Give them time. Of course the Dems have to anticipate a GOP majority in the House. You see how far Obama got by promising to go all out for bipartisanship.
3
The R's are going to hold the House and very possibly the Senate in 2016. A Democrat in the White House would inherit the same situation that Obama has now. Proposals to raise taxes would be DOA in Congress.
1
Really the only way to affect serious change is by controlling the money that's flowing into our elections. Until that happens, our government can't serve us. They're bound to those who fund their election campaigns. There is a candidate whose raison d'etre is to get money out of our elections, but CNN and the DNC kept him out of the debate. That's Lawrence Lessig.
CNN, and the other networks, don't want Lessig in the debates because our current system is a huge cash cow for them. The DNC doesn't want Lessig to debate because they're reliant on the very money he's trying to put a stop to.
But it's our election and our country. Lessig is a serious candidate and has an essential contribution to make to the national dialogue and this election.
Here's a link to Larry Lessig's TED video where he talks about the corruption that's controlling our government. It's very good. And this was recorded in February 2013: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic...
CNN, and the other networks, don't want Lessig in the debates because our current system is a huge cash cow for them. The DNC doesn't want Lessig to debate because they're reliant on the very money he's trying to put a stop to.
But it's our election and our country. Lessig is a serious candidate and has an essential contribution to make to the national dialogue and this election.
Here's a link to Larry Lessig's TED video where he talks about the corruption that's controlling our government. It's very good. And this was recorded in February 2013: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic...
9
I thought Sanders was very clear on how to make change happen. He said you need to get out to the voting booths in record numbers, not just to vote for a President, but to change Congress. Democrats can't sit home as they did in the last election.
38
Even an Ivy Leaguer should remember the "revolution" that brought about change to stop the Vietnam War. This change was driven by the desire of the people for a a change in our policy. This sort of "revolution" also brought passage of the civil rights act. Sanders' policies have the support of a majority of the American people. In a democracy the establishment, one way or another, will have to accept the changes the people want.
For the most part our democracy handles change by evolution (slowly). However when the establishment stands in the way of the will of the people, their demands will be done by "revolution."
Methinks, all Mr Sanders is saying, "There go my people, I must hurry up and catch up with them, for I am their leader."
For the most part our democracy handles change by evolution (slowly). However when the establishment stands in the way of the will of the people, their demands will be done by "revolution."
Methinks, all Mr Sanders is saying, "There go my people, I must hurry up and catch up with them, for I am their leader."
16
It might help if the mainstream media, including the Times, were to abandon its "neutrality" between the parties, and acknowledge that both sides are not equally responsible for gridlock. When one side is willing to shut down the government and impair our government's credit in order to repeal Obamacare and de-fund Planned Parenthood when they don't have the votes to overturn get there is actually an attack on democracy and on our constitutional system. Perhaps if the simple truth on these and other matters were presented in the news, more Americans would grasp the lunacy of the Republican Party.
44
If a budget that Mr. Obama might like shows up - but without the Planned Parenthood money - and he shreds it, then HE will be the one shutting down the government. Of course, that will not be the story the papers carry in 10-inch type.
1
Well, sure, IF such a budget shows up. But the fact is that on this and any number of the far right favorite issues, there are not the votes in Congress. Fully de-funding Planned Parenthood won't show up on the President's desk because it doesn't even have unanimous support among Republicans (Not all of the GOP Congressional Delegation hail from rural Kentucky, the suburbs of Houston, or Utah).
Personally, I am glad that the President is elected by the whole nation, where majority support does not exist for cutting Social Security (the non-privatized version), Medicare, and Medicaid to the bone.
Personally, I am glad that the President is elected by the whole nation, where majority support does not exist for cutting Social Security (the non-privatized version), Medicare, and Medicaid to the bone.
14
How to pass the Democratic agenda?
Get people to vote first, this requires a reason to vote beyond your base responsibilities as a citizen, something everyone takes for granted.
The current mess in Congress is caused by people not voting
Read about issues, educate yourself about the $3 trillion dollar budget, it's your money.
Read about the nation's Foreign policy, it may give you a clue as to why we have a $600 billion Defense budget
the current situation could get very ugly, anyone 18 and over needs to register, become informed and vote!
Get people to vote first, this requires a reason to vote beyond your base responsibilities as a citizen, something everyone takes for granted.
The current mess in Congress is caused by people not voting
Read about issues, educate yourself about the $3 trillion dollar budget, it's your money.
Read about the nation's Foreign policy, it may give you a clue as to why we have a $600 billion Defense budget
the current situation could get very ugly, anyone 18 and over needs to register, become informed and vote!
24
Passing programs is simply a function of voting. The bigger question is how will all these programs be funded to even give them a shot at being passed?
One recent estimate that all of Sanders' ideas will cost about $19 Trillion.
Is that a lot? Well we are pushing towards $19 Trillion in debt on a $16.7 Trillion economy. Projections on the table right now without any additional Sanders' like ideas show that we are going to be very challenged in the future as annual entitlements and interest payments take up most of the budget and revenues will not keep up.
One way to handle this may be to adopt a Trump idea of a flat tax or at least bring it down to just a few tiers. Get rid of all exemptions and any legal provisions that allow people to not pay tax and then we all can settle in that we need to on average pay about 20% to 22% of income as federal tax. No exceptions. It's the price of being an American. Add in Sanders' idea to not cap Social Security taxes and we might have a shot at funding some additional programs. Reps may barter some additional programs for a simpler tax code as the fiscal management of the budget becomes much easier and these programs will benefit Reps as well.
However every congressman and woman and the POTUS have to give up their favorite tax breaks for their constituents. Everything has to go on the table and everyone has to be a grown up. It rarely happens but we might have an opening shortly as outsiders are showing that the public is fed up.
One recent estimate that all of Sanders' ideas will cost about $19 Trillion.
Is that a lot? Well we are pushing towards $19 Trillion in debt on a $16.7 Trillion economy. Projections on the table right now without any additional Sanders' like ideas show that we are going to be very challenged in the future as annual entitlements and interest payments take up most of the budget and revenues will not keep up.
One way to handle this may be to adopt a Trump idea of a flat tax or at least bring it down to just a few tiers. Get rid of all exemptions and any legal provisions that allow people to not pay tax and then we all can settle in that we need to on average pay about 20% to 22% of income as federal tax. No exceptions. It's the price of being an American. Add in Sanders' idea to not cap Social Security taxes and we might have a shot at funding some additional programs. Reps may barter some additional programs for a simpler tax code as the fiscal management of the budget becomes much easier and these programs will benefit Reps as well.
However every congressman and woman and the POTUS have to give up their favorite tax breaks for their constituents. Everything has to go on the table and everyone has to be a grown up. It rarely happens but we might have an opening shortly as outsiders are showing that the public is fed up.
3
Let's suppose that Sanders or Clinton, or even Biden, take up residence in the White House in January, 2017. And while we're at it, the Republicans retain both legislative houses. Plausible, perhaps probable.
Now let's suppose in this case, the President, who is (usually but, sadly, not always) elected by the majority of the voters from across the entire country, adopts the "Just Say No" strategy that the Republicans in general, and the Teapots in particular, and vetoes every bill the circus can manage to pass. With their past six years' output as a guide, the President will have a lot of free time on his hands.
But just in case the Republicans can agree among themselves to get more than a handful of bills through both houses, sending them back with a veto may just leave the country in a better place than where it started. In the past 100 years only three presidents have vetoed (active and by pocket) more than 100 bills during their administrations were FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower. The nation's economy has never been more consistently on an upward path than during the the tenures of these three men.
Coincidence, correlation or causation?
Now let's suppose in this case, the President, who is (usually but, sadly, not always) elected by the majority of the voters from across the entire country, adopts the "Just Say No" strategy that the Republicans in general, and the Teapots in particular, and vetoes every bill the circus can manage to pass. With their past six years' output as a guide, the President will have a lot of free time on his hands.
But just in case the Republicans can agree among themselves to get more than a handful of bills through both houses, sending them back with a veto may just leave the country in a better place than where it started. In the past 100 years only three presidents have vetoed (active and by pocket) more than 100 bills during their administrations were FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower. The nation's economy has never been more consistently on an upward path than during the the tenures of these three men.
Coincidence, correlation or causation?
6
It's no great secret that if Democrats want to change the way the country sees our future, they're going to have to recapture Congress. Replacing the ideology-obsessed and conflicted congressional Republican Party will be an undertaking that may take decades to accomplish; but we have to start somewhere. An election victory in 2016, even if it is decisive will not begin to undo the damage done to our body politic over the past 35 years. It would be, in the words of Winston Churchill, "… not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
The 2016 election must be seen as a watershed for a period of renewal that will take decades to accomplish if the nation is to get back on track. But none of that will move forward unless our politics change first. In this regard, Bernie Sanders was both prescient, and right on the mark. Sanders' use of the word 'revolution' really meant a complete turnabout in our ways of thinking about politics, government, and the people that government is obligated to serve.
Sanders builds upon President Obama's clarion call for a UNITED States of America, regardless of where people live. Clinton, not so much. She was still playing small-bore politics of something for everybody; and although Clinton commands the loyalty, if not necessarily the affection, of her party's establishment, she is still an arrivista on many of the issues that Sanders has long campaigned on. She needs to enlarge her vision of what is possible.
The 2016 election must be seen as a watershed for a period of renewal that will take decades to accomplish if the nation is to get back on track. But none of that will move forward unless our politics change first. In this regard, Bernie Sanders was both prescient, and right on the mark. Sanders' use of the word 'revolution' really meant a complete turnabout in our ways of thinking about politics, government, and the people that government is obligated to serve.
Sanders builds upon President Obama's clarion call for a UNITED States of America, regardless of where people live. Clinton, not so much. She was still playing small-bore politics of something for everybody; and although Clinton commands the loyalty, if not necessarily the affection, of her party's establishment, she is still an arrivista on many of the issues that Sanders has long campaigned on. She needs to enlarge her vision of what is possible.
