problems with Repubs and may well not get much done, but what they can do is stop the Repubs from turning the entire country into Wisconsin. And keep the Supreme Court from becoming even more conservative.
Paula, things maybe have to get much, much worse before they can get better.
Besides, haven't you had your fill of incremental change?
And, if things do get entirely out of hand, your system can remedy that, right?
I saw a tv ad today saying "What's Canadian about Ted Cruz? / His tax plan."
--
Making things worse doesn't make them better. Even if things are getting worse, and will continue to do so before they get better, making them worse makes them get worse longer. To make things better, make things better.
Would we have done as well on Dodd-Frank under a Republican administration, for example? (I still say that what it left undone is huge, but what it did include is all to the good.)
Hi Liz
Settling for a Repub might be the way to go?
Could you explain your reasoning and what it was that CW wrote that elicited your response?
He wrote about potential compromises by either Dem.
How would complete Repub control be preferable?
A
"things maybe have to get much, much worse before they can get better"
The GOP says that government is the problem and they work overtime to make sure that's true. In Flint, everyone was receiving Small Government lead poisoning and Legionaire's right from the tap. Apparently, it'll have to get much, much worse than that because here's what Ben Carson had to say about it:
"regulations aren’t effective in protecting our citizens"
Republicans used to argue that regulations are job killers. Now the argument seems to be that regulations are no match for GOP criminals so we needn't bother with them.
I think this is a depressing outlook and probably correct for at least a first Clinton or Sanders term.
However what is missed is the impact of the 2% every four years going from old/white to young/non-white, and the subsequent Republican to Democratic impact. The next generation, according to an article in the latest Economist, are getting shafted (they didn't put it quite like that). Bernie and/or future Bernies are going to be sounding better and better to a larger percentage of the populous and they will also have some of their own coming up - for example check out Gavin Newsome in California (plus the ladies I know LOVE him).
Win in 2016.
Win better in 2020.
Split the Republican party into the adults and the children, and more of the adult independents will swing to the mature Republicans and we will have a working system again.
Read Chris Ladd at http://www.goplifer.com if you are an adult right winger. He understands.
Wow. The National Review did a number on Trump. The "shoved him to the ground and jumped up and down on his head" type of number.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
Hey CW
I doubt this would hold true nationally, but it is a fact that Bernie got 25% of Repub votes in his last election in Vermont.
If we were to consider the rosiest scenario, I'm not sure even gerrymandered Repub seats could be guaranteed... particularly if Trump or Cruz is their candidate, as many Repubs have little stomach for either.
Obviously, turnout would be key.
All indications are that Clinton's Big Money, low inspiration campaign would depress turnout for Dems (and motivate Repubs) while Bernie could potentially boost it.
In any case, I greatly appreciate you detailing the fallacy the Clinton camp has been pushing.
Their nonsense gets annoying.
As far as Bernie's agenda goes, I think it's safe to say that single payer will be a rallying point, not a hole he will dump his political capital into... unless Dems retake both houses of Congress.
But, many of the other items on his agenda have potential for causing Repubs grief.
Too Big To Fail banks are not popular with Repub voters.
A large percentage of Repubs support raising the minimum wage.
Same deal with campaign finance reform, and reducing the cost of higher education.
I'm sure that list could be longer too.
It's a shame Obama abandoned his coalition and didn't even try the "People power" approach using the bully pulpit. His attempt to work with the Repubs was clearly a failure, and we'll never know if he could have succeeded with the other approach.
If Bernie wins and tries it, he may succeed where Obama may have failed, or he may fail where Obama may have succeeded.
Regardless, with hindsight, it's clear that not trying was a mistake.
A
Some people see this as nothing more than unadulterated racism. There are admittedly Republicans who hate the president for his skin color, but tarring all Republicans (especially those in Congress) with this brush ignores a much more basic fact. Republicans hate any president with a "D" next to his (or her) name. Obama could have been a good-ol'-boy from the Deep South, and most Republicans would still have fought just as hard to obstruct his agenda.
Exactly!!!
Race had (and has) absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING...
Racism is just an excuse to cover up Obama and the Democrats incompetence in governing..
I think it's a safe bet that Clinton won't be POTUS.. Her indictment by Obama's DOJ will prevent that.
Even if Obama's DOJ *DOESN'T* indict, then the GOP will tear Hillary to pieces with the TOO BIG TO JAIL moniker...
Either way, Hillary is toast...
