Will Hillary Face Bill's Mandate Problem?
It has been an extraordinary two weeks on the presidential campaign trail, but then again that statement could have been uttered pretty much at any point during the past year and still have been just as true. This time around, I'm referring to Donald Trump obviously starting to consider the possibility that he's going to lose the general election. He never used to talk about (or even acknowledge) this possibility before now, but all his dismal post-convention polling may have forced him to begin to think about it.
Currently Trump is being slammed for his "dog whistle" to Second Amendment enthusiasts, which intimated that perhaps assassinating federal judges or Hillary Clinton might be a desired reaction to her presidency. This isn't the first time this particular dog whistle has been blown by Republican candidates, although they usually phrase it as "Second Amendment remedies" (which sounds so much nicer than "waging civil war against the United States of America," doesn't it?). I've said it before (about Hillary Clinton, back in 2008, actually) and I'll say it again: politicians should never even hint at political assassination being any sort of realistic option. Just don't do it. It's beyond "playing with fire" -- it is downright dangerous and irresponsible to even talk about the subject.
But at the same time, I think this'll blow over in the same way almost all of Trump's off-the-cuff remarks have already blown over. What I thought was an even more dangerous and irresponsible remark was Trump talking about how the entire election is obviously going to be "rigged" if he doesn't win. It was an open invitation for all his followers to see Hillary Clinton as an illegitimate president, should she win. What would millions of Trump voters actually do if they thought the election had been stolen away from them -- and Trump was loudly egging them on? That's a question that is going to get a lot more attention as the election draws nearer -- that's my guess, at any rate.
But again, I'm going to set all that aside for the moment. I'm even going to ignore Donald Trump in the equation. Because if Clinton does win, Trump will fade away on the political scene, much like Sarah Palin has (finally) done. What I've been wondering -- for far longer than the past few weeks -- is whether Hillary Clinton will face the same headwinds that her husband faced when he won the presidency. Will she be hounded by the accusation that she doesn't have a true "mandate" from the people?
Bill Clinton faced this problem twice, because in neither 1992 nor 1996 did he manage to win at least 50 percent of the popular vote. Remember, H. Ross Perot took close to 20 percent in the first one and almost 10 percent in the second one, so winning 50 percent was not necessary to win the race. This year, there are two third-party candidates who are polling much stronger than third parties normally do. Whether people will actually vote for them is an open question (often third parties poll a whole lot better than they manage to do in the actual election). But it's pretty easy to see that Hillary Clinton might win the race but fail to reach 50 percent of the popular vote.
All along I've been saying that Hillary's campaign has been peddling one particular fantasy to her supporters, the idea that she will "get things done" because she'll be so much better at "working with Congress" than that pie-in-the-sky dreamer Bernie Sanders (or, now, Donald Trump). She paints the picture of congressional compromise in glowing colors, and for the most part her supporters seem to believe it could become reality. I don't, to put it mildly.
Who really thinks the Republicans in Congress are going to start working in good faith with President Hillary Clinton to get anything done? I'm not saying that Bernie Sanders would have been any better at this, mind you -- I've always thought that any Democratic president will face exactly the same hostility from Republicans that Barack Obama has had to deal with from his first day in office. Who really believes that Hillary Clinton will be seen in a more positive light by all the Tea Partiers and their Republican enablers in both the House and Senate? "Gosh, we certainly gave Barack Obama a hard time," they're all supposed to suddenly realize, "so let's show President Clinton how much we can get done together!" As I said, this is pure fantasy.
Those on the right simply hate it whenever any Democrat occupies the Oval Office. Period. Plain and simple. They have hated all eight years of Barack Obama, and they hated (with a white-hot passion) all eight years of Bill Clinton. They're going to hate Hillary Clinton in the White House just as fervently. The only way out of this problem is for Democrats to win control of the House and rack up a 60-vote majority in the Senate. The first of those might actually happen this November, but the second is completely out of reach. So Hillary will face -- at least -- the same unending Senate filibuster votes that Obama has had to deal with. And if the House remains in Republican hands, it may be almost impossible for Clinton to move much of her agenda forward at all.