7
This is not the kind of question one asks in a democracy: political parties represent a platform of initiatives and reforms, and voters decide on which party best represents their own views.
"How to pass the programs and proposals" is an essential part of the democratic process, this is not something we expect the parties to pre-decide as part of their platforms. Whether they get passed or not goes beyond party platforms, which is why we even call this a democracy.
"How to pass the programs and proposals" is an essential part of the democratic process, this is not something we expect the parties to pre-decide as part of their platforms. Whether they get passed or not goes beyond party platforms, which is why we even call this a democracy.
2
But the essence of democracy is that the majority rules. Now, the minority can block any progress and refuses to compromise. As long as the radicals are given a controlling voice, gridlock will continue.
1
Exactly why is taking back both houses of Congress "off the table" during the 2016 elections? I think a lot of people are angry with their representatives, and not just the ones that think they're too ready to give in to compromise. There are many out there who are ready to chuck their representatives for not compromising at all.
7
Compromise is a bargaining tool to achieve common ground where the parties can agree on a solution that is attractive to both of them, but for different reasons. If one party is intransigent there is no common ground. The other party is left in the position of either accepting the other'side demands or walking away.
In the case of the Republicans, a relatively small minority of the House Republican conference, less than 40 in all, is holding the majority, around 215 members in total, hostage to the smaller group'so demands. These people cannot even work out their differences with one another. An you and others expect the House Democrats to try to bargain with these people?
In the case of the Republicans, a relatively small minority of the House Republican conference, less than 40 in all, is holding the majority, around 215 members in total, hostage to the smaller group'so demands. These people cannot even work out their differences with one another. An you and others expect the House Democrats to try to bargain with these people?
5
So much for the theory that college professors are all a bunch of liberals!
2
I thought that Bernie Sanders was clear in stating how important a friendly Congress would be and that he hoped that a large voter turnout would be friendly to Democratic congressional candidates.
I thought he was realistic in noting how important that would be to get his agenda accomplished.
I thought he was realistic in noting how important that would be to get his agenda accomplished.
7
Sanders was clear on how to pass his proposals.
He said that we need a `revolution' meaning that the populace needs to be enlightened and then energized to throw the obstructionists out of office.
The Republicans had some revolutions---1994 and 2010. It's now time for a Democratic one.
He said that we need a `revolution' meaning that the populace needs to be enlightened and then energized to throw the obstructionists out of office.
The Republicans had some revolutions---1994 and 2010. It's now time for a Democratic one.
22
How do 1994 and 2010 qualify as "revolutions"? Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate due to a shift in the national mood and the fact that Democratic turnout is consistently weaker in midterms. In both cases Republicans failed to take the White House in the subsequent election and never managed to turn those extra legislative seats into actual legislation.
Those examples seem to perfectly exemplify how improbable a political revolution that enables Democrats to pass their agenda would be. They actually support Nyhan's point.
Those examples seem to perfectly exemplify how improbable a political revolution that enables Democrats to pass their agenda would be. They actually support Nyhan's point.
1
Okay - so our liberal "revolution" will be to gain a majority of seats in both houses because it's a presidential election year, and the shift in mood is due to voters who are tired of seeing their representatives refuse to work with anyone else, even members of their own party.
1
They would certainly have been effective revolutions if the Republicans held the presidency. A Democratic revolution would be effective because the presidency would be held.
The Democratic POTUS in 2017 will be successful in passing his/herr legislative proposals if, and only if, the voter turn out is significantly higher than that in 2008. It is highly likely that HRC will be the nominee and her task will be to energize the women, blacks and Hispanics in all regions of the country. This will increase both the strength of her party in Congress and public mood, in light of the current paralysis in the House of Representatives.
I believe that she can, especially if large numbers of Republican women vote for her.
If Republicans can't agree on a Speaker, there will emerge some kind of bipartisan coalition that will be acceptable to the public. Speaker Boehner should behave as a statesman, instead of a politician, and bring to the floor legislation that is in the best interest of the nation.
I believe that she can, especially if large numbers of Republican women vote for her.
If Republicans can't agree on a Speaker, there will emerge some kind of bipartisan coalition that will be acceptable to the public. Speaker Boehner should behave as a statesman, instead of a politician, and bring to the floor legislation that is in the best interest of the nation.
10
Why would a Republican woman all of sudden want to kill babies or regulate something to death? I think the left's perception of the right only holds up within an echo chamber.
1
The one fly in the ointment is that Hillary Clinton could not win a general election. She has high unfavorable ratings from the left, right and center of the political spectrum. No one with that kind of polling data has ever won a general election. Not only would having her on the ballot suppress turnout among Dems and independents, it would energize the GOP base and boost their turnout.
Since the House circumscriptions have been carefully carved out to get the incumbent reelected, according to that line of reasoning, it is useless to hold Presidential elections (unless the elected candidate is a member of the Tea Party).
1
Stopping the monumental, profound harm that would come if Republicans controlled all branches and could fully do their billionaires bidding is more than enough, to put it ridiculously mildly.
11
Why IS it that conservatives, who endlessly propagandize that they are the essence of what it means to be a patriotic American, are really fear mongering hope destroyers. IMHO the Democrats are the party that gives us hope, and isn't that the essence of the American dream?
22
Sanders claims that he intends to initiate a people-power revolution makes him the only Democratic candidate who could possibly enact populist policies.
Mainstream candidates follow the rules set by the rich, one of the most important - if not the cardinal rule - is: do not get the public involved in policy decisions - the reason being that the public tends to be unsympathetic to the needs of the few, so therefor their role is simply to vote every two or four years and then become spectators as the winning candidate responds to the needs of the rich and occasionally throws a couple bones to the masses.
Any candidate, once elected, could break the rule, capitalize on all of the issues in which the will of the majority is ignored because it is contrary to the wishes of the few:
INCREASED Social Security benefits, favored by 72% of the public in a recent poll,
increased minimum wage, favored by 63%,
increased taxation of the rich, favored by 68%,
decreased political influence by the wealthy, favored by 65%
universal health care, favored by up to 70%.
The people feel ignored in the political process and a skillful politician creating grassroots mobilizations and direct actions could conceivably force the wealthy and their politicians into responding to the needs of the majority for a change.
We have no way of knowing if it would work - because no two-party politician has tried it before, but I would rather take a chance on the unknown than continue with the status quo.
Mainstream candidates follow the rules set by the rich, one of the most important - if not the cardinal rule - is: do not get the public involved in policy decisions - the reason being that the public tends to be unsympathetic to the needs of the few, so therefor their role is simply to vote every two or four years and then become spectators as the winning candidate responds to the needs of the rich and occasionally throws a couple bones to the masses.
Any candidate, once elected, could break the rule, capitalize on all of the issues in which the will of the majority is ignored because it is contrary to the wishes of the few:
INCREASED Social Security benefits, favored by 72% of the public in a recent poll,
increased minimum wage, favored by 63%,
increased taxation of the rich, favored by 68%,
decreased political influence by the wealthy, favored by 65%
universal health care, favored by up to 70%.
The people feel ignored in the political process and a skillful politician creating grassroots mobilizations and direct actions could conceivably force the wealthy and their politicians into responding to the needs of the majority for a change.
We have no way of knowing if it would work - because no two-party politician has tried it before, but I would rather take a chance on the unknown than continue with the status quo.
22
Re: Sanders "implausible claims" - this Sanders supporter actually agrees. I don't for a moment believe he's going to get more than a small fraction of what he calls for passed into legislation. And without a lot more realistic numbers and projections, i'm not entirely sure that most of it should at this point. What i am sure of though - Sanders is the only candidate who will actually continue to fight for the working and middle classes. Clinton? I have a whole state to sell you, not just the bridge. I'd expect her to turn tail on a dime after elected and throw us all under the bus even faster than Obama did.
10
Obama threw us under the bus? That's hyperbole. Romney would have thrown us under the bus.
2
It took 40 years to get here. The people who run this country have too much money, and too many politicians, from both parties, in Congress and in the running for the presidency. It's going to take a lot more than four, and a lot of hard work to overthrow them. Success is not guaranteed, but if we don't try to fight this good fight, failure will be.
1
Brendan Nyhan makes a forceful argument on behalf of the House Freedom Caucus, namely, that only bills acceptable to the most conservative 50 Republican House members will ever have a chance of passage. I suspect that this political situation is unlikely to last for the next 8 years, if it even survives the next few months. Obama's experience showed that compromise, while possible with many Republicans, simply causes the right wing to quickly move the goalposts even further to the right.
The first thing that Democrats need to do is articulate a clear vision for the next 8 years, a vision that would be acceptable to many Democrats and a significant number of moderate Republicans.
The first thing that Democrats need to do is articulate a clear vision for the next 8 years, a vision that would be acceptable to many Democrats and a significant number of moderate Republicans.
5
"The success of a president depends heavily on contextual factors like party strength in Congress and public mood, and neither of those would be expected to be favorable for Democrats in 2017."
It is not too hard to foresee the public mood changing when they understand what Bernie Sanders is talking about. Bernie Sanders has thus far activated a base of progressives who feel betrayed by Mr. Obama and cannot abide Ms. Clinton's inconsistencies on Wall Street, Keystone XL, and war. His message that the system is rigged and corrupt and unregulated capitalism has failed could well resonate--- especially among those voters who sat out the last election because they saw no one in either party speaking out against it. And if the Republican controlled Senate and House cannot keep the government open and worse yet decides to enact some of the Draconian policies of Ryan et al, it would not be surprising at all to see the mood of the voters shift quickly and dramatically in favor of Mr. Sanders' positions… His revolution may have to wait until 2018, though, if those elected in 2016 do not endorse the way he wants the system to be fixed.