Bernie as POTUS is just an impossibility.. It simply won't happen...
About the only chance the Democrat Party has is if Biden or Warren step in after Hillary is indicted...
Michale
Split the Republican party into the adults and the children, and more of the adult independents will swing to the mature Republicans and we will have a working system again
And, of course, by "mature" Republicans, you mean Republicans that will do everything the Democrats want them to do, eh? :D
The nekkid partisanship is so transparent.. About the ONLY thing that is transparent these days... :D
Michale
Clinton, to her credit, is doing everything she can to avoid a repeat of 2008. She’s savaging Sanders as both too conservative (on guns) and too pie-in-the-sky liberal (on health care).
Complicating those efforts is the news that broke midweek: The intelligence community’s inspector general confirmed that dozens of emails on the private server Clinton used while she was at the State Department contained extremely highly classified information.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-had-the-worst-week-in-washington-hillary-clinton/2016/01/21/8bc5d816-c05e-11e5-9443-7074c3645405_story.html
It's a safe bet that Hillary will be indicted before the end of the Primary... Any indictment (or non-indictment) handed down AFTER the Primary will totally decimate the Democrat Party up and down the ticket.. A Democrat will be lucky if they can win the County Dog Catcher seat..
You heard it here first...
Michale
There is also the EXTRA investigation that's been added of the link between Pay To Play activities at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation..
The funny thing is, the impetus for these investigations is coming from a solid and undeniable Left Wing source...
There is absolutely NO "vast right wing conspiracy" here...
This is pure LEFT on LEFT activities...
Which is why it's so damning to the Clinton campaign...
Michale
And, if things do get entirely out of hand, your system can remedy that, right?
Ohhh snap! :D
Michale
So, the take away from the comments is, ELECT BERNIE!! HE WON'T COMPROMISE!!!!!
Hmmmmm Who was it that said the Left Wingery's idea of "compromise" is OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY....
Oh... I think it was me!!! :D
Michale
The presidential candidates and members of the US Congress should be expressing plans to and acting now to avoid another 2008.
And, I'm not talking about elections.
What are the presidential candidates saying about how to avoid the next great recession? What is Congress doing about it? Will President Obama end up handing over to the next president a situation not too dissimilar to what awaited him in 2009?
Is anybody in the political process talking about the real issues facing the US and global economy?
What are the presidential candidates saying about how to avoid the next great recession? What is Congress doing about it? Will President Obama end up handing over to the next president a situation not too dissimilar to what awaited him in 2009?
Given the current trends, I would say the answer to this is a very very likely yes...
I don't know enough about the field to comment intelligently on how to prevent it...
I'll leave that to the experts.. :D
All I can apply is a little common sense.. If one is in a financial hole, the VERY first thing one must do is STOP DIGGING!!
That's my contribution... :D
Michale
dsws,
Would we have done as well on Dodd-Frank under a Republican administration, for example? (I still say that what it left undone is huge, but what it did include is all to the good.)
Dodd-Frank was a very good piece of legislation which would probably never have happened under a Republican administration. In fact, I really shudder to think what might have happened to the US economy under Republican executive leadership in 2009.
But, that direst of situations might have resulting in full Democratic control of the US government in 2012, assuming the majority of the electorate would have suffered enough under the Republican economic policies that were actually espoused during the Great Recession and which would surely have made things worse.
Michale,
I don't know enough about the field to comment intelligently on how to prevent it...
The next president and Congress should know enough about the field to be commenting about it, endlessly, on the campaign trail.
Silence on these issues is evidence of ignorance!
The next president and Congress should know enough about the field to be commenting about it, endlessly, on the campaign trail.
I disagree.. It's not possible for any one person to be the required expert in every possible field..
Does each candidate know military strategy?? Of course not.. But he can HIRE people who do know...
But there is a candidate who is an expert at business and economics....
So if the economy is the parameter, one candidate shines about all others...
Hillary Clinton... Heh
Michale
Silence on these issues is evidence of ignorance!
"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident
Michale
They don't need to be experts, Michale.
But, they do need to demonstrate a fundamental understanding of economic issues and other domestic policy issues, as well as of foreign policy challenges and how to use diplomacy and military strategy effectively.
If they don't know the basics, then they have no business running for public office, let alone for the POTUS or Congress.
If they don't know the basics, then they have no business running for public office, let alone for the POTUS or Congress.
I am not disagreeing with you....