Now, I realize that making political promises (or even just painting gauzy pictures of the future) on the campaign trail is a normal part of politics. But I do wonder whether Clinton herself believes that she'll be able to get things done by sitting down with the congressional Republicans. It's one thing to radiate optimism in a political rally, but it's another for the candidate to actually firmly believe something that probably won't turn out to be true. Clinton may be remembering her own stint in the Senate, which was before the Tea Party wave happened. Things did occasionally get done, back when Clinton was representing New York in the Senate. The two parties did occasionally reach compromises. But things have changed. I do hope Hillary Clinton knows this, to put it another way.
Clinton will face hostility from congressional Republicans, whether they hold either chamber or not. If Democrats hold the House, then the GOP minority there can safely be ignored. But even if Democrats also hold the Senate, Republicans will still be able to filibuster everything under the sun. In fact, the next session of the Senate might start off with a gigantic fight, if the lame-duck session doesn't confirm Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton could spend her first day in office announcing her new nominee to the court, which would mean it'd be the first piece of business the Senate took up.
Now, back when Harry Reid "dropped the nuke" by changing Senate rules so that federal judge confirmations couldn't be filibustered any more, he left the filibuster intact for the Supreme Court. But with a new Senate convening next January, they could very easily chuck that rule out too, on their first day in office. Meaning if Democrats hold the chamber, Hillary Clinton's nominee would soon be on the high court. Think that's going to put Republicans in a compromising mood on Capitol Hill? I don't. Especially since I remember how they screamed when Reid chose the "nuclear option" in the first place -- which didn't even involve the Supreme Court.
Even without all this speculation on what Congress will look like (and do) next January, though, Hillary Clinton may still face the headwinds of the media deciding she "doesn't have a mandate from the people." If Hillary Clinton wins, Donald Trump has already signaled that he's going to do everything he can to delegitimize her victory. Rantings about "rigged elections" likely won't last long, but if Clinton fails to attain a majority of the popular vote, the line from Republicans will quickly become: "Over half the voters didn't vote for Hillary."
Bill Clinton worked through this problem twice, and Hillary can work through it as well. Interestingly enough, when George W. Bush was confronted with his own lack of a mandate, his response was essentially that he was now president and that was all the mandate he needed, thank you very much. Once he brushed the question off in such fashion, it was rarely ever asked again. So this doesn't have to be an insurmountable problem for any president.
What Hillary Clinton doesn't clearly express when telling her supporters that she knows how to get things done with Congress is that it is an implied knock on Barack Obama. This is entirely deserved, as Obama has never shown any enthusiasm for courting even members of his own party. He doesn't do all the glad-handling and cocktail hours that previous presidents have used to get influential members of Congress on their side. And that's just within his own party. Hillary Clinton will doubtlessly be a lot more attentive to such things. She knows all about the congressional meet-and-greet events that can help a sitting president. In fact, she'll have someone handy who is quite good at it, so perhaps Bill will be given the job of "Congressional Schmoozer-In-Chief" -- a job he'd likely both enjoy and be quite good at.
So it really remains to be seen how much of a hurdle the accusation that Hillary Clinton "didn't win a mandate" will be. Republicans are already chomping at the bit to delegitimize Clinton in any way possible, so it should come as no surprise to anyone if this ramps up to fever pitch after Election Day. Hillary Clinton should be ready for this to happen, because if she does win it is likely to become inevitable.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
"Will she be hounded by the accusation that she doesn't have a true "mandate" from the people?"
Well, the Republicans would never make that accusation. When there was talk about the Orange One arriving at the RNC short of a majority, they were all about the one with the most votes. They even hate Cruz now.
"Trump is being slammed for his "dog whistle" to Second Amendment enthusiasts, which intimated that perhaps assassinating federal judges or Hillary Clinton might be a desired reaction to her presidency."
