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

[Dutch]

After 4 years of either, what are some of the expectations...good or bad of them being in office? Foreign Policy...Economy...civil rights...whatever.

I'm keying on them as being the extremes of choices that we have. I personally think both would be a net-negative, but I'm curious what FOFC thinks.

[EagleFan]

If Trump wins I may have to get a rifle. That man is a piece of garbage.

Our economy would be in the toilet, our standing with other nations would be at an all time low, we would take a major step backwards... and we can't afford any more steps backwards...

[JPhillips]

A GOP House, a Dem Senate, and Trump...

The winners would be the media.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A GOP House, a Dem Senate, and Trump...

The winners would be the media.

Yes plus they would likely not greenlight anything he wanted to do and he would probably veto what they want to do so actually he might be a fantastic president.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If Trump wins I may have to get a rifle. That man is a piece of garbage.

Our economy would be in the toilet, our standing with other nations would be at an all time low, we would take a major step backwards... and we can't afford any more steps backwards...

I'm not a fan of Trump at all but aren't businessmen like him the ones who make all of the decisions behind the scenes right now? What exactly would be different about the economy?

[Solecismic]

By executive order, the Miss America pageant will be televised on every channel, and, once Melania has aged a certain amount, the winner will marry the President. And this will make America great again!

[JonInMiddleGA]

If Sanders wins I think he's assassinated before he ever takes the oath of office. No matter how little I think of the current state of the U.S. I just can't quite imagine we're going to let a self-described socialist get to the Oval Office.

If Trump wins I'd say we'll end up with some disappointments but also with steps toward rational handling of immigration, a my way or the highway approach that leads to us pulling out of the U.N., out of all sorts of foreign entanglements that have little to no tangible benefits and Mexico ends up on the very short end of a brief military engagement that re-establishes actual borders.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If Trump wins I'd say we'll end up with some disappointments but also with steps toward rational handling of immigration, a my way or the highway approach that leads to us pulling out of the U.N., out of all sorts of foreign entanglements that have little to no tangible benefits and Mexico ends up on the very short end of a brief military engagement that re-establishes actual borders.

But Sanders is the really dangerous one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But Sanders is the really dangerous one.

He's the most sickening excuse for a candidate any major party has ever allowed to seek the nomination afiac.

Everything I mentioned with Trump are net positives afaic, we should have cleared a 25 mile swath of the Mexican side of the border years ago. They've allowed an invasion to be launched from their territory, as far as I'm concerned a state of war already exists, it simply needs to be declared.

The recently revealed inspection deal with Iran should have been the last straw for the U.N., they should have been off U.S. soil before the week ended. If we didn't have a Washington filled with fools & cowards they would have been.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He's the most sickening excuse for a candidate any major party has ever allowed to seek the nomination afiac.

Everything I mentioned with Trump are net positives afaic, we should have cleared a 25 mile swath of the Mexican side of the border years ago. They've allowed an invasion to be launched from their territory, as far as I'm concerned a state of war already exists, it simply needs to be declared.

The recently revealed inspection deal with Iran should have been the last straw for the U.N., they should have been off U.S. soil before the week ended. If we didn't have a Washington filled with fools & cowards they would have been.

I think "wow" covers everything for me.

[Solecismic]

I can understand the "punish the bad children" approach to foreign policy. I just don't see how it benefits us.

So, let's assume the UN has jumped the shark. Entirely likely. We step away from membership, give up that permanent seat on the Security Council. What's next?

It's no more a strategy than this recent obsession with worrying whether small countries "like" us. Foreign policy isn't Facebook, either.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If Sanders wins I think he's assassinated before he ever takes the oath of office. No matter how little I think of the current state of the U.S. I just can't quite imagine we're going to let a self-described socialist get to the Oval Office.

If Trump wins I'd say we'll end up with some disappointments but also with steps toward rational handling of immigration, a my way or the highway approach that leads to us pulling out of the U.N., out of all sorts of foreign entanglements that have little to no tangible benefits and Mexico ends up on the very short end of a brief military engagement that re-establishes actual borders.

AMERICA!
Letting Jon's dream of an authoritarian military coup down, one non-assassinated president at a time.

