Presidential Race 2016

[Pyperkub]

But what if the Dems control the Senate as is very likely if a Dem wins the presidency?

[legowarrior]

That’s the key point. 2016 Hillary differs from 2014 Obama in that Hillary will have a Senate Majority to back her up, and unlike Obama, won’t need 2 or 3 years of trying to work with Congress and being nice.

[John_Reynolds]

But what if the Dems control the Senate as is very likely if a Dem wins the presidency?

Need 60 votes to move anything. They could change the rules, but won’t for fear of the electorate’s oscillation.

[legowarrior]

24 Republicans won races in 2010 and are up for reelection this year. 10 Democrats that actually won during a mid term and are up again.

The presidential races usual favor the democrats as it is because democrats only seem to turn up for the big one every 4 years.

I’m confident that the Democrats will make more than a little head way. It’s not like the Bernie Campaign wouldn’t be dealing with the exact same math.

[triggercut]

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.

Which would be all great except for the flaws in your original premise.

1. The Democrats have a reasonable chance of taking back a majority in the Senate in 2016, and
2. Judicial appointments.
3. Through three primary/caucuses, Bernie has had zero influence on turnout for the Democrats. Anecdote does not correlate to the available data we have so far.

[arrendek]

Which would be all great except for the flaws in your original premise.

1. The Democrats have a reasonable chance of taking back a majority in the Senate in 2016, and
2. Through three primary/caucuses, Bernie has had zero influence on turnout for the Democrats. Anecdote does not correlate to the available data we have so far.

These two points are basically the same point. That Bernie doesn’t affect turnout and so with or without him the Democrats will win or lose the Senate in the same way.

I think you may be right, but obviously there are a lot of variables to saying it, so it’s hard to say what it would look like without Bernie. But in the end, if Bernie is really so great for turnout, then shouldn’t he be winning?

And as far as the anecdote bit, it makes it really hard to reconcile the low turnout. The Bernie supporters really are out there, and they have a very strong voice, but the numbers don’t seem to show a real groundswell of support. Maybe this is exactly what’s happening. Or maybe Bernie supporters are actually driving Hillary supporters to come out more strongly than they would against another candidate and turnout is actually abysmal for another reason. Maybe Democrats are just poised to lose all over the place because the country really has gone strongly to the right. Maybe overall turnout has gone down for all parties but the exciting clown sideshow on the right is driving their numbers up in the primaries but that won’t be reflected in the general.

But in the end, I ask myself, “who brings out more voters for Democrats in 2016?” And I think that comes down to a competition between Hillary getting voters from the center vs Bernie drawing in voters from the fringe who wouldn’t otherwise vote. Given that the eventual candidate on the right is so very far to the right (it doesn’t matter which one of the current top 3 wins eventually for that to be true), I think that pulling in new voters from the left fringe is going to be better overall than trying to win moderate votes. Also, I think the other long term problem for always trying to move to the center is that it convinces people that the center is actually left and that some pretty-darn-conservative position is actually the center.

We’ll need to see the primaries in Florida/Ohio/Pennsylvania to see if Bernie could bring in new voters from the left in a way that is meaningful. Unfortunately I don’t know if it will go that far because the press is already discussing Bernie as though he’s lost. He’s done nearly tie/overwhelming win/small loss and will do poorly on Super Tuesday, and apparently that is enough to write him off for the whole thing.

2. Judicial appointments.

Not sure why Hillary is better than Bernie for this.

[zx81-Amd64]

Hillary has such an attitude/lack of charisma, sure she is a Democrat (and i prefer those in power over Republicans in general) but boy she seems (and it really is just that) more of a grumpy hard case than even our Maggie Thatcher. When Trump can seem like a nice personable guy (even while saying truly disgusting things) in comparison, i do worry for the non ultra-right-wing choice in american politics.

In many ways she is just so not Obama, which is a huge shame.

[Dan_Theman]

Not sure why Hillary is better than Bernie for this.

I’m pretty sure he means that voters will turn out regardless because of the open spot on the bench, making Sanders’ appeal to youth not needed.

[arrendek]

I’m pretty sure he means that voters will turn out regardless because of the open spot on the bench, making Sanders’ appeal to youth not needed.

Which collapses it with the other 2 points. Bernie doesn’t affect turnout and Hillary will be working with 50+ democrats in the Senate, and her politicking beats out Bernie’s, so she’s the better candidate. I like this reasoning to some extent. I do personally know a lot of young people who are staying home if Bernie doesn’t win the primary, and I believe them. They believe that Hillary is a corporatist and is just as bad as anyone on the right where it matters. I decided to wait until after the primaries to try to change their mind. Since we’re in Florida, it’s sort of important. :/

[Dan_Theman]

I like your optimism about the Dems retaking the senate, but I’m sadly not sold on its inevitability. And yeah, I’ve heard that from some first-time voters. I have to remind myself that they fall in the “less reliable voter” category for a reason, and hopefully that can be addressed before it’s too late.

[triggercut]

By the way, you know where Citizen’s United has its biggest effect? Races for state legislative seats. In those races, a little money goes a long way, and PACs and SuperPACS can blanket with funds.

If you’re arrendek or alstein and you want to see a better, more robustly liberal Democratic Party you can:

1. Go with the “Burn it all down!” model and hope for…I dunno. It doesn’t make any sense and reeks of sore loser anecdata, but there you go. OR
2. Vote to put Democrats in positions of power where a Supreme Court can hear challenges to Citizens United and overturn it. That then helps Democratic candidates at the most grass-roots level to be able to play on a more level field and grows the party in the direction they’d like from a ground-up level.