Trump's whistle was slyly aimed at a very specific demographic. White male, 20-26, IQ 75-85, looking for a father figure, easily led, lives in his mom's basement, with a respectable number of firearms and a few thousand rounds of ammunition.
John Warnock Hinckley Jr. is a about to be released... I don't know, but some people are probably thinking: Hinckley dinkly parlez vous.
CW-
Alas, you are spot on about the mandate problem. It's going to be a problem. It matters not that Clinton plays well with others. The others don't play well with others.
You are completely right that neither Hillary nor Bernie would be able to get anything passed as long as the GOP has the House and Senate and continue on their "vote against anything the President supports" campaign. The latter of which is still mind-boggling to me and the thing I have come to despise most about the GOP: they would rather our country suffer than to work towards a better future if it means a Democrat gets credit for making it better!
Most law makers work extremely hard to get any piece of legislation that they introduce through Congress in the hopes that it might be signed into law by the President. It is a BIG DEAL when that happens, and is an honor that members of Congress strive to achieve. That is why is was historically unheard of for legislators to vote against legislation that they, themselves, had introduced, but ONLY AFTER Obama had indicated that he would sign it into law if it made it to his desk!
The fact that the Republicans bragged about how hard they worked to prevent legislation that would be viewed as positive to most Americans from passing still makes me angry. They only admitted to this because they believed they had cost Obama his re-election bid and wanted the credit for it! They boasted of intentionally voting against the best interests of their constituents and this country out of a desire to prevent Obama from getting the credit for signing good legislation into law!!! That's not a "sound political strategy" as much as it is TREASON! I do believe that most Republican supporters would rather they do their jobs and work towards passing good laws than to work to make life as bad as possible for Americans so people might vote for them next election!
Some video archaeology has challenged our concepts of the 20th century. First, beach volleyball was apparently played in street clothes. Huh? Second, Trump was never handsome...started out as a double chinned fat ass with poor coordination. Unclear if he cheated.
http://politistick.com/watch-donald-trump-play-beach-volleyball/
Re-5
In contrast, John Stewart has aged very gracefully.
This isn't the first time this particular dog whistle has been blown by Republican candidates,
OR by Demcorat candidates...
But at the same time, I think this'll blow over in the same way almost all of Trump's off-the-cuff remarks have already blown over.
Yup... Much ado about nothing...
All along I've been saying that Hillary's campaign has been peddling one particular fantasy to her supporters, the idea that she will "get things done" because she'll be so much better at "working with Congress" than that pie-in-the-sky dreamer Bernie Sanders (or, now, Donald Trump). She paints the picture of congressional compromise in glowing colors, and for the most part her supporters seem to believe it could become reality. I don't, to put it mildly.
Yup...
Those on the right simply hate it whenever any Democrat occupies the Oval Office. Period. Plain and simple.
As do those on the Left...
If Hillary Clinton wins, Donald Trump has already signaled that he's going to do everything he can to delegitimize her victory.
Just as, if Trump wins, Hillary (and every Demcorat on the planet) is going to do everything they can to delegitimize HIS victory...
Bill Clinton worked through this problem twice, and Hillary can work through it as well.
We have ALL agreed that Hillary is no Bill....
Michale
Some video archaeology has challenged our concepts of the 20th century. First, beach volleyball was apparently played in street clothes. Huh? Second, Trump was never handsome...started out as a double chinned fat ass with poor coordination. Unclear if he cheated.
Yer absolutely right, Stig!!
NO ONE should vote for Trump because he can't play volleyball and he is ugly!!!
{{sssiiggggghhhhhh}}
I wish you could take a step back from yourself and see how utterly inane and ridiculous your comments are...
But I guess this is what passes for "serious" discussions around here...
Trump's double chin and fat ass... :^/
Michale
they would rather our country suffer than to work towards a better future if it means a Democrat gets credit for making it better!
Just as Democrats tried to do the same thing with Bush.. Siding with Al Qaeda against the President over practically EVERY issue...
That's not a "sound political strategy" as much as it is TREASON!
