Presidential Race 2016

[triggercut]

That’s an interesting point, but I do not agree. Their money, and Bernie’s campaign, have made a difference in the direction of the party. The way he has raised funds is part of the point he is making. He has shown the appetite for an anti-Wall Street insurgency funded by the grass roots. That’s important.

Everything about his campaign indicates his intention to make a point in the primaries, not to win the general. His funding mechanisms, his distance from Obama and his refusal to moderate his stances all point to this. A socialist who wants to taxes on the middle class in order to mount a government takeover of healthcare (this is how he will be portrayed) is not going to be president. He’s too far left of center. He is too smart not to know this.

I am thrilled he has run, and that he has run the campaign in such a principled manner. He has succeeded where Occupy failed, mustering widespread attention and support around economic inequality. I love the man for this, and for focusing one of the major parties on the problem. I want him to make a real mark on the democratic platform and philosophy going forward. The parties needed to be more different. That may happen now.

I don’t want him to win, though, as I don’t want to watch him lose to Trump, Cruz or Rubio. Hillary’s acceptable, and Hillary-moved-to-the-left-by-Bernie is better yet. Every remaining GOP candidate not named Kasich would be disastrous.

That’d all be great and fine, but that’s not how it’ll work.

In the primaries, the candidates of both sides typically move to the edges of their party. That’s the party base, and that’s who typically show up in droves to vote in primaries. But if Mrs. Clinton secures the nomination, her path to the White House requires her to move back to the center. She has to, the same way Barack Obama had to. The votes in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Michigan are too important not to do that. And so she’ll move back to the middle. And Bernie will remain in the Senate. And the Senate will filibuster any legislation that shakes up the status quo too much.

And Bernie will decide not to seek a re-elect in 2018, and that’s that. And all that $35 million did was take money out of the pockets of folks that could probably really use that money.

[Oghier]

The Kasich who just diverted funds away from PP yesterday? Yeah, that guy only appears moderate when stood up next to the crazy-ass mofos that constitute the remainder of his party’s candidates.

I am not saying I agree with him, especially when his faith drives his policy. I view Kasich as a pragmatic, responsible politician whose views on many important policy issues differ from mine. I won’t vote for him, but I would not view his election as a disaster for the country. Sometimes, the other guys win.

[John_Reynolds]

I am not saying I agree with him, especially when his faith drives his policy. I view Kasich as a pragmatic, responsible politician whose views on many important policy issues differ from mine. I won’t vote for him, but I would not view his election as a disaster for the country. Sometimes, the other guys win.

Depends on his advisors and top cabinet picks. We could end up with another wave of tax cuts for the upper %s, starving the fed of needed revenue (resulting in tough choices, like cutting SS bennies instead of reversing those tax cuts), attacks on unions and education, on abortion rights, he could be talked into rescinding ACA and thus see millions thrown off health care, more neocon interventions such as a full ground war in Syria, etc. I have no problems seeing any Republican presidency at this point as potentially a full-blown disaster for the nation.

[Oghier]

…if Mrs. Clinton secures the nomination, her path to the White House requires her to move back to the center.

Yes, but how far back to the center? I expect Bernie to extract some concessions with regard to the platform. And more to the point, the success of his campaign demonstrates the passion around his issues. Hillary has always been sensitive to changes in what voters want, so she will likely adjust.

As all candidates do, she’ll move back toward the center. But she now has clearer view of what is needed to motivate and turn out the democratic base. You don’t expect her to shrug that off once Bernie concedes?

[triggercut]

The next 4 years is going to lead to either the complete discrediting of centrist Democrats or extremist Republicans, or more likely both.

The 1990s were all about centrist Democrats, and history has been kind. The 1980s were all about extremist Republicans. History has been kind.

If you think something’s going to happen in 4 years with any candidate’s hypothetical election to move the needle on Wall Street reform or Single Payer, I think you have a weirdly naive idea of how political progress in either direction happens.

You want to know how to get to single payer and how to bring Wall Street to heel?

The first part of strategizing how to do that is to recognize that there is more money vested in keeping the status quo in health care than could ever possibly be marshalled to changing them. Probably triple or quadruple the money. There is a tremendous vested interest at stake here.