It is not too hard to foresee the public mood changing when they understand what Bernie Sanders is talking about. Bernie Sanders has thus far activated a base of progressives who feel betrayed by Mr. Obama and cannot abide Ms. Clinton's inconsistencies on Wall Street, Keystone XL, and war. His message that the system is rigged and corrupt and unregulated capitalism has failed could well resonate--- especially among those voters who sat out the last election because they saw no one in either party speaking out against it. And if the Republican controlled Senate and House cannot keep the government open and worse yet decides to enact some of the Draconian policies of Ryan et al, it would not be surprising at all to see the mood of the voters shift quickly and dramatically in favor of Mr. Sanders' positions… His revolution may have to wait until 2018, though, if those elected in 2016 do not endorse the way he wants the system to be fixed.
6
Actually, the question is not difficult at all. The answer: Simply elect like-minded representatives at every level. It's executing the answer that's difficult, which is not the same thing at all. By clearly expressing their values and related policy prescriptions, the candidates are taking the first step in attempting to execute the answer -- get elected.
6
This ongoing "dead on arrival" aspect of Democratic legislation is the tragedy of our generation. We've seen it in action for the last eight years. To be sure, some good legislation has been passed (with great difficulty) but what lies ahead if we elect a Democrat and place him/her before our current destructive-minded Congress, will do nothing more than continue the same futile governance.
This upcoming election has two distinct sides: the Presidency and the Congress. In order for the Democrats to "win," anything at all, they have to win both.
It breaks my heart to agree so strongly with Mr. Nyhan, but he is sadly right on target. This coming election could very well be just another destructive step in the demolition of "Democracy."
This upcoming election has two distinct sides: the Presidency and the Congress. In order for the Democrats to "win," anything at all, they have to win both.
It breaks my heart to agree so strongly with Mr. Nyhan, but he is sadly right on target. This coming election could very well be just another destructive step in the demolition of "Democracy."
2
How hard can it be to convince the tens of million who vote R, against their own interests, that the Republican Kool Aid is poison
1
Why assume Republican power is static? We have 3 branches of government. The Republicans currently control all of them, but it's not out of the question that the Democrats could control two of them after the next election. This article is surprisingly myopic about how our government works. The author might take note of the Republican-controlled mess in the House of Representatives; polling on the presidential race and public opinion about Congress. Whether or not a next Democratic President will be able to get things done will depend on how many of those unsatisfied with the current standoffs get out and vote, and not just for the Presidency.
5
I agree that Obama is as conservative as the liberal Republicans of my youth, but did you say that the Republicans now control all three branches of government? Really?
1
Why a particular form of Japanese theatre is routinely used to denote political unreality is a mystery to me. Kabuki has formal aspects and conventions which may be opaque to outsiders, but the same can be said of any theatrical tradition, including western drama. Kabuki playwrights drew on both current and past events to create their dramas; their plays were often subtle commentaries on the issues of the day. If only the same could be said of what often passes for "policy debate" in the modern USA!
3
WE intend to give the next President of the United States of America a Congress she can work with - and that does not include any of the BIG democracy-destroying money masters' republican/libertarian/tea party/pretend democrat and independents operatives WE can do it with OUR votes all across America.
1
"In response, Bernie Sanders resorted to implausible claims about a vast political revolution scaring the opposition into agreement before quickly moving on."
Tell me something Brendon, do you make a habit of misrepresenting other people's ideas while you're preaching to the undergrads at Dartmouth?
Senator Sanders was emphasizing the vital importance of political awareness and engagement among the citizenry- something I think a man in your line of work would be all for. If enough people are made aware of just how badly the economic deck is actually stacked against them, I'm willing to bet that most of them would get pretty angry. Probably angry enough to do something about it. The levers of government are controlled by a small handful of people. The population of the United States is somewhere around 320 million. If we can open the eyes of even a quarter of the population, 80 million vs. a few thousand is pretty decent numerical advantage.
In 1918 it was an implausible claim that a woman was capable of casting a ballot. In 1950 it was an implausible claim that a white child and a black child could attend the same school. These circumstances changed because it became untenable for them not to change. People became angry, they mobilized, and they made it happen. In regard to the way the US economy functions (or fails to function) for 90% of the American people, we are at an analogous point in history.
Feel the Bern my friend.
Tell me something Brendon, do you make a habit of misrepresenting other people's ideas while you're preaching to the undergrads at Dartmouth?
Senator Sanders was emphasizing the vital importance of political awareness and engagement among the citizenry- something I think a man in your line of work would be all for. If enough people are made aware of just how badly the economic deck is actually stacked against them, I'm willing to bet that most of them would get pretty angry. Probably angry enough to do something about it. The levers of government are controlled by a small handful of people. The population of the United States is somewhere around 320 million. If we can open the eyes of even a quarter of the population, 80 million vs. a few thousand is pretty decent numerical advantage.
In 1918 it was an implausible claim that a woman was capable of casting a ballot. In 1950 it was an implausible claim that a white child and a black child could attend the same school. These circumstances changed because it became untenable for them not to change. People became angry, they mobilized, and they made it happen. In regard to the way the US economy functions (or fails to function) for 90% of the American people, we are at an analogous point in history.
Feel the Bern my friend.
29
Years ago the attitudes were the same when the topic of marriage equality was first discussed, there's no way that will ever happen! Well, look what happened. I don't think the Democrat candidates avoided the hard question of how to get their ideas implemented, they acknowledged it would be all but impossible given the way things are currently, and laid the responsibility for that at the feet of the Republican party where it belongs.
There's a reason why Senator Sanders is drawing such huge crowds, and that's how change begins. Republicans, as a part of their failed strategy of complete obstruction, have legislated against the majority of the country on issue after issue and it's starting to catch up with them.
Chances are better than good that a Democrat will win the 2016 election running on the very policies we heard about during the debate. If Congressional Republicans decide to once again do nothing but stand in the way, they will be reduced to a powerless minority in a matter of a few election cycles.
There's a reason why Senator Sanders is drawing such huge crowds, and that's how change begins. Republicans, as a part of their failed strategy of complete obstruction, have legislated against the majority of the country on issue after issue and it's starting to catch up with them.
Chances are better than good that a Democrat will win the 2016 election running on the very policies we heard about during the debate. If Congressional Republicans decide to once again do nothing but stand in the way, they will be reduced to a powerless minority in a matter of a few election cycles.
10
Both Jim Webb & Bernie Sanders did directly address the problem of getting legislation passed, unlike the other 3. Sanders went beyond Webb by clearly stating that to get legislation passed requires voters turning out to vote out the present batch of obstructionists in Congress. It doesn't get much realer than that.
What Nyhan fails to recognize is that other than the group of about 50 Republicans whose goal is to destroy our government the rest of the Republicans will respond to the voters even if it results in a dreaded compromise of some sort because they want to keep their cushy jobs & ultimately collect really great pensions. This can't be done if they continue to anger voters who make the effort to vote.
The truth be told, Obama was just lousy in getting legislation passed even when the Dems held the majority in both houses. So many have said Obama was stand offish with Congress that there must be some truth to it & you do need to take the "temperature" of Congress often if you wish to get things done.
Not a single Dem at the debate displayed the same reluctance to engage in politics that Obama considers to be a badge of honor
What Nyhan fails to recognize is that other than the group of about 50 Republicans whose goal is to destroy our government the rest of the Republicans will respond to the voters even if it results in a dreaded compromise of some sort because they want to keep their cushy jobs & ultimately collect really great pensions. This can't be done if they continue to anger voters who make the effort to vote.
The truth be told, Obama was just lousy in getting legislation passed even when the Dems held the majority in both houses. So many have said Obama was stand offish with Congress that there must be some truth to it & you do need to take the "temperature" of Congress often if you wish to get things done.
Not a single Dem at the debate displayed the same reluctance to engage in politics that Obama considers to be a badge of honor
3
A Democratic perspective:
If Dems keep the White House, gridlock continues. Even if Dems also retake the Senate, the House remains Republican. SCOTUS gets no worse and maybe becomes somewhat better for regular folks.
If the GOP takes all, House, Senate and WH, gridlock continues as long as Senate Dems filibuster. They will probably gain some Senate seats, so this is likely. A GOP president makes for a GOP SCOTUS and continuation of the nasty aspects of this country for regular folks for another 20 years.
Either way, nothing changes much until after 2020, when demographics and re-apportionment may intensify the changes that have already begun. At worst for Dems, the demographics in Texas, other southwest states, and Florida strengthen the Dems as the presidential party. The wingnuts will get increasingly marginalized, but a GOP House protracts their influence.
4
When they are willing to compromise, Republicans have a useful function. For one thing, they help to keep the brakes on the expansion of govt. behind the idea that it can do everything for everyone. We need strong political organizations with well reasoned ideas working in opposition, but cooperatively. At its best, this dynamic helps everyone craft better solutions.
We are far beyond such lofty ideas, however. Now, the goal is search and destroy. We are becoming like some third rate power and, if it fit with our system, we would have a new Prime Minister every few months.
Sooner or later, someone will come along who understands the underlying dynamics of the various battles being waged under false names. Much of the ideological divide is really about region to region conflicts. Example: why should the Democrats let the southern and largely rural states in the mid-west and far west get everything they want in terms of farm subsidies, welfare (food stamps, etc.) support for their poor and various other govt. programs if those same states are going to turn around and oppose everything the coastal and mid-Atlantic states want and need? This bad bargain has played out for decades.
The Democrats can't get anything thing done until they either throw out a boatload of Republicans from Congress or they grab some of the levers of power to force solutions by horse trading on a harsh but clever basis. The next president needs to look to extra-governmental solutions as well.
We are far beyond such lofty ideas, however. Now, the goal is search and destroy. We are becoming like some third rate power and, if it fit with our system, we would have a new Prime Minister every few months.
Sooner or later, someone will come along who understands the underlying dynamics of the various battles being waged under false names. Much of the ideological divide is really about region to region conflicts. Example: why should the Democrats let the southern and largely rural states in the mid-west and far west get everything they want in terms of farm subsidies, welfare (food stamps, etc.) support for their poor and various other govt. programs if those same states are going to turn around and oppose everything the coastal and mid-Atlantic states want and need? This bad bargain has played out for decades.