Then you agree that Demcorats working against Bush was ALSO "treason"??
No??
Of course not.. :^/
Michale
Trump's whistle was slyly aimed at a very specific demographic. White male, 20-26, IQ 75-85, looking for a father figure, easily led, lives in his mom's basement, with a respectable number of firearms and a few thousand rounds of ammunition.
So only white people own guns???
Hmmmm.. That sounds a bit.. yunno... racist... :^/
Once again, I would ask you to step back and look how absolutely and unequivocally BIGOTED your comment is...
I would ask.. But I know it would be for naught.. :^/
Michale
CW,
What I thought was an even more dangerous and irresponsible remark was Trump talking about how the entire election is obviously going to be "rigged" if he doesn't win.
And along those same lines, the talk from the Left Wingery that Trump is "unstable" and "can't be trusted with nuclear weapons" and "Trump is likely to start a war that will destroy the planet" etc etc etc...
Isn't THAT talk just as "dangerous" and "irresponsible"???
Ever see THE DEAD ZONE with Christopher Walken???
Michale
To further expand on the above point..
If it starts looking like Trump will actually WIN the election, then all the "dog whistles" ya'all and the entirety of the Left Wingery, and some on the RIGHT Wingery have been blowing will give ample justification to anyone who would want to take out Trump...
No one here (NEN) seems to have a problem with THOSE dog whistles, eh??
"Gee!! I wonder why that is!!!"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR
Michale
In contrast, John Stewart has aged very gracefully.
Of course... Stewart has a '-D' after his name.... :^/
Michale
Apophis-
A sidebar question about your model prompted by your comment No. 3 in the 3 Dot-Tuesday column:
Is there a structure to State behaviors or do States behave independently in your model?
My random simulation model partitions the random variance of all 50 States and D.C. into 2 components: a National Component common to all 50 States and D.C., and a Local component that varies from location to location. The rational is to simulate the fact that States tend to move as a herd, every year is to some extent a "wave election." As a practical matter, this matters not for most States, which have probabilities of voting Democrat very close to 1 and 0. For the small number of competitive states ("swing states") it's a big deal, it gives the underdog candidate a better chance of "running the table" of Swing States. Underdog Trump can gain or lose about 5% probability of winning the election depending on how high I set the local variance factor. Historically, the % of local variance on election day seems to be roughly in the range of 30% to 50%
If the local factor is set to zero, (100% wave election) there is no need to run the sim. Just arrange the States in rank order of their voting Democrat, one at the top, zero at the bottom, with the running sum of their electoral votes tabulated to the right of each State. The probability of the Democrat winning the election is the same as the probability associated with the State bring the electoral total to 270 or more. Due to the structure of the US electoral map, this Quick and Dirty model is a pretty good approximation of my random sim.
A perfect case in point..
Liberal attacks on Trump are so unhinged, it might get him killed
http://nypost.com/2016/08/10/liberal-attacks-on-trump-are-so-unhinged-it-might-get-him-killed/
Looks like someone at the Post agrees with me...
"TAKE THAT!!! Bembridge scholars!!!"
-Rachel Weisz, THE MUMMY
:D
Michale
CW,
Unrelated to the commentary, but I know that it's of interest to you....
CBS News Source: Marijuana To Remain Classified As Dangerous Drug In U.S.
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/CBS News) — An announcement is expected Thursday that the federal government has rejected petitions to loosen the classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical use, CBS News reported.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/08/11/marijuana-classification/
On the positive side, the government IS going to allow more medical research.....
Just thought you would be interested...
Michale
...and Chris scoops the Washington Post!
This morning's headline:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/08/11/daily-202-hillary-clinton-s-agenda-would-flounder-in-congress-here-are-seven-reasons-why/57abd94bcd249a2fe363ba11/
He lists seven points. Point #3:
Many Republicans will insist Clinton has no mandate to govern. They will try constantly to de-legitimize her and do everything in their power to make sure she’s a one-term president.
Gee, I think I just read that somewhere...