And not without reason. There are people in lower and middle income brackets who still do benefit and also have a vested interest, and they vote. Folks who never had healthcare before can get it now. Folks who saw their retirement funds take a beating in 2008 should have recovered that paper loss and moved well forward from it within a few years. If they’re within 10-15 years of retirement, they sort of hope that things continue as they are.

So for instance. Instead of repudiating the ACA like Bernie Sanders, the smart move is to see it as a proof of concept for universal healthcare. Instead of scheming to scrap it, the smart way forward to single payer is to figure out legislative and policy measures to shore up the ACAs weak points and to maintain and increase acceptance of the Medicaid subsidy at the state level. If you can get 50 states taking the Medicaid pledge, you’re a big step closer to single payer.

And if you really want to get the debate open on the floor of congress, you’ve got to get some Supreme Court justices who’ll be willing to roll back Citizen’s United and be willing to uphold campaign finance. And that same court will need to uphold financial sector regulation that will absolutely end up being argued in front of it.

The point is this: the fight for the reforms that you want is a slow, slow process. It’s at least as much about the the courts as it is about legislation. And the main role of the president in all of it is to get judges who might be sympathetic to such reforms on the SCOTUS bench.

[triggercut]

Yes, but how far back to the center? I expect Bernie to extract some concessions with regard to the platform. And more to the point, the success of his campaign demonstrates the passion around his issues. Hillary has always been sensitive to changes in what voters want, so she will likely adjust.

As all candidates do, she’ll move back toward the center. But she now has clearer view of what is needed to motivate and turn out the democratic base. You don’t expect her to shrug that off once Bernie concedes?

I think the platform will have some Bernie issues in it, but they were going to be in no matter what because they play to the base of liberals like myself.

[Dan_Theman]

Yes, but how far back to the center? I expect Bernie to extract some concessions with regard to the platform. And more to the point, the success of his campaign demonstrates the passion around his issues. Hillary has always been sensitive to changes in what voters want, so she will likely adjust.

As all candidates do, she’ll move back toward the center. But she now has clearer view of what is needed to motivate and turn out the democratic base. You don’t expect her to shrug that off once Bernie concedes?

I agree. Yes, she’ll move toward the center in the general election cycle (assuming she gets there), but she can’t effectively “unsay” what she’s said during the primary cycle. So there’s value gained from Sanders’ run for left-leaning voters even if he doesn’t advance. Of course, once somebody gets to office and the realities of separation of powers paired with constant fundraising for your party hits home, that’s an entirely different beast.

[Pyperkub]

The 1990s were all about centrist Democrats, and history has been kind. The 1980s were all about extremist Republicans. History has been kind.

I don’t know if I’d characterize the '80’s Republicans as extremists. The wins in the '80’s certainly started turning the GOP more towards the extremist side, but I think the real tilt towards extremism didn’t happen until after HW Bush lost in '92. Reagan’s Voodoo economics were still about maximizing gov’t income, in theory at least. Grover Norquist et al and the abandonment of even the semblance of fiscal responsibility didn’t happen until the '90’s. I think that Clinton kind of co-opted the centrists who would lean GOP, and that combined with the excoriation of HW Bush’s “no new taxes” pledge (and the sense that a GOP majority was not only possible again for the first time since Eisenhower, but probable in Congress). Reagan’s legacy has been tortured and twisted into today’s GOP (Union-busting wasn’t a Reagan thing, for instance), but I wouldn’t characterize him or the '80’s GOP as extreme - at least not as we know it today.

[Pyperkub]

I agree. Yes, she’ll move toward the center in the general election cycle (assuming she gets there), but she can’t effectively “unsay” what she’s said during the primary cycle. So there’s value gained from Sanders’ run for left-leaning voters even if he doesn’t advance. Of course, once somebody gets to office and the realities of separation of powers paired with constant fundraising for your party hits home, that’s an entirely different beast.

I think her centrist move will be more hawkishness in the Middle East and a tougher stance towards Russia. I don’t think her domestic agenda will change much.

[Dan_Theman]

I think her centrist move will be more hawkishness in the Middle East and a tougher stance towards Russia. I don’t think her domestic agenda will change much.

That makes a lot of sense.