The Democrats can't get anything thing done until they either throw out a boatload of Republicans from Congress or they grab some of the levers of power to force solutions by horse trading on a harsh but clever basis. The next president needs to look to extra-governmental solutions as well.
3
I think Bernie Sanders has been clear that he intends to mobilize the country to press congress for change and that he will persevere until things change. He definitely acknowledges that people electing more helpful congress people would be nice. Hillary doesn't have a plan because doesn't really intend to do much of what she says she just wants people to vote for her so she copies the most popular positions.
13
Ding dong, Nyhan. The U.S. has this mechanism called 'elections'. They can change everythiing. Even if the GOP retains control of both houses of Congress, how the 2016 plays out will deterrmine the strategies for pushing proposals. To demand strategies during the election preshow is simply silly.
4
Brendan Nyhan is absolutely right! Many liberal Democrats, especially Sanders' supporters, are children. Tell them they are dreaming, and you invite an avalanche of invective on your head. Most are educated, yet they act like dopes. They deride Republicans for ignoring facts, yet they do the same.
How to explain it? "Epistemic closure" is a fashionable term, but it doesn't explain anything. My thought: it's a case of arrested development. They have so long lived in a bubble of self-indulgence, of instant gratification, that they've not had to grow up. It gives them pleasure to believe in Bernie. So they act on the pleasure principle, not on the reality principle.
Take Glass-Steagall. Of course, it should be restored; we all know that. In the present political climate, will it happen? Not likely. At least, Hillary understands that, and proposes some small-bore regulatory fixes that just might work.
How to explain it? "Epistemic closure" is a fashionable term, but it doesn't explain anything. My thought: it's a case of arrested development. They have so long lived in a bubble of self-indulgence, of instant gratification, that they've not had to grow up. It gives them pleasure to believe in Bernie. So they act on the pleasure principle, not on the reality principle.
Take Glass-Steagall. Of course, it should be restored; we all know that. In the present political climate, will it happen? Not likely. At least, Hillary understands that, and proposes some small-bore regulatory fixes that just might work.
5
I wouldn't assume that all Republicans are against bringing the Glass-Stegall dividion of banking business back; many populist workers of the Tea Party understand the instability that made the 2007 crash so intense that it almost crashed the dollar.
Typical specious nonsense from Nyhan.
So, candidates should only offer views of legislation they can prove the votes for? To state the thesis is to want to scrub it off.
And this view of political possibility from a "political science" expert.
So, candidates should only offer views of legislation they can prove the votes for? To state the thesis is to want to scrub it off.
And this view of political possibility from a "political science" expert.
9
I guess the whole story the times was selling last November that the Democrats will retake the Senate in 2016 because Republicans have more seats to defend is no longer operative.
1
In 2016 the Democrats have 3 advantages.
First, the electoral map is the same. Unless the Republicans win (or Dems lose) Ohio, Florida, and PA, they cannot win the WH. They need all 3; it won't happen; lights out
Second, Republicans have many more vulnerable seats in the Senate, which is likely to flip back to Dems. Hold your nose and say: Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Third, Dems benefit from huge turnout in presidential election years (why #'s 1 and 2 are true).
Here's the prescription going forward: Dems need too build up the party machinery in Texas, AR, CO, FL, OH, PA, WI, and MI so that in 2018 and 2020 those states elect Dem governors and state legislators who re-draw congressional districts to more accurately reflect voter preferences and then dislodge these moronic Freedom Caucus members (what a perversion of the word "freedom"; they're despicable for that reason alone).
First, the electoral map is the same. Unless the Republicans win (or Dems lose) Ohio, Florida, and PA, they cannot win the WH. They need all 3; it won't happen; lights out
Second, Republicans have many more vulnerable seats in the Senate, which is likely to flip back to Dems. Hold your nose and say: Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Third, Dems benefit from huge turnout in presidential election years (why #'s 1 and 2 are true).
Here's the prescription going forward: Dems need too build up the party machinery in Texas, AR, CO, FL, OH, PA, WI, and MI so that in 2018 and 2020 those states elect Dem governors and state legislators who re-draw congressional districts to more accurately reflect voter preferences and then dislodge these moronic Freedom Caucus members (what a perversion of the word "freedom"; they're despicable for that reason alone).
2
"and to make appointments for any vacancies in an increasingly elderly Supreme Court."
And therein lies the rub. A Democratic President nominating Liberal Judges to replace the elderly Conservative Judges now on the Court could see changes emanating from revised decisions - over turning Citizen's United, strengthening justification and support for the ACA, strengthening voting rights, ruling on Immigrant rights, etc. Legislation by judicial fiat.
And therein lies the rub. A Democratic President nominating Liberal Judges to replace the elderly Conservative Judges now on the Court could see changes emanating from revised decisions - over turning Citizen's United, strengthening justification and support for the ACA, strengthening voting rights, ruling on Immigrant rights, etc. Legislation by judicial fiat.
3
If a Democratic president is mostly there to act as a bulwark against the Wacko Bird Congress, I can accept that. Better than a fully Wacko Bird Government destroying itself and the rest of America along with it.
17
Couldn't one argue that the type of election where Sen. Sanders is elected would take place in such an environment where winning the senate, and closely contesting the House would be highly probably? If you are truly a believer in median voter theorem, the electorate would have to move substantively to the left in order for such an election to take place, and due to an increase in down ballot voting, it would logically make sense that the Democrats retake the Senate and possibly the house?
4
That was more likely to have happened in 2008, when some Republicans, disgusted with the neocons in the Bush administration, were willing to give Obama and his "humble foreign policy" a shot. Today the country is much more polarized, and coattails are nonexistant.
1
Partisan gridlock has been baked into our system. A combination of gerrymandering and the concentration of progressive voters in urban areas effectively ensures Republican control of the house for the foreseeable future. The senate is slightly more in play, and neither side will achieve a filibuster proof majority anytime soon. Demographics seem to slightly favor Democrats for the white house, but only just. We're stuck with each other.
The problem with this is that the current primary system favors the motivated voters at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Currently the Republicans are in thrall to their extreme right wing, while the Democrats are moderate, but this wasn't always the case. The Democrats could easily fall under control of their left wing, as the strength of Bernie Sanders indicates. We need to redesign our voting system to favor the moderates of both parties. A single primary in each house and senate race, open to all parties, with the top two vote getters going head to head in the general election would favor the candidates who can gather a broad spectrum of support, rather than those who command the fervent support of extremists. The government that resulted from this would be much more likely to compromise and work together to get things done.
The problem with this is that the current primary system favors the motivated voters at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Currently the Republicans are in thrall to their extreme right wing, while the Democrats are moderate, but this wasn't always the case. The Democrats could easily fall under control of their left wing, as the strength of Bernie Sanders indicates. We need to redesign our voting system to favor the moderates of both parties. A single primary in each house and senate race, open to all parties, with the top two vote getters going head to head in the general election would favor the candidates who can gather a broad spectrum of support, rather than those who command the fervent support of extremists. The government that resulted from this would be much more likely to compromise and work together to get things done.
10
I have made this argument trying to explain why the Sanders campaign is ridiculous, since he will never pass anything. The Democrats have very little chance of taking back the House in 2016, and taking back the Senate is a long shot. However, people aren't going to rally around a message of continued gridlock is better than complete Republican rule even if it is true. Why do reporters always write stories expressing their disbelief that politicians act like politicians? Some of us understand the realities of our situation.
It is a little dispiriting that it seems so many don't understand how their government works and would rather believe in fairy tales. If it were any different, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today; Democrats would understand the importance of voting in mid-term elections.
The best Democrats can do is put Clinton in the White House to block the worst the Republicans can do, and try to win as many state legislatures as possible by 2020 so they can redraw the House. It will only take one more Republican Supreme Court judge to change this country in a profound way for a generation or more, and that change will devastate workers and the poor, and roll back minority and women’s rights to where they were in the 1950’s.
It is a little dispiriting that it seems so many don't understand how their government works and would rather believe in fairy tales. If it were any different, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today; Democrats would understand the importance of voting in mid-term elections.
The best Democrats can do is put Clinton in the White House to block the worst the Republicans can do, and try to win as many state legislatures as possible by 2020 so they can redraw the House. It will only take one more Republican Supreme Court judge to change this country in a profound way for a generation or more, and that change will devastate workers and the poor, and roll back minority and women’s rights to where they were in the 1950’s.
6
Perhaps, but Sen. Sanders has two advantages:
1. He's a white man; and
2. If he wins, it likely will be with large voter turnout.
I expect much to settle down once a white man regains office. The "threat" that America has faced will quietly vanish. Large voter turnout is what Sen. Sanders believes will help him with his agenda.
Mrs. Clinton has two disadvantages:
1. She's a woman; and
2. That "vast right wing conspiracy."
The Republikaner hate her almost as much as, if not more, than the current president. Also, the rapper TI spoke for many more than will admit when he stated that he could not vote for a woman as "leader of the free world."
The real question is: Can the Republicans elect anyone who can win?
1. He's a white man; and
2. If he wins, it likely will be with large voter turnout.
I expect much to settle down once a white man regains office. The "threat" that America has faced will quietly vanish. Large voter turnout is what Sen. Sanders believes will help him with his agenda.
Mrs. Clinton has two disadvantages:
1. She's a woman; and
2. That "vast right wing conspiracy."
The Republikaner hate her almost as much as, if not more, than the current president. Also, the rapper TI spoke for many more than will admit when he stated that he could not vote for a woman as "leader of the free world."
The real question is: Can the Republicans elect anyone who can win?
Well, one of two things will happen if a Democrat is elected.
She or he will block the most egregious of bad judgement coming from a group of people who consider eliminating Planned Parenthood more important than running the government, at least saving us from the idiocy of having elected them.
Or, we will eventually get tired of paying for middle aged toddlers to have tantrums on the taxpayers dime, and elect grown ups in both parties, in which case the President will work on the agenda, effecting compromise and concessions, like we have for, oh, the last quarter millennia..
But if we elect a Republican, we run the risk of having some of the idiocy actually put into law.