:-)
-CW
Will she be hounded by the accusation that she doesn't have a true "mandate" from the people?
Only if she lets herself be hounded by it.
Judging by how she has run her campaign since becoming the official Democratic nominee for president, I think she'll let herself be hounded by it. :(
It's too bad her very own explainer-in-chief has, for all intents and purposes, had to take himself out of that role due to his own actions, recently and otherwise.
By the way, look for an insightful essay in the next Foreign Affairs issue by none other than Vice President Biden. And, with any luck, that won't be the last we hear from him before November.
Gee, I think I just read that somewhere....
I think I heard Mitch McConnell actually say that on TV about seven and a half years ago ...
Many Republicans will insist Clinton has no mandate to govern. They will try constantly to de-legitimize her and do everything in their power to make sure she’s a one-term president.
And many Democrats will insist that Trump has no mandate to govern.. They will constantly try to de-legitimize him and do everything in their power to make sure he's a one-term president...
What's the point???
Michale
...and Chris scoops the Washington Post!
"Yea!!! Ain't it kewl!!"
-John Travolta, BROKEN ARROW
:D
Michale
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/trump_successfully_baits_media_into_hysteria_again.html
Trump is playing the media and the Demcorat Party like a well-used fidddle.. :D
Michale
"We need to get rid of anchor babies. No sane country would decree that a child of illegal immigrants was a citizen just because he was conveniently born on its soil.”
-Donald Trump
I ask ya'all..
What's the problem with that???
Michale
Just wondering if there are any fans of the Grateful Dead here and what the Dead and Company are up to these days ... I have a link!
Even if Hillary wins with over 50% of the popular vote and an electoral collage landslide I don't anticipate any change in the attitude of Republicans. They will think their best chance to make Hillary a one term President will be obstructionism. In the current climate, if Trump were to win but the Senate were to go Democratic (unlikely), the Democrats would do exactly the same thing.
We are at an impasse from a governing perspective and there is plenty of blame to go around. Mostly we need to blame ourselves, we have divided ourselves into Red and Blue, and the Internet has given us the ability to reflect our worldview back to us and justify our prejudices while vilifying "the others".
Fortunately for the Democrats, demographics are against a white Christian nativist party (aka the GOP), so even with the gerrymandering to keep the House, and the off-year national election turnout that favors Republicans, the rejection of Latinos, Blacks, Muslims, Asians, etc. etc. will result them losing the Senate and the House eventually (2020 or 2024 probably).
Michale [23]
I ask ya'all..
What's the problem with that???
It's unconstitutional, Michale. Trump can't change it just because he, you and his band of fanatics don't like it; you'all will need an amendment to change it.
It's unconstitutional, Michale. Trump can't change it just because he, you and his band of fanatics don't like it; you'all will need an amendment to change it.
Ooops... I made a mistake... My bust...
"We need to get rid of anchor babies. No sane country would decree that a child of illegal immigrants was a citizen just because he was conveniently born on its soil.”
-Harry Reid
There.. Now it's factually accurate..
So, now you would say that "Reid can't change it just because he and his band of fanatics don't like it"
Right?? :D
Michale
Neil,
They will think their best chance to make Hillary a one term President will be obstructionism. In the current climate, if Trump were to win but the Senate were to go Democratic (unlikely), the Democrats would do exactly the same thing.
Now yer making MY arguments!! :D
My work here is nearly complete... :D
We are at an impasse from a governing perspective and there is plenty of blame to go around. Mostly we need to blame ourselves, we have divided ourselves into Red and Blue, and the Internet has given us the ability to reflect our worldview back to us and justify our prejudices while vilifying "the others".
WOW...
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR NEIL!!!!???
will result them losing the Senate and the House eventually (2020 or 2024 probably).
Not necessarily...
A lot can happen that would put the Demcorat Party in the shithouse for a millennium...
Michale
There.. Now it's factually accurate..