[thesloppy]

Yeah, I don't get the assassination thing either, Jon. The last 8 years of reality didn't temper your expectations for a lone conservative nut in the slightest?

[ISiddiqui]

Can we have a politics threat where the batshit craziness of JIMG becomes the basis of conversation?

Anyways, I think if Sanders win, the gridlock will be incredible. I mean the GOP just taunted Obama with the socialist moniker, you think they'll allow an out and out socialist to get anything done? And Sanders strikes me as way too ideologue to cut deals with a more conservative Congress. We could multiple months long government shutdowns in 4 years.

[Kodos]

I'm pretty sure he said Obama would never get to take office either.

[thesloppy]

With Trump, I think regardless of your beliefs the fact that he absolutely stands out as a sociopath, hot-head and egotist among a group of politicians should scare everybody. The thought of giving him the worlds best army on a global stage is obviously terrifying. That said if Trump were to win the Presidency he has a few pieces of his platform that I don't necessarily disagree with, and he has just as much chance as anybody else to kind of stumble into success regarding the economy. Through timing and circumstance, despite being positioned as the left's boogieman, Trump could conceivably be the President who pushes through universal single-payer health care and definitively ends the drug war, which would be massive progressive steps. Likewise his new-deal idea of putting the country to work fixing infrastructure may be simplistic and pandering, but it's certainly not a bad idea. Reducing administration in historically clusterfucked sectors like education, healthcare, veterans administration, etc. causes all leftists too clutch their pearls, but might actually be necessary. It's just so hard to imagine him not crucially fucking SOMETHING up that I'm honestly baffled that anybody can support him.

My concerns for Sanders stretch in the exact opposite direction. His politics more obviously match up with mine on paper, but I think the Presidency requires a bit of despotism, and Bernie seems to eager to let too many voices have their say. He seems ripe for getting caught up in endlessly discussing, debating and parsing radical ideas but never turning them into action, and/or throwing too many (or the wrong) people/resources at too many (or the wrong) problems, so that he just serves to gum up the works rather than fixing any issue(s).

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

My concerns for Sanders stretch in the exact opposite direction. His politics more obviously match up with mine on paper, but I think the Presidency requires a bit of despotism, and Bernie seems to eager to let too many voices have their say. He seems ripe for getting caught up in endlessly discussing, debating and parsing radical ideas but never turning them into action, and/or throwing too many (or the wrong) people/resources at too many (or the wrong) problems, so that he just serves to gum up the works rather than fixing any issue(s).

+1

[bhlloy]

Trump winning on his current platform, or Trump winning on a realistic platform that he'd have to run on to have a chance in hell?

The latter is going to make Jon very disappointed - Mexico isn't going to pay for a wall, the US can't just unilaterally clear a border and a businessman like Trump isn't going to deport the illegals overnight because he's well aware of what that does to the economy.

As for Sanders, if he actually won and took office, I'm not sure he's too far off. An actual socialist, not a black guy with an easily mocked name who is about as center as they come? I'd imagine secession is seriously being talked about in a lot of states.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

With Trump, I think regardless of your beliefs the fact that he absolutely stands out as a sociopath, hot-head and egotist among a group of politicians should scare everybody.

This, this, a million times this!!!

Though I will make one change to this... see below...

With Trump, I think regardless of your beliefs the fact that he absolutely stands out as a sociopath, hot-head and egotist among a group of politicians should scare the ever-loving hell out of everybody.

[RainMaker]

The guy who earlier in the thread is talking about buying a rifle to kill a politician he doesn't like is calling someone out as a sociopath and hot-head.

[RainMaker]

I also don't think much would change domestically with either in office. I think Presidency is arguably the most overrated position we have right now. Congress is deadlocked on so many issues and that doesn't appear likely to change. Bernie Sanders as President isn't going to get universal health care and Trump isn't going to alter our tax system.

The only real difference we'll see is in foreign policy. Trump is probably too erratic for that and Sanders is too weak. If a major conflict broke out, this is where you'd see them matter. Not stumping on some policy changes they want that doesn't have the support in Congress to ever get passed.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The guy who earlier in the thread is talking about buying a rifle to kill a politician he doesn't like is calling someone out as a sociopath and hot-head.