How bout a new superPAC? "Americans for Grown Ups"
She or he will block the most egregious of bad judgement coming from a group of people who consider eliminating Planned Parenthood more important than running the government, at least saving us from the idiocy of having elected them.
Or, we will eventually get tired of paying for middle aged toddlers to have tantrums on the taxpayers dime, and elect grown ups in both parties, in which case the President will work on the agenda, effecting compromise and concessions, like we have for, oh, the last quarter millennia..
But if we elect a Republican, we run the risk of having some of the idiocy actually put into law.
How bout a new superPAC? "Americans for Grown Ups"
32
If the Democrats take the White House, the make-up of congress will change in that election. Of course to understand this the person would have to be politically literate which of course excludes anyone working for the New York Times.
3
Well, Tony, we are left to guess why Brendan Nyhan is getting paid to write for the New York Times and you are not.
1
You will see few or no major changes, unless one party or the other wins a majority of the seats in both houses along with the presidency. If the Democrats win the presidency ,but not the majority of both houses the Republicans will obstruct and remain happy and the Democrats will be frustrated. Organize and vote!
4
So, what's your point?
That we just have to live with a crumbling infrastructure, decaying and expensive education system, perpetual war, rampant tax-avoiding greed, and a dying planet because that's just the way things are?
Bernie is willing to stand up and fight these "realities", and I'm with him, along with a very great many people of all political persuasions. And we are just getting started.
That we just have to live with a crumbling infrastructure, decaying and expensive education system, perpetual war, rampant tax-avoiding greed, and a dying planet because that's just the way things are?
Bernie is willing to stand up and fight these "realities", and I'm with him, along with a very great many people of all political persuasions. And we are just getting started.
54
That's the spirit. The same spirit that handed this country to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Easy fix. Help the GOP nominate Trump. Boom.
3
Except he might win.
They said the same thing about Reagan in 1980. And Nixon in 1968.
So . . . what? The Dems aren't supposed to propose anything because the GOP controls Congress at the moment? Maybe if more people like what Clinton, Sanders, et al., are proposing and realize the GOP are total obstructionists, you could see a swing in some House or Senate races. They're supposed to give up right at the start?
28
Just because Obama was too arrogant to go to Capitol Hill and get things done with Congress does not mean a new President will have that attitude. Bernie certainly knows how Congress works, and this issue was a central theme of Jim Webb. I expect Hilary Clinton is so used to her own way of doing things and insulated from reality in her control bubble she will be even less effective that Obama with Congress. This is the main problem with losing every local election yet being able to win POTUS
4
"In response, Bernie Sanders resorted to implausible claims about a vast political revolution scaring the opposition into agreement before quickly moving on."
This NYT bias against Bernie has got to stop. It's turning off subscribers. What Bernie means, and which is not "implausible" at all, is, if enough excitement can be generated in the November 2016 election, the turnout will be huge and Democrats will be swept back into power. Bernie is the only candidate on the Democratic side who is generating the kind of passion and excitement required for such sweeping change. However, the NYT and other so-called liberal media outlets are so opposed to his candidacy that the staff writers usually attach negative adjectives to his name, like "cranky" "irascible" "angry" and others too numerous to count. If anyone believes that the coverage here is fair, just look at 2 headers from today:
"Bernie Sanders Has Fund-Raiser at Fancy Hollywood Home" ...a snarky way of saying that Bernie is somehow tainted because he takes money from rich people. He does so rarely and with great discretion, by the way... AND he has no super pac.
"Hillary Clinton Stops for Ice Cream on Her Vegas Roll" which is just more of the Hillary fluff that the NYT has been dishing out. It's pathetic. It's as if the NYT just copies campaign press releases.
This NYT bias against Bernie has got to stop. It's turning off subscribers. What Bernie means, and which is not "implausible" at all, is, if enough excitement can be generated in the November 2016 election, the turnout will be huge and Democrats will be swept back into power. Bernie is the only candidate on the Democratic side who is generating the kind of passion and excitement required for such sweeping change. However, the NYT and other so-called liberal media outlets are so opposed to his candidacy that the staff writers usually attach negative adjectives to his name, like "cranky" "irascible" "angry" and others too numerous to count. If anyone believes that the coverage here is fair, just look at 2 headers from today:
"Bernie Sanders Has Fund-Raiser at Fancy Hollywood Home" ...a snarky way of saying that Bernie is somehow tainted because he takes money from rich people. He does so rarely and with great discretion, by the way... AND he has no super pac.
"Hillary Clinton Stops for Ice Cream on Her Vegas Roll" which is just more of the Hillary fluff that the NYT has been dishing out. It's pathetic. It's as if the NYT just copies campaign press releases.
47
Oh yes, Sanders' supporters will predictably end up deeply disillusioned by the end of the Democratic Convention, blaming the New York Times and various others of sabotaging his campaign because they didn't succumb to the thrill of Bernie. This is how Eugene McCarthy's and George McGovern's respective followers felt once upon a time as well (read some history if you only have a vague or non-existent knowledge of their campaigns). The fact is that "passion and excitement" will not elect a non-centrist Democrat, let alone a socialist, as POTUS. Even full-tilt mobilization of those who rarely or never vote will not create a majority for the Left. Just tellin' ya, but the choice we'll have on election day will be to elect one of the Republicans, or Hilary. And, unless she blows it badly, Hilary will be elected because, despite all of the noisy right-wing venting, this is a centrist country.
Donald Trump, HRC, & NYTimes all support and represent that top 1%. Why can't Bernie Sanders get with the program if he wants to be treated as well as the others?
The point of the having the election is lay out a vision not the lay out a program predicated on the worst case scenario ! Dumb column
6
And herein lies the main reason why Clinton is the better choice. Obama was largely a DC freshman when he ran (and thus a neophyte re working with the opposition in Congress), plus (let's be honest here) he is African-American. These two facts loom large in why he was obstructed at every turn.
Sanders is a long-time member of Congress - but famously irascible, with an abysmal record of "working across the aisle" toward compromise. His LACK of compromise re his principles is admirable. But it won't help him when he has to get things done.
Clinton comes in as a former two-term senator with an excellent record of working across the aisle toward compromise. She is not a neophyte, not African-American (and it is unlikely at this point that he gender will make any difference), not irascible, and not uncompromising. Yes, some might feel that she might compromise TOO much. But the bottom line is that change (in the DC system) is not made overnight, that it takes time, implemented slowly.
Clinton knows this, and it is her very caution, pragmatism and realism that is likely to make her a far more effective president than Sanders.
Sanders is a long-time member of Congress - but famously irascible, with an abysmal record of "working across the aisle" toward compromise. His LACK of compromise re his principles is admirable. But it won't help him when he has to get things done.
Clinton comes in as a former two-term senator with an excellent record of working across the aisle toward compromise. She is not a neophyte, not African-American (and it is unlikely at this point that he gender will make any difference), not irascible, and not uncompromising. Yes, some might feel that she might compromise TOO much. But the bottom line is that change (in the DC system) is not made overnight, that it takes time, implemented slowly.
Clinton knows this, and it is her very caution, pragmatism and realism that is likely to make her a far more effective president than Sanders.
6
Can you give some examples of Clinton working across the aisle? Your comments seem contradictory to the attitude of mutual hatred with the Republicans expressed by Mrs. Clinton the other night.
The election of Bernie Sanders is itself considered implausible by many people, so if he were to be elected as president, his "implausible claims" about a vast political revolution would look a bit less implausible than it does today.
16
Thank goodness, with the House solidly in control of the GOP and doomed to remain so for at least 10 years, no new legislation will happen should Mx. Hillary get elected. Now the bad news. Mx. Hillary will go crazy with executive orders and new regulations. You can count on endless years of court challenges to take place. The courts will be very busy. So, it is all wishful thinking. The best government is the least government. So, let the dog and pony show continue, that is those phony 'debates.', The signify nothing will be happening. Again, thank goodness.
2
Senate gets flipped in 2016. You know this. The electoral map and all that stuff. Flip. McConnell will be a one term Senate leader. How rich is that!
There is a simple answer to your question. Remove Republican control of Congress. The cards are stacked against Republicans holding the Senate, and watching the Republican House self-destruct is encouraging.
3
You are using a claim from last November that does not look like it will play out. And control of one hour of Congress is the sound of one hand clapping.
The fact that virtually none of the [Democratic] candidates' proposals have any chance of passage actually plays to their advantage. Universal healthcare? ...won't cost much. Gun control?...you bet! Immigration?...I will fix it on Day1.
In the end, none of them can match Trump's economic plan: "It's gonna be Huge!"
In the end, none of them can match Trump's economic plan: "It's gonna be Huge!"
2
As you admit, Bernie did make a case. What he said was:
"[T]he only way we can get things done is by having millions of people coming together. If we want free tuition at public colleges and universities, millions of young people are going to have to demand it, and give the Republicans an offer they can’t refuse. If we want to raise the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour, workers are going to have to come together and look the Republicans in the eye, and say, “We know what’s going on. You vote against us, you are out of your job.”
It may not be likely that Bernie wins, but it isn't impossible. If he does win, those same millions who will have energized behind him will be the millions who might make his policies feasible.
"[T]he only way we can get things done is by having millions of people coming together. If we want free tuition at public colleges and universities, millions of young people are going to have to demand it, and give the Republicans an offer they can’t refuse. If we want to raise the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour, workers are going to have to come together and look the Republicans in the eye, and say, “We know what’s going on. You vote against us, you are out of your job.”
It may not be likely that Bernie wins, but it isn't impossible. If he does win, those same millions who will have energized behind him will be the millions who might make his policies feasible.
1
Indeed. Several years ago, several of the more experienced and knowledgable Republicans, in office and some power brokers, were warning that the tea party eruption and the "block everything" movement in Congress could backfire by energizing Democrats and those who have a broader, more encompassing view of our country (beyond Wall Street, plutocrats and Bible thumpers). The warning was: watch out, what you are doing will stir a hornet's nest.