[Telefrog]

Running for President is expensive. How Jeb! blew $130 million.

How Jeb Bush Spent $130 Million Running for President With Nothing to Show for...

Clubbing: $94,100

Instead of spending last winter on the hustings of Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Bush held off, instead using the first half of 2015 to raise money in places like New York, Chicago, Texas and Florida. His goal: Raise enough money for a “super PAC” to scare other candidates — especially those with a similar political profile — out of the race. Over the entire campaign, Mr. Bush’s team racked up tens of thousands of dollars in dinner and event tabs at the Yale Club, the Union League Club of Chicago, Nantucket’s Westmore Club, and more than two dozen other haunts of the well heeled and racquetball-inclined.

Valets: $15,800

Donors’ cars don’t park themselves. With an aggressive fund-raising schedule and several major donor gatherings, Mr. Bush and the super PAC, Right to Rise, incurred a proportional parking tab.

[arrendek]

By the way, you know where Citizen’s United has its biggest effect? Races for state legislative seats. In those races, a little money goes a long way, and PACs and SuperPACS can blanket with funds.

If you’re arrendek or alstein and you want to see a better, more robustly liberal Democratic Party you can:

1. Go with the “Burn it all down!” model and hope for…I dunno. It doesn’t make any sense, but there you go. OR
2. Vote to put Democrats in positions of power where a Supreme Court can hear challenges to Citizens United and overturn it. That then helps Democratic candidates at the most grass-roots level to be able to play on a more level field and grows the party in the direction they’d like from a ground-up level.

I feel like both democratic candidates support option #2. I feel like not voting as a democrat supports option #1. I’m not sure anymore if we’re discussing Bernie or young voters not voting.

[Abiding_Dude]

Caveat: I’m gonna vote for Clinton cuz she’s a badass bitch who would mainline policy if she could harden it and squeeze it into a vial.

Saw Kasich at GMU in Fairfax, VA this morning. I know this guy is a conservative in moderate-clothing but I could see myself voting for him. He comes across as a very reasoned, rational Reagan republican.

[Pyperkub]

I like your optimism about the Dems retaking the senate, but I’m sadly not sold on its inevitability. And yeah, I’ve heard that from some first-time voters. I have to remind myself that they fall in the “less reliable voter” category for a reason, and hopefully that can be addressed before it’s too late.

The thought is that if a Dem wins the General Election, turnout will have favored them enough that many of the Tea Party Senators who came into the Senate in 2010 will also get ‘Trumped’. The House is also a possibility, but it’s a really slim one with the 2010 gerrymanders in the states that would have to go Dem for the Dems to win the General election. Realistically, the House won’t be in play until 2022 (though 2020 is a slight possibility).

As to partisan gridlock - if the Dems control the Senate, and gridlock persists, I think Reid could well expand the nuclear option in some cases, and the Dems would really try to play it up for 2020, as a Presidential year when turnout (generally) favors the Democrats as well as it being a census year for redistricting.

[ArmandoPenblade]

Which collapses it with the other 2 points. Bernie doesn’t affect turnout and Hillary will be working with 50+ democrats in the Senate, and her politicking beats out Bernie’s, so she’s the better candidate. I like this reasoning to some extent. I do personally know a lot of young people who are staying home if Bernie doesn’t win the primary, and I believe them. They believe that Hillary is a corporatist and is just as bad as anyone on the right where it matters. I decided to wait until after the primaries to try to change their mind. Since we’re in Florida, it’s sort of important. :/

Given Sanders’ high success rate with bills in his time in the Senate compared to Clinton’s relative paucity of passed bills and the excessive vitriol pointed her way by most Congressional Republicans, I’m not sold on her capacity to actually make better use of the Senate if elected. It might be a wash based on different competencies and drawbacks, but in either case, it’s tough to predict definitively in either side’s favor.

[triggercut]

Given Sanders’ high success rate with bills in his time in the Senate compared to Clinton’s relative paucity of passed bills

A facebook image macro come to life!

At any rate, I think we’ve definitely proven that white males between the ages of 30-50 are probably not Hillary Clinton’s core constituency. They weren’t Obama’s either.

[ArmandoPenblade]

A telling blow! I am rent asunder :-P

[Moore]

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.

My issue as a bernie supporter with this is that clinton is flat out lying and adopting these policies to fight against bernie. She doesn’t give a shit about any of ‘his’ issues and will do exactly nothing about any of them.

It will either be too unrealistic to bother trying, or she will claim she evolved, or even if she triew, she will start the fight fr9m the center and negotiate right, instead of starting left and ending up hopefully slightly left of center

[John_Reynolds]

My issue as a bernie supporter with this is that clinton is flat out lying and adopting these policies to fight against bernie. She doesn’t give a shit about any of ‘his’ issues and will do exactly nothing about any of them.

It will either be too unrealistic to bother trying, or she will claim she evolved, or even if she triew, she will start the fight fr9m the center and negotiate right, instead of starting left and ending up hopefully slightly left of center

Can’t argue against this. I said months ago that without Sanders running she’d position herself one foot to the left of Pinochet and triangulate the shit out of her GOP opponent.

Of course I also said this year would be like 2012, with various GOP primaries temporarily propping up social conservative candidates for a week or two until the business wing of the party and its money put Jeb forward, so what do I know.