You got a problem with that...?

[molson]

According to my Facebook wall, Sanders will rid America of poverty and all forms of injustice, and Trump will turn the U.S. into a third-world country and cause mass exodus into Canada. So, pretty much what I see predicted before every other election.

[cthomer5000]

If Trump wins, we can use the film Idiocracy as a reference material for how the next 4 years will go.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

You got a problem with that...?

Just found it ironic

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

The latter is going to make Jon very disappointed - Mexico isn't going to pay for a wall, the US can't just unilaterally clear a border and a businessman like Trump isn't going to deport the illegals overnight because he's well aware of what that does to the economy.

"can't"? No, you mean "won't"

And maybe, just maybe, Trump has figured out that the cost is worth it. Pretty much any cost is worth it.

[sabotai]

My own personal conspiracy theory is that Trump is just as liberal as he's always been, and that he's saying crazy stuff the gain the support of the crazies. He won't win the primary, as most people will run from him once that race actually becomes real instead of a reality show. He'll then run as an independent, taking 5-7% from the right. Enough to guarantee victory for his friend and true ally in all of this....Hilary Clinton.

Coming November 2016. Rated R.

[Solecismic]

I think there's a perspective Jon doesn't take into account:



We've taken evolution in the last couple of hundred years and we've given it a foam finger the size of which Miley Cyrus can't even imagine.

Life expectancy has tripled since the 1800s. The mathematics of population is changed to a point which will eventually threaten our existence.

We can moan about who deserves to be where - but, by and large, the US isn't doing as badly as some places in this respect. Our children and grandchildren are going to face population issues we can only understand today if we visit a large city in a less technologically advanced part of the world.

People might migrate today because of political unrest or economic issues. Tomorrow, it's going to be about resources. A hundred years from now, our way of life will probably be very different.

China thought it had an answer by heavily restricting reproduction after 1980. Not a terrible theory, but, since life expectancy went up so much, they have our aging Baby Boomer issue in steroids and they've had to make modifications. And there's a whole generation with far fewer women (since parents may well be dependent on one child for retirement help, they will choose a male child if they're limited to one). And their population is still up considerably.

As the population continues to increase in this manner, the corresponding value of an individual life will inevitably decline. We may think we can shut the borders, but if we try, someone eventually will open them for us - and they won't be gentle about it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"can't"? No, you mean "won't"

And maybe, just maybe, Trump has figured out that the cost is worth it. Pretty much any cost is worth it.

We will do whatever it takes to make produce more expensive!

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by sabotai

My own personal conspiracy theory is that Trump is just as liberal as he's always been, and that he's saying crazy stuff the gain the support of the crazies. He won't win the primary, as most people will run from him once that race actually becomes real instead of a reality show. He'll then run as an independent, taking 5-7% from the right. Enough to guarantee victory for his friend and true ally in all of this....Hilary Clinton.

Coming November 2016. Rated R.

A week after he declared two friends and I had a very long discussion while making a 3 hour drive - I semi-jokingly suggested that he was a double-agent sent to make the Republican Party look like a bunch of clowns. What has happened since I don't think ANYONE could have imagined.

It could be a 'Producers' situation at this point.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think there's a perspective Jon doesn't take into account:



We've taken evolution in the last couple of hundred years and we've given it a foam finger the size of which Miley Cyrus can't even imagine.

Life expectancy has tripled since the 1800s. The mathematics of population is changed to a point which will eventually threaten our existence.

We can moan about who deserves to be where - but, by and large, the US isn't doing as badly as some places in this respect. Our children and grandchildren are going to face population issues we can only understand today if we visit a large city in a less technologically advanced part of the world.

People might migrate today because of political unrest or economic issues. Tomorrow, it's going to be about resources. A hundred years from now, our way of life will probably be very different.

China thought it had an answer by heavily restricting reproduction after 1980. Not a terrible theory, but, since life expectancy went up so much, they have our aging Baby Boomer issue in steroids and they've had to make modifications. And there's a whole generation with far fewer women (since parents may well be dependent on one child for retirement help, they will choose a male child if they're limited to one). And their population is still up considerably.