The two main reasons the Republicans grew in strength in Congress over the last three election cycles (2010, 2012 & 2014), aside from the massive amount of money being spent to manipulate the process by outside groups, were the Great Recession and general uncomfortableness, on a cultural/social level, with Obama in the White House. The Great recession is fading as an influence and Obama is shortly headed for the hills and a very, very comfortable post-presidency.
Bernie Sanders wouldn't be on the radar except for the abundant, always negative extremism that has arisen on the far right. They might yet unite a majority of Americans toward a more active, inclusive idea of government and, in addition, toward social equality and economic fairness. Keep up the good work, dudes.
The two main reasons the Republicans grew in strength in Congress over the last three election cycles (2010, 2012 & 2014), aside from the massive amount of money being spent to manipulate the process by outside groups, were the Great Recession and general uncomfortableness, on a cultural/social level, with Obama in the White House. The Great recession is fading as an influence and Obama is shortly headed for the hills and a very, very comfortable post-presidency.
Bernie Sanders wouldn't be on the radar except for the abundant, always negative extremism that has arisen on the far right. They might yet unite a majority of Americans toward a more active, inclusive idea of government and, in addition, toward social equality and economic fairness. Keep up the good work, dudes.
3
Free stuff? Only fools believe such exists. What the American electorate is engaged in, as usual, is 'stupidness'. Politicians depend on it. Twenty trillion of free stuff spending over the next ten years? Best you start hiding your money, house and car. They plan to take it all. When people are investing at zero interest rates, then even fools know something is wrong. Only in America.
Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that, absent Bernie Sanders' revolution, nothing will change with the next congress, even though there is at least a 50/50 chance the Dems will re-take the Senate and the slightest, teeny-weeny little chance the Republican majority in the House will degrade.
1
This was an opportunity to really drive home the truth about the unwillingness of the Republicans in Congress to do their jobs. They could have and should have reminded the audience of just how hard it has been and will continue to be as long as the republicans have the majority.
5
In what sense are the republicans failing to do their jobs - representing those that elected them?
The resistance of Republicans to abandon their insanity is NOT a reason to criticize Democrats. I've seen absurd arguments, but this is itself nuts. The very reason to vote Democratic is to force Republicans to come back to a reality based world. More than enough for me, even if it takes a few election cycles to get it done.
5
It would be helpful if the pro-Bernie Sanders commenters that have made themselves ubiquitous in the NYT comments section could explain how he'll enact any of his policy proposals (infrastructure investments, defense cuts, higher marginal tax rates, etc.) in the context of a Congress that will likely be controlled by Republicans through the end of the decade.
And this may be a selfish request, but please don’t say that Sanders will get this stuff done because he’s “ideologically consistent” and not “owned” by “the corporations.” If I read any more comments like that I think I’ll melt my eyes out with hot candle wax.
And this may be a selfish request, but please don’t say that Sanders will get this stuff done because he’s “ideologically consistent” and not “owned” by “the corporations.” If I read any more comments like that I think I’ll melt my eyes out with hot candle wax.
2
As a pro-Bernie Sanders commenter, here is my take.
Bernie is not going to enact any of his policy proposals, because Hilary is going to take the nomination.
So why I am supporting Bernie? Because Hilary needs to be challenged from the center (no, not left, center) and pulled back from her decidedly right-of-center, pro-corporate, "centrism" (this take is thoroughly supported by public opinion polling, and by her own words: "representing Wall Street" as she said).
In politics today the ability to raise money is power. Bernie is doing an astonishing job of raising money. Hilary cannot ignore this, she realizes (or will realize) that she must move to the progressive center to capture that enthusiasm for votes - and money.
Bernie is making Hilary a better candidate, a fairer, more balanced, more progressive, less corporate-friendly candidate.
Go Bernie! We need you in this race telling the truth!
Bernie is not going to enact any of his policy proposals, because Hilary is going to take the nomination.
So why I am supporting Bernie? Because Hilary needs to be challenged from the center (no, not left, center) and pulled back from her decidedly right-of-center, pro-corporate, "centrism" (this take is thoroughly supported by public opinion polling, and by her own words: "representing Wall Street" as she said).
In politics today the ability to raise money is power. Bernie is doing an astonishing job of raising money. Hilary cannot ignore this, she realizes (or will realize) that she must move to the progressive center to capture that enthusiasm for votes - and money.
Bernie is making Hilary a better candidate, a fairer, more balanced, more progressive, less corporate-friendly candidate.
Go Bernie! We need you in this race telling the truth!
1
After the election Democrats in Congress should put the new Democratic president's agenda into proposed legislation. If Congress doesn't act they should campaign on those issues in 2018 and attempt to regain a Democratic majority. If that falls short, try again in 2020. Keep trying until it works. This is a long game. The Republican party cannot go on winning forever if it is known only for blocking the US president from keeping his or her campaign promises to the American people.
2
If a candidates promises are based on passing legislation, why isn't the candidate running for a legislative office?
1
The troubling fact is that President Obama is putting major policies through in both the domestic and foreign realms by executive actions and signing statements: drone killings of U.S. citizens in foreign countries depriving them of due process of law, a bombing campaign in Libya which overthrew the government leading to a failed state, permitting millions of non-citizens to remain in the United States, changing provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In this, he is expanding on what previous presidents did. Mrs. Clinton is likely to continue this if elected, since she has proposed a plan to regulate gun ownership by executive order.
Some of these policies are beneficial but in their effort to circumvent Congress, they are weakening the Constitution and the rule of law.
Some of these policies are beneficial but in their effort to circumvent Congress, they are weakening the Constitution and the rule of law.
2
The idea that a Republican House, which there will almost certainly be in 2017, will pass single payer healthcare, free college tuition for all, tax increases on the rich, a $15 minimum wage, and the rest of Bernie Sanders' grand plans, or even Hillary's more modest progressive proposals, is nothing short of fantasy. There is only way to exercise political power and that is to win elections--the "bully pulpit" is a myth. Due to gerrymandering and other factors, for the Democrats to win the back the House will require a "wave" type of election where the Democrats have at least 5-7 point margin in the national popular vote. Such a wave election is extremely unlikely to happen with Hillary as the nominee--she is at best, someone who can squeak out a 51% victory against a weak Republic nominee. Alas, Democrats have thrown in their lot with her, and the best we can hope for is another 4 years of gridlock where just keeping the government open and not defaulting on the national debt will be major accomplishments.
1
The irony, of course, is that during the first two years of his term President Obama (having been elected with the largest popular vote since Lyndon Johnson) had a Senate and House of Representatives with substantial Democratic majorities. Somehow, his mandate for change never reached fruition and so here we are today! There is no doubt that Republicans have obstructed; however, it's also true that neither the President nor the Democrats in Congress were really tuned in to the issues that mattered to the electorate.
3
Well, he did manage to pass a successful and significant stimulus bill, and the Affordable Care Act, probably the biggest progressive legislative achievement since medicare, if not social security. His recent efforts on climate change and fuel efficiency will also reverberate. History will look at Obama and judge him to be one of our more important presidents.
1
Our government is not functioning and it's our fault. We vote in people who do not understand the meaning of a compromise or that their egos are less important than our well being.
13
The reality is that none of these clowns have a clue about economics and how to grow an economy legitimately; unless of course, you feel that 18 trillion of debt plus 50 or 60 trillion in unfunded debt has been good policy. It won't just be our children who will experience the coming systemic crash. It will be the young and old alike and the rich will move on because they can afford to. As a nation, our government runs so far beyond its means is mindboggling and the American people just continue to ignore reality. Sanders 17 trillion dollar bag of free stuff will mark the end of the great experiment. We cannot tax our way out of the problem. The public is reliant upon the media to inform it, yet the media completely ignores what is happening around the world. China, Russia, India, most of South America and even a few European countries want off the USD. It is going to happen and when it does, Americans will face a reality that will be something well beyond catastrophic.
3
The implication of this article is that if a Democrat is elected President, Republicans will block legislation proposed by the President.
Journalists are failing to connect the dots.
Republicans are so fed up with Congressional gridlock that they overwhelming support candidates for President who have never served in Congress. Polls have shown this for months and the trend is strengthening, not weakening. Only 6% of Republicans support Jeb!, who the press thought was a shoe-in for the nomination just a few months ago. The Republican Party is fast approaching a no win situation. If nominated, these non-politicians are unlikely to win. But if Karl Rove and the traditional wing of the Party buys the nomination for a Bush or other politician, the supporters of the leading candidates today may not vote. Democrats may win in a landslide that also puts at least the Senate under control of Democrats.
Also, this article discounts the fact that President Obama has gotten a lot done - within the constraints of his Executive Power - since he quit wasting time trying to work with Republicans.
Either or both ways, a Democrat President should be able to get a lot more done in the next 4 years.
Journalists are failing to connect the dots.
Republicans are so fed up with Congressional gridlock that they overwhelming support candidates for President who have never served in Congress. Polls have shown this for months and the trend is strengthening, not weakening. Only 6% of Republicans support Jeb!, who the press thought was a shoe-in for the nomination just a few months ago. The Republican Party is fast approaching a no win situation. If nominated, these non-politicians are unlikely to win. But if Karl Rove and the traditional wing of the Party buys the nomination for a Bush or other politician, the supporters of the leading candidates today may not vote. Democrats may win in a landslide that also puts at least the Senate under control of Democrats.
Also, this article discounts the fact that President Obama has gotten a lot done - within the constraints of his Executive Power - since he quit wasting time trying to work with Republicans.
Either or both ways, a Democrat President should be able to get a lot more done in the next 4 years.
31
I hate to break it to many of the commenters here but because of gerrymandering, Democrats will not win the house. Even if this was 2008 again, the system won't let them win. The only hope is that they take the Senate and are able to influence legislation there. As far as voters choosing to vote out GOP reps, they tend to dislike good democrats more than a bad republicans.