I don’t know if I’d characterize the '80’s Republicans as extremists. The wins in the '80’s certainly started turning the GOP more towards the extremist side, but I think the real tilt towards extremism didn’t happen until after HW Bush lost in '92. Reagan’s Voodoo economics were still about maximizing gov’t income, in theory at least. Grover Norquist et al and the abandonment of even the semblance of fiscal responsibility didn’t happen until the '90’s. I think that Clinton kind of co-opted the centrists who would lean GOP, and that combined with the excoriation of HW Bush’s “no new taxes” pledge (and the sense that a GOP majority was not only possible again for the first time since Eisenhower, but probable in Congress). Reagan’s legacy has been tortured and twisted into today’s GOP (Union-busting wasn’t a Reagan thing, for instance), but I wouldn’t characterize him or the '80’s GOP as extreme - at least not as we know it today.

The extremist side of the 80’s was in the rise of the Religious Right. They’d been around since the start of the country, of course, but it was the first time in quite a while that they took over political discourse. On the heels of social turmoil caused by the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, the Vietnam war in the 60’s to 1973, the Equal Rights Amendment passed in 1972, Roe v Wade was in 1973, and Nixon stepped down from the presidency in scandal in 1974, Ford became the President at that time and had a lot of baggage to carry forward. However, Carter admitted to “lust for other women,” and that hurt him among the particularly religious. Paired with the beatings that social conservatives had taken over recent years over largely Democrat-supported issues, they began to galvanize into an effective political force and Reagan took full advantage of them (and Carter’s other issues) in 1980. It was a fairly natural evolution, but it certainly paved the road toward extremism in the 80’s and frankly set the tone of our current economic climate where there’s a significant part of the Republican party that essentially wants a theocracy.

[Pyperkub]

That makes a lot of sense.

The extremist side of the 80’s was in the rise of the Religious Right. They’d been around since the start of the country, of course, but it was the first time in quite a while that they took over political discourse. On the heels of social turmoil caused by the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, the Vietnam war in the 60’s to 1973, the Equal Rights Amendment passed in 1972, Roe v Wade was in 1973, and Nixon stepped down from the presidency in scandal in 1974, Ford became the President at that time and had a lot of baggage to carry forward. However, Carter admitted to “lust for other women,” and that hurt him among the particularly religious. Paired with the beatings that social conservatives had taken over recent years over largely Democrat-supported issues, they began to galvanize into an effective political force and Reagan took full advantage of them (and Carter’s other issues) in 1980. It was a fairly natural evolution, but it certainly paved the road toward extremism in the 80’s and frankly set the tone of our current economic climate where there’s a significant part of the Republican party that essentially wants a theocracy.

I’d say that the Religious right “felt” empowered under Reagan, but I wouldn’t characterize them as defining the GOP in that era. The Moral Majority was a key part of Nixon’s victories too.

Also, the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified by the states. For all practical intents and purposes, it never passed.

[triggercut]

I don’t know if I’d characterize the '80’s Republicans as extremists.

In terms of 2016 Republicans? No, not at all.

In terms of 1980 Republicans? Absolutely.

[LMN8R]

If you want to hear what pure, refined, distilled Cognitive Dissonance sounds like, listen to Act One of yesterday’s episode of This American Life:

That's One Way to Do It - This American Life

[MrGrumpy]

Just some headlines and statements from the right wing media this morning.

Betsy McCaughey / New York Post:
Obama is looting the Treasury to pay off insurers — The Obama administration will tell any lie and break any law to prevent the president’s signature health-care program from collapsing. —

Hans A. Von Spakovsky / National Review:
The Obama Administration Wants to Make Sure Non-Citizens Vote in the Upcoming Election — Several well-funded organizations — including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP — are fighting efforts to prevent non-citizens from voting illegally in the upcoming presidential election.

Kyle Smith / New York Post:
Obama’s rudeness hits new heights with Scalia, Schumer

Trump trashes press. Crowd jeers. Guy by press ‘pen’ looks at us & screams “you’re a bitch!” Other gentleman gives cameras the double bird.

• Katy Tur.

I will not vote for Donald Trump. Ever. - Erick Erickson, because Trump said Planned Parenthood does some good things.