As the population continues to increase in this manner, the corresponding value of an individual life will inevitably decline. We may think we can shut the borders, but if we try, someone eventually will open them for us - and they won't be gentle about it.

It won't be long before wars are fought over water. All you say is why I believe so strongly we need to really start to figure out a way to start to get people off the planet and onto the moon and/or planets. I realize the difficulty of this prospect which is why we should be working on it yesterday instead of completely making that area of humanity off limits now because it costs too much. The cost will be far greater if we don't get serious about leaving this planet and finding other places to live.

[ColtCrazy]

With 4 kids, I look at Sanders and see a lot of positives for my children. Education. Environment. I am no where near making up my mind, but he seems better than the vast majority out there. I don't think we'd be in bad shape with him.

Trump is simply a loose cannon. I have no doubts that we'd probably survive with him, I do agree that our foreign policies and reputation would take a serious hit just due to his lack of filter.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A GOP House, a Dem Senate, and Trump...

The winners would be the media.

There's a lot of talk in some quarters about a "Democratic Firewall." I'm not saying that's an actual thing, but I AM saying the road to 270 is such an uphill one for a Republican candidate that I'm not sure I can see a Republican Presidency that carries with it a Democratic Senate. Not in the times we inhabit.

Yeah, the incumbent/open seats up for election to the Senate in 2016 would tend to favor the Democrats, demographically, but c'mon: if Trump beats Clinton or Sanders (or, really, any Democrat) for the White House, what are the odds that the same voting patterns that elect Trump ALSO give the Democrats a +5 in Senate seats held?

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yeah, I don't get the assassination thing either, Jon. The last 8 years of reality didn't temper your expectations for a lone conservative nut in the slightest?

The thing is that Jon IS the lone conservative nut. It's just, y'know. So much work, you know? It's exhausting.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Can we have a politics threat where the batshit craziness of JIMG becomes the basis of conversation?

Anyways, I think if Sanders win, the gridlock will be incredible. I mean the GOP just taunted Obama with the socialist moniker, you think they'll allow an out and out socialist to get anything done? And Sanders strikes me as way too ideologue to cut deals with a more conservative Congress. We could multiple months long government shutdowns in 4 years.

Isn't that what every political thread turns to, eventually?

As for Sanders, I don't think any Democratic candidate is likely to "get anything done." The Republicans just wrote the playbook for how to be obstructionist and get the people to blame the other party for your shittiness. They ran it to perfection with Barack Obama, and if their nominee loses the White House, they'll run it again. Except this time the Democratic President-elect will step directly into headwinds instead of having around a year and a half of two legislative chambers supporting his or her goals (despite obstruction). It'll be, at best, a split legislative branch, and it really doesn't matter whether it's Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or hell, former Reagan cabinet member Jim Webb. None of those individuals will get one iota of cooperation from the House, and that puts paid to that.

I don't think the GOP will even need to beat the socialism drum if Sanders gets elected. They just won't take up any bills that come from the Senate, and since revenue has to originate from the House, Sanders' priorities will more or less die on the vine.

The impact a Democratic win in 2016 will have is probably going to be limited to judicial nominees, frankly.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

As for Sanders, I don't think any Democratic candidate is likely to "get anything done." The Republicans just wrote the playbook for how to be obstructionist and get the people to blame the other party for your shittiness. They ran it to perfection with Barack Obama, and if their nominee loses the White House, they'll run it again. Except this time the Democratic President-elect will step directly into headwinds instead of having around a year and a half of two legislative chambers supporting his or her goals (despite obstruction). It'll be, at best, a split legislative branch, and it really doesn't matter whether it's Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or hell, former Reagan cabinet member Jim Webb. None of those individuals will get one iota of cooperation from the House, and that puts paid to that.

I don't think the GOP will even need to beat the socialism drum if Sanders gets elected. They just won't take up any bills that come from the Senate, and since revenue has to originate from the House, Sanders' priorities will more or less die on the vine.

The impact a Democratic win in 2016 will have is probably going to be limited to judicial nominees, frankly.