That's why this question is so important. However, the suggested answer, that Democrats should just propose how they will work with republicans is also the wrong way to look at it. Fixing the systeem, not the candidates, is where we need to look to get rid of gridlock and partisanship. Our electoral system created this mess, not the voters, not the parties, not the candidates - they are just a symptom of a broken electoral system that promotes two parties and polarizing politics.
We need to change the system because even if the GOP wins the White House, the democrats still have an incentive for gridlock. Implementing a better voting system, like ranked choice voting, will restore moderate, sensible representatives to the government and then this question would be much more meaningful to voters. Right now it matters little.
That's why this question is so important. However, the suggested answer, that Democrats should just propose how they will work with republicans is also the wrong way to look at it. Fixing the systeem, not the candidates, is where we need to look to get rid of gridlock and partisanship. Our electoral system created this mess, not the voters, not the parties, not the candidates - they are just a symptom of a broken electoral system that promotes two parties and polarizing politics.
We need to change the system because even if the GOP wins the White House, the democrats still have an incentive for gridlock. Implementing a better voting system, like ranked choice voting, will restore moderate, sensible representatives to the government and then this question would be much more meaningful to voters. Right now it matters little.
4
Polls show that from background checks to making college affordable to protecting Social Security, a large majority of voters support the position taken by the Democrats in the debate-- they just have to express their support by getting out and voting for Democrats up and down the line---including those who have been told that they are powerless and that there is no difference--- those who oppose you believe there is a difference----
The Koch brothers said that they will spend nearly $ 1 billion in this election-- I don't see that going to Democrats.
The Koch brothers said that they will spend nearly $ 1 billion in this election-- I don't see that going to Democrats.
25
They support these positions....until they are presented with the bill. The pollster can ask if they would like medical insurance with no previous conditions, offering unlimited coverage, and available to their kids up to age 26, and of course they'll say they'd like that. What they don't want to hear is OK, that'll be $1850 a month, glad you supported us.
The idea that a Democrat in the White House can't get anything done is exactly what the Republicans on Capitol Hill want the public to believe. This is a variation on the Newt Gingrich school of politics: create a huge mess then announce that you, and you alone, are the only person qualified to fix it.
Most of everything that is being done to block legislation is being done for two basic reasons: first, creation of new programs, like Obamacare, creates a desire for the public to have them continue, threatening higher taxes and more power for Democrats (protecting the programs). The second motivation, the overriding one, is to put a Republican in the White House next year.
What if this whole program of winning through obstruction fails? What if the Republicans lose a lot of House and Senate seats next year? Would they just keep doing the same thing?
The "fever" Obama referred to in 2012 had to do with the partisan belief that Republicans could gain the more they blocked the president. His reelection, coupled with strong gains by Republicans in the House and Senate, was not enough.
In short, it is up to the voters. Do they want continued gridblocking or do they want a government that functions normally and is able to do both new and old things to help citizens in their daily lives?
When the politicians feel a strong wind blowing against them, they change, fast.
Most of everything that is being done to block legislation is being done for two basic reasons: first, creation of new programs, like Obamacare, creates a desire for the public to have them continue, threatening higher taxes and more power for Democrats (protecting the programs). The second motivation, the overriding one, is to put a Republican in the White House next year.
What if this whole program of winning through obstruction fails? What if the Republicans lose a lot of House and Senate seats next year? Would they just keep doing the same thing?
The "fever" Obama referred to in 2012 had to do with the partisan belief that Republicans could gain the more they blocked the president. His reelection, coupled with strong gains by Republicans in the House and Senate, was not enough.
In short, it is up to the voters. Do they want continued gridblocking or do they want a government that functions normally and is able to do both new and old things to help citizens in their daily lives?
When the politicians feel a strong wind blowing against them, they change, fast.
53
Bernie Sanders was clear. The only way that his proposals will be adopted is if millions of Americans get behind them. This would force the Republicans to support them (at least in sufficient numbers) or face losing their jobs. This is what Bernie means by a revolution. One way to look at it: the Republican Party would be pushed back more to the middle and more could be get done.
5
In the last several elections, the Presidential contest has been won by a 1 or 2% margin of the popular vote. Even if Bernie managed to win that way, itś not going to force the Republicans to do anything.
What it would do, most likely, is cause a huge Republican turnout for the 2018 Congressional elections and further cement their House and Senate majorities. Exactly what happened after Obama was elected.
What it would do, most likely, is cause a huge Republican turnout for the 2018 Congressional elections and further cement their House and Senate majorities. Exactly what happened after Obama was elected.
1
This is a question which I have thought about when reading about claims by presidential candidates. Unless they have Congress behind their proposals, there is little chance they can get the legislation adopted that they want.
Any thinking person realizes this and then accepts what candidates say with a grain of salt; they assume the candidate is indicating what he or she favors but not necessarily what will be done if that person is elected president.
Of course, one should realize that the election of a person from a certain party is likely to be accompanied by the election of members of Congress from the same party. So if Bernie Sanders is elected president, the Democrats are likely to gain significantly in seats in Congress. That still may not lead to a Democratic majority, but it will serve to even the playing field a bit and make it easier for Sanders to govern as president.
This realization should also remind voters that it is not just presidential election years that are important. The years when only members of Congress are elected are just as important.
Any thinking person realizes this and then accepts what candidates say with a grain of salt; they assume the candidate is indicating what he or she favors but not necessarily what will be done if that person is elected president.
Of course, one should realize that the election of a person from a certain party is likely to be accompanied by the election of members of Congress from the same party. So if Bernie Sanders is elected president, the Democrats are likely to gain significantly in seats in Congress. That still may not lead to a Democratic majority, but it will serve to even the playing field a bit and make it easier for Sanders to govern as president.
This realization should also remind voters that it is not just presidential election years that are important. The years when only members of Congress are elected are just as important.
23
Not only are members Congress important but governors and state legislators as well since that is where much of the implementation of laws happen. It is important to stop the gerrymandering and voter registration tampering as attempts to "stuff" the ballot for incumbents. Revolution happens from the ground up, not top down.
Professor Nyhan offers nothing except despair! Does he really expect Democratic candidates for president to throw up their hands and say we can't do the things we want unless we control both houses of Congress? Better the White House under Democratic control than not. And Nyhan also calls the rational proposals offered by all of the Democratic candidates merely what "the base" wants to hear. Is that the group that elected President Obama twice? It is the Republicans who are offering unrealistic proposals to their "base" (those voters who lost the last two elections for the presidency!) such as building walls and deporting eleven million people.
47
Given the Republicans in Congress will oppose any reasonable effort to pass progressive legislation, that Bernie Sanders has little chance to pass his agenda is besides the point. The constant drone in the media that he "can't accomplish his goals" if elected is merely a red herring from conservatives which demonstrates how they wish to continue to hold the country hostage until progressives accede to their demands, which usually involves more tax cuts for the rich, cutting government till it is ineffective, and pushing a conservative social agenda. Of course a conservative president could accomplish those goals with the current Congress, but are those reactionary objectives our only option? Mr. Nyhan's focus on how the Democrats will be unable to pass their goals in the face of this kind of opposition demonstrates either his insincerity or his complete lack of understanding as to just how far the Republicans will go to stop any progressive idea from the left.
37
If a Democratic presidential candidate can win by 7% as Obama did in 2008, then she or he should have big enough coattails for the Dems to retake Congress. The Democrats enjoyed a 76-seat majority in the House the following term, as well as at least a 59-41 majority in the Senate. In 2012, with a weaker majority, Obama could not carry the House with him, and given the Republican gerrymanders in several key states, the Dems would be unlikely to take a 76-seat majority anytime soon. But they don't need 76 more seats than the Republicans to get the majority. If the electoral winds go in the Democrats' favor, particularly if the Republicans ask a clown like Trump or Carson to lead them, both houses of Congress could be up for grabs.
16
It is impossible to negotiate with someone deep in mental illness. Doesn't get very far. The House right now consists of a lot of people who think compromise is evil and this is coupled with inexperience: over 50% of the House consists of members with 3 terms or less in Congress. Most of those who insist on blocking everything Obama wants arrived after the 2010 and '12 elections.
The newer members, the radicals, have a delusional belief that they are empowered by the voters to fundamentally transform the national govt. by tearing it down, lowering taxes (again) on the wealthy, repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood and, when those small jobs are done, working on social issues like abortion and stopping undocumented immigration. These people are ambitious to a degree that far outweighs their numbers.
When you have a stand-off, one side must stand down, give in a bit and both sides must compromise. Sooner or later, reality will be faced. A "grand bargain" between the Congress and the president would be a private agreement to open up the process on Capitol Hill to allow votes to be taken, to allow Democrats and some Republicans to craft legislation they could both support. The next president could say, "I'll get 60% of what I want and you'll get 40% of what you want. Deal?"
For the last 4+yrs., there has been no one who could make that deal with Obama. When both sides come to understand they can't get anything done without the other, arrangements will be made.
The newer members, the radicals, have a delusional belief that they are empowered by the voters to fundamentally transform the national govt. by tearing it down, lowering taxes (again) on the wealthy, repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood and, when those small jobs are done, working on social issues like abortion and stopping undocumented immigration. These people are ambitious to a degree that far outweighs their numbers.
When you have a stand-off, one side must stand down, give in a bit and both sides must compromise. Sooner or later, reality will be faced. A "grand bargain" between the Congress and the president would be a private agreement to open up the process on Capitol Hill to allow votes to be taken, to allow Democrats and some Republicans to craft legislation they could both support. The next president could say, "I'll get 60% of what I want and you'll get 40% of what you want. Deal?"
For the last 4+yrs., there has been no one who could make that deal with Obama. When both sides come to understand they can't get anything done without the other, arrangements will be made.
4
The Republicans are also avoiding a hard question: How exactly would Donald Trump or his rivals pass the programs and proposals they advocate?
The Democrats are very likely to maintain sufficient seats in the Senate to filibuster legislation to repeal Obamacare and replace it with tax credits for the individual purchase of insurance; they would also be able to filibuster the tax reforms that greatly increase the wealth of the top 1%.