[Dan_Theman]

I’d say that the Religious right “felt” empowered under Reagan, but I wouldn’t characterize them as defining the GOP in that era. The Moral Majority was a key part of Nixon’s victories too.

Yes, to a point. The Moral Majority as a group (Fallwell) was formed during Carter’s administration, but Nixon did have some very distinct appeal from social conservatives. However, what most would consider the “Bible Belt” voted for Carter in 1976, including Texas (and NOT California). Back in 1968 when Nixon won his first election, it was Wallace who carried many of those states and Humphrey still took Texas.

Also, the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified by the states. For all practical intents and purposes, it never passed.

It got elevated in social prominence by the passing - the majority of Congress gave it a thumbs up, even though it fell just short (70%) of the required ratification level.

[Pyperkub]

In terms of 2016 Republicans? No, not at all.

In terms of 1980 Republicans? Absolutely.

Hmm. At least from my perspective living in CA all that time, I don’t think so, but CA has never really been a bastion of the Religious Right, so maybe it was more pronounced elsewhere. Or at least the Orange County tax/military contractor conservatives have consistently drowned out the Central valley social conservatives…

[Dan_Theman]

Or at least the Orange County tax/military contractor conservatives have consistently drowned out the Central valley social conservatives…

There may be something to that, lol

[Murbella]

I don’t think Hillary is going to change her actual politics due to Bernie at all. I think she is just paying lip service to people who support him and/or his ideas and the second he gets out of the race (which i believe he will), she will spend less and less time talking about them.

All of the people who support Bernie are going to vote for Hillary because supreme court picks are the best way to do what Bernie wants. Not to mention the republican candidates…

Bernie (and Hillary) has convinced me that Hillary is too pro big money. Maybe not as much as republicans who are proud to be pro big money, but not much less. So i’ll vote for Bernie in the primaries. i’ll vote for Hillary in the real thing and i’ll be happy if she wins and stops a super neo con supreme court pick. I do think she will nominate a moderate though (if given the chance) because like Obama, she values that fantastical image of both sides working together too much to do otherwise.

[John_Reynolds]

However, what most would consider the “Bible Belt” voted for Carter in 1976, including Texas (and NOT California).

Because Carter appeal to them as a fellow southerner and Christian, which made the GOP strategists, who were shocked to not carry the south post-Southern Strategy, take note. So they imitated Carter’s approach at first, eventually politicizing every social wedge issue and commingling evangelicalism with their brand of faux patriotism until now the GOP base is essentially white, rural evangelicals.

[arrendek]

All of the people who support Bernie are going to vote for Hillary

I don’t think this is the case. I think a lot of Bernie supporters are going to stay home if Hillary wins the nomination. This is actually why I’m voting Bernie. It’s a bit more nuanced than this:

To the idea that Hillary is the “reasonable” candidate, and her continually saying she can get things done: How?? What is she going to do differently than Obama to get legislation passed? It’s been years since Obama has done anything legislatively (that I can remember, to be fair). His executive actions have done a lot of good, and the first 4 (really 2) years were really solid, but the Republicans have a strategy of blocking, and it’s been working extremely well for them. I initially was buying into the idea that Hillary was more reasonable and pragmatic and that it made more sense to vote for her, but I don’t think she or Bernie will do much with Republicans running both houses of Congress. So, what is the answer to that (from a Democratic perspective)? Kick em out. Vote in a ton of Democrats. How will that happen when no one younger than 35 seems to be excited at all by Hillary? It won’t, unless she can turn out minorities as well as Obama did. And I’m not sure that’s going to happen. But the older voters, they’re going to vote. They aren’t going to stay home if Bernie gets the nom. They are going to vote for him anyways, despite literally calling out his policies (which mirror those in European countries) as “puppies and rainbows”. If Bernie wins, turnout might take the Democrats to a place where they can get things done. Without him, younger people stay home and Republicans have a better chance of halting the country’s progress for another 4 years.

Maybe I’m focusing too much on the legislative role of the president. Maybe turnout won’t fix the Democrats deeper issues (and gerrymandering problems) with getting congresscritters elected. But democrats focusing on the middle I think is a good way to lose in the long run.