So, now you would say that "Reid can't change it just because he and his band of fanatics don't like it"
Right?? :D
If it makes ya feel any better, I am kinda bummed that it was you that got snared in my little trap.. :)
Michale
"Increasing federal spending would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need.
The federal government siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. … For all these reasons, next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital."
-Donald Trump
Once again, I see nothing wrong with this...
Michale
Hay CW,
I have a comment stuck in the NNL filter... Could ya set it free?? :D
Michale
I have a comment stuck in the NNL filter... Could ya set it free?? :D
"Let it go, Let it go...
Can't hold it back anymore...."
-Let It Go, FROZEN
:D
Michale
UPDATE: ISIS TERRORIST Tells Feds He Has Jihadist Brothers in Mexico
Earlier this year a top ranking Homeland Security official acknowledged that Mexican drug cartels were helping ISIS sneak across the southern border to scope out targets for terrorist attacks.
ISIS operative Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir has reportedly been training militants near the US border near Ciudad Juarez for the past year.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/isis-terrorist-tells-feds-jihadist-brothers-mexico/
Ya'all just HAVE to know that Hillary, Odumbo and the Demcorats are going take a massive hit in the polls when these terrorists start streaming across the borders and hitting their various targets....
Donald Trump's numbers are going to skyrocket and he will win in a landslide...
Michale
And if I may go tangential for a moment, since we're all Trek Geeks here.. :D
Star Trek: Discovery: Everything We Know About the New Series
http://www.tv.com/shows/star-trek/community/post/star-trek-discovery-everything-we-know-about-the-new-series-9360086168981030566/
My thoughts??
Diversity SOLELY for diversity's sake really REALLY sucks..
Making a Trek series that is NOT Captain-centric?? Stoopid... They had to make SISKO a Captain to get DS9 ratings back up..
Kudos for making the series in the Prime Universe as opposed to the Kelvin Universe. Double Kudos for creating the distinction meme :D
Not real thrilled about the setting being between STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE and STAR TREK TOS... Caveat on the lack of thrilled-ness if they can create awesome back-stories that dovetail nicely with TOS, as ENTERPRISE did with the whole KLINGON/LOBSTER HEAD issue... Would have preferred to see something POST-VOYAGER, but it's not a total wash if they can create awesome back-stories...
All in all, I'll watch it if it comes out in torrents, but am already turned off by all the political correctness that is ooozing from the announcements..
The original Star Trek CHALLENGED the Status Quo and slammed up against Political Correctness and conventional wisdoms..
This new series, if the announcements are any indication, is going to WALLOW in Political Correctness and the status quo... :^(
Anyways, just wanted to throw that out there...
Michale
And getting back to election news..
Trump's numbers CONTINUE to rise while Clinton's continue to sink... :D
CLINTON UP BY A SINGLE POINT
http://cesrusc.org/election/
So... We went from Clinton up by 12 to 15 to Clinton up by 7 to 9 to Clinton up by 3 or 4 to Clinton up by only a SINGLE POINT...
Trump has COMPLETELY erased Clinton's bump.... :D
Do those who have CONSTANTLY predicted Trump's demise in the last couple days what to admit that they were wrong.. *AGAIN*
{{{chhirrrrrrpppppppp}} {{{chirrrrrrpppppppp}}}
Didna think so.. :D
Michale
Do you have a link to where you're getting this info?
Thought that was a bad link. That poll is a closed poll of UAS members. They poll the same people every week. Just an opinion poll, nothing more..
Thought that was a bad link. That poll is a closed poll of UAS members. They poll the same people every week. Just an opinion poll, nothing more..
Just like all your cheery picked polls are opinion polls..
You just don't like the poll because it doesn't say what you want it to say..
If ya'all want to go with solely the RCP Poll Of Polls daily average, I am game for that..
Michale
No Reid can't change it. Nobody can change it just because they don't like it. That's the fricking point.
No Reid can't change it. Nobody can change it just because they don't like it. That's the fricking point.
The same applies to the 2nd Amendment..
But that doesn't stop the Left Wingery from yapping and yapping about it..
Michale