Yeah, if Sanders got past the nuclear options I reckon this is the most likely option. Hell, it probably happens with any Dem that won anyway, but Sanders would essentially be four years of government shutdown.

Topic for another thread, but I just don't know what you do in a two party democracy when two sides just will not work with each other (other than make it not a two party democracy, one way or the other. But those seem like pipe dreams). Does anyone see anything coming back to the center, ever?

[thesloppy]

I can't deny that the GOP are a bunch of obstructionist fucktards, but I also feel like the Dems need to get called out on something like 50-straight years of not following through on hollow promises. From an admittedly shallow and liberally-biased perspective it feels like modern Republican Presidents have been able to do whatever the hell they wanted, regardless of the political climate, whereas the Dems promise all sorts of radical, progressive stuff, scrap it without much fight, and then point at the GoP and foster argument rather than action, while corporate/industrial interests continue on.

It's not hard to see why more and more folks who might identify as either liberal or conservative feel disenfranchised and unrepresented, and consequently how an independent (leaning) candidate could actually make some sort of noise in our current political climate.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Yeah, if Sanders got past the nuclear options I reckon this is the most likely option. Hell, it probably happens with any Dem that won anyway, but Sanders would essentially be four years of government shutdown.

Topic for another thread, but I just don't know what you do in a two party democracy when two sides just will not work with each other (other than make it not a two party democracy, one way or the other. But those seem like pipe dreams). Does anyone see anything coming back to the center, ever?

Not without proportional representation or a shock to the nation so great that it causes a "rally 'round the flag" effect.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I can't deny that the GOP are a bunch of obstructionist fucktards, but I also feel like the Dems need to get called out on something like 50-straight years of not following through on hollow promises. From an admittedly shallow and liberally-biased perspective it feels like modern Republican Presidents have been able to do whatever the hell they wanted, regardless of the political climate, whereas the Dems promise all sorts of radical, progressive stuff, scrap it without much fight, and then point at the GoP and foster argument rather than action, while corporate/industrial interests continue on.

It's structural, is the thing. The sort of promises the Democrats make, the sort of things they want to do to society, I'm not saying they're good or bad, but they ARE grand visions. And you don't get those through Congress on a simple majority vote. Not in the last 20 years, if ever.

"It's easier to destroy than to build," as the saying goes. Look at ACA. The Democrats had, nominally, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but between Al Franken's election certification getting held up for six months, Ted Kennedy's health, and a Nebraska Democrat saying "I'm the 60th vote; if you want me to help you avoid the filibuster, what's in it for me?", we wound up with an ACA that, before conference, had Nebraska exempted from paying their share of Medicaid expansion costs.

People go "lol they had 60 votes and couldn't do anything," but the reality is that Democrats AREN'T a political monolith, despite the GOP's best efforts at painting every last Democrat as more socialist than the last. You get moderates/conservatives who represent "purple" and (occasionally) otherwise "red" states and so even when they have the numbers, their legislative membership isn't necessarily all on board with those grand visions. You either get horse trading of the sort Ben Nelson engaged in, or you get 'their mouths write checks their ass can't cash."

Republicans, on the other hand, run on the notion that government is bad and needs to be dismantled, and that's far easier to accomplish. Not necessarily the big things, like privatizing Social Security, but you can run on a promise to defund ACORN or Planned Parenthood or whatever else and, if you have control of the House, you have the leverage to do that. Or else shutdowns.

It's much tougher to run on a platform of 'fix ALL the infrastructure' or 'end poverty' or 'guarantee living wages,' because of the structural way the legislative branch exists.

[thesloppy]

Well said. I certainly can't argue that the current game might be rigged against the Dems, but to me that still comes down to further fundamental failures of the party, rather than an acceptable excuse/explanation for why they can't effectively compete. They were just as fundamental in defining the rules of the busted game as the GoP, and I think the fact that they have historical problems getting a collective effort to fulfill their collective promises could/should at the very least result in more truthful promises, rather than pandering for votes based on a platform of things they know they will never achieve.....completely wishful and unrealistic thinking, I know.