I am just saying that would disqualify a lot of people on both the Right AND the Left...
Michale
Does each candidate know military strategy?? Of course not.. But he can HIRE people who do know...
Wouldn't you agree that a presidential candidate would have to have the requisite knowledge of these issues before they can make an intelligent, informed decision about who to hire? After all, these presidential appointees must follow the overarching strategy offered up by the POTUS.
This is Trump's greatest weakness, in my opinion. He thinks that all he has to do as president is surround himself with good people and the rest will take care of itself. That, I believe, is a recipe for a failed, if not truncated, presidency.
I am just saying that would disqualify a lot of people on both the Right AND the Left...
Indubitably.
This is Trump's greatest weakness, in my opinion. He thinks that all he has to do as president is surround himself with good people and the rest will take care of itself. That, I believe, is a recipe for a failed, if not truncated, presidency.
Just the opposite..
A great leader is a man who recognizes his own limitations and surrounds himself with people who will compensate for what the leader lacks...
A bad leader is a man who thinks he knows it all and surrounds himself with sycophants who just tells the leader what he wants to hear...
Michale
It's entirely possible that Trump is the latter instead of the former..
But one doesn't get to be as successful and richer than god by the latter...
Michale
A great leader is a man who recognizes his own limitations and surrounds himself with people who will compensate for what the leader lacks...
Assuming such a great leader also has a fundamental appreciation and understanding of the issues he or she will be dealing with (in other words, assuming that they do indeed have the requisite strengths of a great leader), then yes, I would wholly agree with that statement.
It has been my experience that the accumulation of wealth is no guarantee of great national leadership nor of a fundamental understanding of what it takes to be POTUS.
Might interest ya'all to know that Bernie came in 2nd on the Drudge Super Poll...
http://drudgereport.com/nosp.htm
Michale
It has been my experience that the accumulation of wealth is no guarantee of great national leadership nor of a fundamental understanding of what it takes to be POTUS.
Maybe not..
But it IS an indication of being a successful businessman..
Whether a successful businessman can translate into a successful POTUS, that is arguable, I grant you...
Michale
We're probably not likely to find out.
We're probably not likely to find out.
We might...
It's unlikely Clinton will survive the primary or the general...
It's probably going to be a SANDERS/TRUMP election..
Michale
I think, for once in a long time, the conventions will be very interesting with more than a few surprises. :)
Complete agreement.. :D
Both the Dem and the GOP convention will be jam packed with excitement.....
"Oooo I like jam!"
-Vala, STARGATE SG1
:D
Michale
Heh.
Michale, I just got an email alerting me to a very interesting article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
http://thebulletin.org/iran-nuclear-option-more-trouble-it-was-worth9064
It kind of sums up why I remain hopeful about the success of the JCPOA. I hope you will find the read worth your time.
I'll make a deal with you, Liz...
I'll read that article and give it my honest and objective assessment..
If you will do this same with this article...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158
Deal??
Michale
Deal!
I'm busy for the next few hours, though ...
What the hell, I read it anyways because it was fascinating..
And I really can't find much fault with it. It's a logical and rational assessment of the situation and it DOES make a lot of sense..
But it ignores two very salient points.
1. It does not address the weakness of the sanctions that, if snapped back, would NOT include Russia or China..
2. It does not specifically address what happens after 10 years when Iran is released from all obligations.. Yes, it can be said that the entire thrust of the article is that Iran has changed it's THINKING about acquiring nuclear weapons.. But we only have the word of the Iranians on that... Remember, we are talking about a regime that USES TERRORISM to further it's agenda... Is it too much of a stretch to think that a regime that uses terrorism to further it's regional agenda would have NO QUALMS about lying to further it's nuclear weapons agenda??
So, with the toothless snapped back sanctions, the ONLY thing we can do is trust Iran...
And I really think that THAT is a bridge too far..
Having said all that, I have to be honest and admit that the article did answer a LOT of my concerns...
Michale
I'm busy for the next few hours, though ...
Take yer time.. I'll be here all year.. :D
Michale
Michale,
Hillary's email situation ...
First off, I think she has brought all of this on herself by choosing to set up her own private server to use for both personal and State Department business. That, to me, was a disaster waiting to happen.
Secondly, I am no Hillary fan but, I'm going to wait until the investigation concludes and see what the result is. Of course, if she is charged with criminal behavior then I think we can assume that her presidential aspirations will come to an abrupt and untimely end. Having said that, I am aware that if charges are not laid against her then there will be an unending chorus of " the system is corrupt", "Hillary is above the law", etc. which we will all make of what we will.
Thirdly, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the author of this WSJ article (which I had to subscribe to in order to read - I was meaning to do it anyway, so I did!) has more crust than Christie has bread to suggest that Hillary Clinton should be charged with - how did he put it ... a crime of one sort or another. Because he is the one who, if I recall correctly, as Attorney General of the United States of America, testified before Congress that waterboarding wasn't torture and therefore there could be no criminal charge for the authorization of and use of torture against anyone in the Bush/Cheney administration, himself included.
For me, the use of torture by American officials rises far higher on the criminal intent ladder than does use of a private email server by an American secretary of state.
As for the Iran situation, Michale ...
Russia and China do not have veto power over the re-imposition of UN sanctions or EU sanction or US sanctions. These sanctions can hardly be defined as toothless.
And, if Iran seriously violates the agreement, then I don't think you can be so sure that Russia and China would be so eager to avoid their own sanctions against Iran, of one sort or another. After all, the Russians invested quite a lot into the P5+1 negotiations.
Are there unknown unknowns about this agreement with Iran. Probably. We'd have to ask Secretary Rumsfeld about that. Heh. Sorry, couldn't resist - I'm not that strong.
For me, those kinds of unknowns about how Iran might violate the agreement at some point and how the international community might respond are overwhelming eclipsed by the key points of the JCPOA - from the obligations of Iran to the verification capability of the IAEA - which I believe offer the best chance the world has to ensure that Iran's nuclear program remains for peaceful purposes only.
Russia and China do not have veto power over the re-imposition of UN sanctions or EU sanction or US sanctions. These sanctions can hardly be defined as toothless.
They DO have veto power over whether or not THEY will abide by the sanctions...
And if they choose not to, which they have already made plans to that effect, then the sanctions will be toothless...
That's my point.. Without China's or Russia's support, the sanctions are worthless...
Michale
Just one more point on the Iran nuclear agreement.
Most of the Republican candidates for president have railed against the JCPOA - some would "rip it up", others would re-negotiate. Well, that's what they say now, anyway.
In any case, I think either of those options is a very dangerous course of action for the United States to take (or even talk about during a presidential campaign) and it is a deal breaker for me in terms of any of them being worthy of the title of POTUS.
That's my point.. Without China's or Russia's support, the sanctions are worthless...
What I don't understand, Michale, is how you can just discard the entire JCPOA on the basis of how Iran MIGHT violate the agreement and how the rest of the world might react.
Can't you at least support the deal until such time as Iran seriously violates it and the rest of the world fails to enforce more sanctions, especially in view of the fact of what Iran has already done to restrict its nuclear program under this deal?
Elizabeth [43] - nobody believes a word of what any of the Republican candidates say (or most of what the Democratic candidates say) during silly season.
They will use their statements against them (Trump is particularly full of nonsense that is impossible and/or unconstitutional) but nobody expects them to get any of this past the stalemate that is DC at the moment.
The partisanship is such that unless one party get the White House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and the House, nothing is going to get done.
We will need to wait until the adults in the Republican Party get their wing nuts under control - and I see no way that is going to happen.
Another worry is that by the time the Republicans grow up, the Democrats will have fractured and we will have the same story only be screwed by some left wing nuts instead.
Elizabeth Miller [#40]
This. Exactly this. The whole thing. Excellent comment, Elizabeth.
And I'd be more excited about Bernie if he was running on more than just inequality (and thought his ideas had a hope of becoming law).
I also think your point in comment [#1] was interesting. Let them clean it up -- can't just dig in and be obstructionist when it's your own party, right? Except of course, the Freedom Caucus can. And the risk is too high for such a four-year experiment: SCOTUS!
The real fight to make American great again (you know, cuz we're not right now!) though is not the presidential race. It's the state races. If, as Chris aptly points out, little that is meaningful can happen in federal law making, then the real action is statehouses: women's reproductive rights, voting rights, law enforcement, corporate citizenry, sensible tax policy, developing federal leaders for 10 years from now, ...
I think CW's premise means that other than (1) ensuring a Democrat is in the White House as a counterbalance, (2) SCOTUS, and (3) the proverbial 3am phone call, there is less reason than usual to care who gets elected president. But governors and state legislators matter -- it ain't sexy, but it's time to pay attention to those races.