[Dutch]

Part of the problem for the Democrats is that have championed the notion Agents of Change. When the US has arguably been the most prosperous nation over the last century, its a tough sell to people that are buying into this system of government vs everything else that is being employed globally. It's seen as a front again capitalism. The center-left is not againt capitalism and so their agendas come off as flat. The GOP is seen as the champions of capitalism and if they do nothing, its viewed as successful because they maintain the status quo. When the Democrats win, its usual because more people are hurting financially.

Eventually, and unfortunately, I think Marx was right when he said government evolution will always lean towards socialism vs capitalism. So guys like Sanders are probably still before their time here...but eventually those guys will win.

The challenge for the GOP, and why I am not happy with them, is they need to get minorities more involved in the successes of capitalism. If they overlook them, this progression happens faster.

And yes, that is all said with a very broad brush.

[RainMaker]

The Democrats had a supermajority and a popular President years ago and didn't do squat. I don't know how they can blame the lack of action on Republicans anymore.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Well said. I certainly can't argue that the current game might be rigged against the Dems, but to me that still comes down to further fundamental failures of the party, rather than an acceptable excuse/explanation for why they can't effectively compete. They were just as fundamental in defining the rules of the busted game as the GoP, and I think the fact that they have historical problems getting a collective effort to fulfill their collective promises could/should at the very least result in more truthful promises, rather than pandering for votes based on a platform of things they know they will never achieve.....completely wishful and unrealistic thinking, I know.

But, "we'll work with our GOP colleagues to pass a small infrastructure bill combined with a lower capitol gains rate," isn't much of a platform.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Part of the problem for the Democrats is that have championed the notion Agents of Change. When the US has arguably been the most prosperous nation over the last century, its a tough sell to people that are buying into this system of government vs everything else that is being employed globally. It's seen as a front again capitalism. The center-left is not againt capitalism and so their agendas come off as flat. The GOP is seen as the champions of capitalism and if they do nothing, its viewed as successful because they maintain the status quo. When the Democrats win, its usual because more people are hurting financially.

Eventually, and unfortunately, I think Marx was right when he said government evolution will always lean towards socialism vs capitalism. So guys like Sanders are probably still before their time here...but eventually those guys will win.

The challenge for the GOP, and why I am not happy with them, is they need to get minorities more involved in the successes of capitalism. If they overlook them, this progression happens faster.

And yes, that is all said with a very broad brush.

That implies that there are two fixed points with nothing in between. The Democrats aren't anti-capitalism and the Republicans aren't really anti-socialism(although they like to say they are). The whole discussion over the past fifty years has been about where on a fairly narrow portion of economic policy should the U.S. reside.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Democrats had a supermajority and a popular President years ago and didn't do squat. I don't know how they can blame the lack of action on Republicans anymore.

It is amazing they didn't manage to pass their entire agenda in 4 months.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Well said. I certainly can't argue that the current game might be rigged against the Dems, but to me that still comes down to further fundamental failures of the party, rather than an acceptable excuse/explanation for why they can't effectively compete. They were just as fundamental in defining the rules of the busted game as the GoP, and I think the fact that they have historical problems getting a collective effort to fulfill their collective promises could/should at the very least result in more truthful promises, rather than pandering for votes based on a platform of things they know they will never achieve.....completely wishful and unrealistic thinking, I know.

Not sure there's a way to make that work, though. "Vote for me; I'll work to ensure that despite my party's dysfunction, we protect the gains of the past" really isn't the sort of rallying cry that drives voters to the polls. It gets employed on some level, certainly, but when it's your first appeal, you aren't asking voters to vote for you, but against the opposition.

So instead you say "if you send me to Washington, here are the things I'll work towards!" And maybe that's even true. But, structurally, it takes more than one person to make that work. In a contemporary sense, as we've seen, 60 votes in the Senate isn't enough. You need more than that. 65, 70, maybe. Otherwise your choice is a) let obstructionism win or b) make unpalatable concessions to your "allies" so that they don't roll over for the obstructionists.

And, as I said, the Democratic Party, for all that the GOP would have you believe otherwise, isn't a monolithic liberal entity. They really do run the gamut.

Originally Posted by Dutch

When the Democrats win, its usual because more people are hurting financially.

Man, the subtext here...I don't know if you meant it the way I'm reading it, but damn.

Eventually, and unfortunately, I think Marx was right when he said government evolution will always lean towards socialism vs capitalism. So guys like Sanders are probably still before their time here...but eventually those guys will win.

The challenge for the GOP, and why I am not happy with them, is they need to get minorities more involved in the successes of capitalism. If they overlook them, this progression happens faster.

And yes, that is all said with a very broad brush.

The problem is that...hm.

Okay. Minority success has had generational roadblocks to deal with. To the extent that there have been successes in the last 150 years, it's been because some minority entrepreneurs have been able to overcome all the OTHER shit non-minorities don't have to deal with. So, I mean, part of getting minorities more invested in the successes of capitalism involve tearing down those roadblocks, and a certain amount of socialism is required to make that happen, because all things AREN'T equal.

I mean, things like public roads, public education...those are the very basics of socialism. And they're also necessary to any capitalistic success one enjoys.

But the GOP decries socialism in all its forms, and that, I think, is the problem. That's where they leave the door open for a candidate like Bernie Sanders. Rather than set up a Thunderdome scenario between capitalism and socialism, the Republicans could effectively neuter a candidate like Sanders by finding a way to use socialism to perfect capitalism. Most of the rest of the Western world has already done that to greater or lesser degrees.

Pure, unfettered capitalism will almost always result in a race to the bottom, and that brings you right back to "people vote for Democrats when they're hurting financially." Unfettered capitalism results in a small class of winners and a much greater class of losers. There really is no middle ground there. Using socialism to provide a base level of existence for everybody and capitalism as the carrot to encourage people to try to do better than that base existence probably works out better in the long run, but it's anathema to conservatives.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Democrats had a supermajority and a popular President years ago and didn't do squat. I don't know how they can blame the lack of action on Republicans anymore.

60 votes is a supermajority. 60 votes will not "get shit done" if you have united 40-vote opposition to anything you want to do, because it means that 59th and 60th vote will start operating in the best interests of their state (and thus re-election). "Okay, you need me if you want to even have a vote on this; what's in it for me?"

And as mckerney pointed out, it wasn't just an unfettered supermajority. The Republicans held up Franken's seating in court, and then Kennedy got sick, and then he died and Scott Brown (briefly) won his seat. The Democrats had both houses for two years, and were able to actually WORK with both houses for much less than that.

And then people threw a shit fit that the Democrats weren't getting much done in the face of united obstructionism in the Senate and stayed home in a snit. I was knocking on doors for Russ Feingold in 2010. You know what I heard way, way too much of?

"I don't like Ron Johnson, but the Democrats just haven't gotten it done, so I'm staying home this year."

The Republicans banked on being able to turn their obstructionism against the Democrats in 2010, and it worked. It didn't get them the Senate back immediately, because the Senate doesn't completely turn over every two years the way the House does. It DID get them control of a number of state legislatures, allowing them to redraw lines in such a way that 60% of a state's population can vote for one party and get something like 40% representation for that party (hi, Wisconsin!). And once the Republicans had the House back and safely gerrymandered for a decade, that was pretty much the end of the grander of Barack Obama's ambitions. He still had the Senate, but a lot of what came out of the senate was DOA in the House, and the House attempting to attach "defund Obamacare" to everything they sent the Senate meant that not a lot happened in the other direction, either.

A 60 vote supermajority might have gotten shit done 75 years ago. You really need a margin for error on that these days, though, or else that 60th vote will work his or her leverage for all it's worth.

I don't expect the Republicans to have 60 Senate seats anytime soon, but if and when they do, they'll find quickly that the same thing is true, and that the 60th Republican will act like he might vote with the Democrats on an issue unless you scratch his back.

[stevew]

A Trump or Sanders presidency would at least be interesting. 4 years of Jeb or Hildawg is just more of the same.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's structural, is the thing. The sort of promises the Democrats make, the sort of things they want to do to society, I'm not saying they're good or bad, but they ARE grand visions. And you don't get those through Congress on a simple majority vote. Not in the last 20 years, if ever.