Liz,
First off, I think she has brought all of this on herself by choosing to set up her own private server to use for both personal and State Department business. That, to me, was a disaster waiting to happen.
Couldn't agree more...
Hillary is to blame.. Funny how NO ONE here gets that...
Secondly, I am no Hillary fan but, I'm going to wait until the investigation concludes and see what the result is.
While it makes sense that YOU would have that attitude, the ONLY reason the rest of the Left Wingery has that attitude is because Hillary is a Democrat and too big to jail... I recall the recent similar issues with General Patreaus and I also recall that the Left Wingery in general and the majority of Weigantians in particular wanted Patreaus's blood, even at just the accusation...
That galls me to know end..
Because he is the one who, if I recall correctly, as Attorney General of the United States of America, testified before Congress that waterboarding wasn't torture and therefore there could be no criminal charge for the authorization of and use of torture against anyone in the Bush/Cheney administration, himself included.
So, the source of the criticism makes a difference... The CREDIBILITY of the source makes a difference.. OK, I can agree with that.. :D
For me, the use of torture by American officials rises far higher on the criminal intent ladder than does use of a private email server by an American secretary of state.
When you consider that the ENTIRE computer system that was used by the US Secretary Of State was an OPEN BOOK to Russia and China and North Korea???
I would have to disagree with you there...
Hillary's actions are MUCH more serious and MUCH more detrimental to the safety and security of this country...
By far....
Michale
What I don't understand, Michale, is how you can just discard the entire JCPOA on the basis of how Iran MIGHT violate the agreement and how the rest of the world might react.
Once upon a time, I voted Democrat on the off chance that said Democrat "MIGHT" actually do some good for this country..
Look at the mess we're in now..
The risk that Iran will develop nuclear weapons far FAR outweighs the benefits that MIGHT come to pass...
Can't you at least support the deal until such time as Iran seriously violates it
No, I cannot. And it's very simple as to why...
The indication that Iran has seriously violated the JCPOA could be a Hamas nuclear attack...
Would YOU want that on your conscience??
I wouldn't...
Michale
Elizabeth [43] - nobody believes a word of what any of the Republican candidates say (or most of what the Democratic candidates say) during silly season.
Damn! Ya got me!! :D
We will need to wait until the adults in the Republican Party get their wing nuts under control - and I see no way that is going to happen.
Once again, by "adults" you mean Republicans that will do everything the Democrats want them to do.. D:
Michale
Liz,
2 followup questions...
Hillary was the US Secretary of State for 4 years. During that time, she used a private home-brewed unsecure email server.. EXCLUSIVELY...
Do you believe her when she says she didn't send anything classified??
Question number 2...
The vast majority of Weigantians and ALL of the Left Wingery believe that this email server issue is just a faux-scandal contrived and pushed by the VWRC, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (TM, Hillary Clinton)...
Do you agree??
Michale
Do you believe her when she says she didn't send anything classified??
More accurately, didn't send OR RECEIVE anything classified...
Michale
Once again, by "adults" you mean Republicans that will do everything the Democrats want them to do.. D:
Put another way... Can you comprehend and acknowledge that Republicans feel as strongly and as passionately about their beliefs as you do about yours??
Can you understand that they believe, as much as YOU do, that THEY are right about things and YOU are wrong??
Think about it.. What other social dynamic is in play whereas different groups of people living in the same exact reality perceive things in diametrically opposite ways...
Change Democrat and Republican to Catholic and Protestant and you'll see where I am going with this.. :D
Michale
So...
https://next.ft.com/content/e25f28d6-c0f8-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
No one wants to talk about a Bloomberg 3rd Party candidacy???
I can see why.. It must be very depressing for ya'all.. :D
Michale
Sorry, the above comment was supposed to go to the FTP commentary...
Here's one for you, Liz..
Iran plans to buy 114 Airbus jets on Rouhani’s Europe visit
Italy also lining up €17bn in deals as Iran nuclear accord bears commercial fruit
https://next.ft.com/content/cdcc295c-c290-11e5-b3b1-7b2481276e45
Do you HONESTLY believe that countries like France and China and Russia will support sanctions if Iran is found cheating on the JCPOA??
Those countries stand to make BILLIONS of $$$ off a sanction-free Iran..
No way are they going to re-impose sanctions and shoot themselves in the foot...
The threat of snap-back sanctions is a toothless farce...
Michale