And yet, the promises continue. I wonder why this part of why moderates tend to lean more right as they get older. You see it over and over again, and yet the dishonesty persists. I remember Hillary Clinton sounding almost exacerbated during her debates with Barrack Obama, knowing that he was being deceitful and that so many people in her party were buying it. Obama turned out to basically be the president Hillary Clinton said she'd be then. (I'm sure Hillary was dishonest to some level as well, but nothing close to what Obama was throwing out there in terms of what he'd be able to do.)

Notwithstanding the dishonest way he got the job, I kind of liked Obama the president, so Hillary Clinton makes sense for me. Especially since the Republican party seems hell-bent on nominating on one crazy person or another. I don't know if there's a Republican out there I'd vote for over Clinton, but he's probably in the single digits in the polls right now. And I'm a moderate conservative. I'm happy to have "more of the same" in the executive branch. It's the legislature that needs to be cleaned out.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That implies that there are two fixed points with nothing in between. The Democrats aren't anti-capitalism and the Republicans aren't really anti-socialism(although they like to say they are). The whole discussion over the past fifty years has been about where on a fairly narrow portion of economic policy should the U.S. reside.

Well that type pragmatic talk has no use here


Trump kind makes that point. He is not in to party ideology, rather power idolatry.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

60 votes is a supermajority. 60 votes will not "get shit done" if you have united 40-vote opposition to anything you want to do, because it means that 59th and 60th vote will start operating in the best interests of their state (and thus re-election). "Okay, you need me if you want to even have a vote on this; what's in it for me?"

And as mckerney pointed out, it wasn't just an unfettered supermajority. The Republicans held up Franken's seating in court, and then Kennedy got sick, and then he died and Scott Brown (briefly) won his seat. The Democrats had both houses for two years, and were able to actually WORK with both houses for much less than that.

And then people threw a shit fit that the Democrats weren't getting much done in the face of united obstructionism in the Senate and stayed home in a snit. I was knocking on doors for Russ Feingold in 2010. You know what I heard way, way too much of?

"I don't like Ron Johnson, but the Democrats just haven't gotten it done, so I'm staying home this year."

The Republicans banked on being able to turn their obstructionism against the Democrats in 2010, and it worked. It didn't get them the Senate back immediately, because the Senate doesn't completely turn over every two years the way the House does. It DID get them control of a number of state legislatures, allowing them to redraw lines in such a way that 60% of a state's population can vote for one party and get something like 40% representation for that party (hi, Wisconsin!). And once the Republicans had the House back and safely gerrymandered for a decade, that was pretty much the end of the grander of Barack Obama's ambitions. He still had the Senate, but a lot of what came out of the senate was DOA in the House, and the House attempting to attach "defund Obamacare" to everything they sent the Senate meant that not a lot happened in the other direction, either.

A 60 vote supermajority might have gotten shit done 75 years ago. You really need a margin for error on that these days, though, or else that 60th vote will work his or her leverage for all it's worth.

I don't expect the Republicans to have 60 Senate seats anytime soon, but if and when they do, they'll find quickly that the same thing is true, and that the 60th Republican will act like he might vote with the Democrats on an issue unless you scratch his back.

How many Democrats are required for them to get shit done? Because Republicans seem to pass bills they like all the time when they are in charge. They don't even need a supermajority to do it.

The Democrat platform is "we need more people in power and then we will totally start doing stuff we promise". If you can't get some stuff done when you have a popular President and a huge advantage in both the House and Senate, you never will.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

If Trump wins, we can use the film Idiocracy as a reference material for how the next 4 years will go.

Yay cthomer5000 sighting!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How many Democrats are required for them to get shit done? Because Republicans seem to pass bills they like all the time when they are in charge. They don't even need a supermajority to do it.

The Democrat platform is "we need more people in power and then we will totally start doing stuff we promise". If you can't get some stuff done when you have a popular President and a huge advantage in both the House and Senate, you never will.

Very interesting pov. There has been significant economic and social change since 2008, just ask Jon and all the Republican candidates. Yet, you are saying none of the change is due to stuff passed by Dems and/or an Obama agenda. So who gets the blame? Bilderberg?