Given the power of the Democrats in the Senate, what the Republican candidates are after is to exercise power via executive action, especially in foreign policy, and to make appointments for any vacancies in the Supreme Court. They too are not directly talking about that reality.
Probably 70% of voters understand that under our current polarized system the Presidency has limited power, and presidential candidates have little chance of enacting their proposals. American government will be gridlocked until climate change has many coastal cities knee-deep in sea water.
The Democrats are very likely to maintain sufficient seats in the Senate to filibuster legislation to repeal Obamacare and replace it with tax credits for the individual purchase of insurance; they would also be able to filibuster the tax reforms that greatly increase the wealth of the top 1%.
Given the power of the Democrats in the Senate, what the Republican candidates are after is to exercise power via executive action, especially in foreign policy, and to make appointments for any vacancies in the Supreme Court. They too are not directly talking about that reality.
Probably 70% of voters understand that under our current polarized system the Presidency has limited power, and presidential candidates have little chance of enacting their proposals. American government will be gridlocked until climate change has many coastal cities knee-deep in sea water.
36
Regardless of whether Bernie wins the nomination, he has already built the foundation for "the revolution". As we get closer to election day I believe many other progressive candidates at the federal, state and local levels will be able to advance as a result and this will begin to tip the balance of power in Congress back (into reality).
39
Yes, hopefully, we Democrats have learned the lesson about voting in the midterms. Whoever is nominated for President is likely to use the bully pulpit to push this theme.
1
"Bernie Sanders resorted to implausible claims about a vast political revolution..."
Sadly, it's our only hope. Yes, it will be impossible to get reform legliation through a Congress artificially overloaded with conservative and radical GOP members thanks to gerrymandering and voter suppression. (Plus "centrist," corporatist Democrats.)
In the '30s, people took to the streets behind reform and radical movements. They gave FDR the cover to do what he did, and the right Congress to go along. Bernie is proposing a short of in-house third force to pressure Congress from the outside.
It might work. Certainly it's better than waiting for radical and fascist demagogues to show up as they did in the '30s to gather desperate people behind them.
We haven't had the demagogues yet because all the New Deal income stabilizers haven't been undone -- yet. If Sander's civic-minded third force doesn't come to pass, we may regret it later when other, darker forces rise. Yes, much darker than our hot-house radical Republicans.
Sadly, it's our only hope. Yes, it will be impossible to get reform legliation through a Congress artificially overloaded with conservative and radical GOP members thanks to gerrymandering and voter suppression. (Plus "centrist," corporatist Democrats.)
In the '30s, people took to the streets behind reform and radical movements. They gave FDR the cover to do what he did, and the right Congress to go along. Bernie is proposing a short of in-house third force to pressure Congress from the outside.
It might work. Certainly it's better than waiting for radical and fascist demagogues to show up as they did in the '30s to gather desperate people behind them.
We haven't had the demagogues yet because all the New Deal income stabilizers haven't been undone -- yet. If Sander's civic-minded third force doesn't come to pass, we may regret it later when other, darker forces rise. Yes, much darker than our hot-house radical Republicans.
61
In the 30s, the Democrats had huge majorities in the House and Senate, nearly 70%. This was immensely useful to Roosevelt, but even so the Democrats in congress refused to pass some of his proposed legislation.
1
How do the Democrats advance their goals:
First, get a Democrat elected as President and at least 50 senators.
Second, when the vacancies occur on the Supreme Court, nominate progressive (and hopefully young) Justices, and, if needed, go nuclear in the Senate and eliminate the 60 vote rule.
Third, let the new Court get rid of Citizens United, restore the Voting Rights Act, etc.
First, get a Democrat elected as President and at least 50 senators.
Second, when the vacancies occur on the Supreme Court, nominate progressive (and hopefully young) Justices, and, if needed, go nuclear in the Senate and eliminate the 60 vote rule.
Third, let the new Court get rid of Citizens United, restore the Voting Rights Act, etc.
61
While a legitimate question, this piece is excessively pessimistic.
First, we are already seeing the pressures with the Republican Party to cease wholesale obstruction. No one knows how (or if) the GOP will be able to overcome their internal dysfunction but it looks increasingly likely that this hurdle will be overcome by the majority of reasonable Republicans seeking to govern aligning with Democrats to pass legislation with majority support. (How revolutionary!) And, if so, exactly what is the Tea Party pitch for re-election? "Vote for me again so I can fail to achieve anything you want"?
Second, the reality of a 3rd consecutive loss of the popular vote -- that would be 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections -- and statistically a likely 4th in 2020 with a second term -- has an ability to concentrate the mind of even the most obstinate politician.
Finally, much of the Democratic agenda is supported by large majorities of the public. Indeed, in some instances by a majority of Republicans. That doesn't guarantee success of course (look at gun safety legislation) but it makes the situation somewhat less dire than this piece would lead one to think.
First, we are already seeing the pressures with the Republican Party to cease wholesale obstruction. No one knows how (or if) the GOP will be able to overcome their internal dysfunction but it looks increasingly likely that this hurdle will be overcome by the majority of reasonable Republicans seeking to govern aligning with Democrats to pass legislation with majority support. (How revolutionary!) And, if so, exactly what is the Tea Party pitch for re-election? "Vote for me again so I can fail to achieve anything you want"?
Second, the reality of a 3rd consecutive loss of the popular vote -- that would be 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections -- and statistically a likely 4th in 2020 with a second term -- has an ability to concentrate the mind of even the most obstinate politician.
Finally, much of the Democratic agenda is supported by large majorities of the public. Indeed, in some instances by a majority of Republicans. That doesn't guarantee success of course (look at gun safety legislation) but it makes the situation somewhat less dire than this piece would lead one to think.
13
Yes, Republicans can continue to block all progress until the judiciary ages out enough to get actual judges and not partisans appointed as federal judges. At that point, the Gerrymandering nonsense can be challenged successfully, as can the foul Citizen's United decision.
Another way to generate progress is to get more people to vote despite the barriers to likely Democratic voters. Those who believe that getting a copy of a birth certificate is too hard to register to vote need to be convinced (or convince themselves) that it is not. (Of course, the next step for Republicans will be to de-fund the evil government folks who issue birth certificates--especially in brown counties.) I wounder if the cry "they want to take away your birth control" can persuade several million young women, parents, boyfriends, husbands, grandmothers, and grandfathers who care about their adult and late teen children to register and vote.
It is probably hopeless to ask that people simply refuse to support the "party of wrong", that demands an obviously false set of beliefs (no climate change, austerity generates prosperity, all government is bad, trickle down works, more money for rich people does more good than more money for non-rich, sex-scandal encumbered old men make the better dictate choices for women than they themselves do ...). However, I can hope.
Another way to generate progress is to get more people to vote despite the barriers to likely Democratic voters. Those who believe that getting a copy of a birth certificate is too hard to register to vote need to be convinced (or convince themselves) that it is not. (Of course, the next step for Republicans will be to de-fund the evil government folks who issue birth certificates--especially in brown counties.) I wounder if the cry "they want to take away your birth control" can persuade several million young women, parents, boyfriends, husbands, grandmothers, and grandfathers who care about their adult and late teen children to register and vote.
It is probably hopeless to ask that people simply refuse to support the "party of wrong", that demands an obviously false set of beliefs (no climate change, austerity generates prosperity, all government is bad, trickle down works, more money for rich people does more good than more money for non-rich, sex-scandal encumbered old men make the better dictate choices for women than they themselves do ...). However, I can hope.
5
Two thoughts:
1. Since the FDR era, keeping the Presidency in the same party for three terms straight has been the exception, not the rule. Odds are we have a Republican president next, and since Harry Reid gutted the filibuster rules in the Senate, the next President will be able to enact all or nearly of his or her agenda.
2. Hillary Clinton will have no difficulty working with a Republican Congress. She is about (a) power and (b) herself. She is not about to shackle her shot at history to minority Congressional Democrats. She will want to make her mark, and she will concede what she needs to, to the Republican Congress to get her way on what she wants to achieve.
1. Since the FDR era, keeping the Presidency in the same party for three terms straight has been the exception, not the rule. Odds are we have a Republican president next, and since Harry Reid gutted the filibuster rules in the Senate, the next President will be able to enact all or nearly of his or her agenda.
2. Hillary Clinton will have no difficulty working with a Republican Congress. She is about (a) power and (b) herself. She is not about to shackle her shot at history to minority Congressional Democrats. She will want to make her mark, and she will concede what she needs to, to the Republican Congress to get her way on what she wants to achieve.
2
My view: People can't be too tired of a Democratic presidency yet because, basically, Obama hasn't run one. Obama is a principled conservative, pitching plans that the GOP might have signed off on 20 years ago.
Sanders is the only one pitching something that people over 50 might recognize as an actual Democratic platform.
Sanders is the only one pitching something that people over 50 might recognize as an actual Democratic platform.
4
I make that out as one thought (labeled "2.").
The first one appears to be an attempt at humor. Do you really think Donald Trump*is going to beat Hilary Clinton in the general election?
*Or fill in the blank with whom you think is going to somehow unseat him in the primary. Don't think he "can't win the nomination", after all how could that darling of the right, Cantor, lose? Those Republican primary voters have their own reality.
The first one appears to be an attempt at humor. Do you really think Donald Trump*is going to beat Hilary Clinton in the general election?
*Or fill in the blank with whom you think is going to somehow unseat him in the primary. Don't think he "can't win the nomination", after all how could that darling of the right, Cantor, lose? Those Republican primary voters have their own reality.
The same question must also be put to the Republicans. The ability to block the legislative agenda of any President, even from the minority position, is part of the design of The Constitution as well as the rules of both House and Senate.
The presumption of this article that any of the RNC candidates can execute their agenda without resistance is laughable.
The reality is that neither side can be guaranteed a smooth path to their legislative agenda regardless the outcome of the 2016 elections.
The presumption of this article that any of the RNC candidates can execute their agenda without resistance is laughable.
The reality is that neither side can be guaranteed a smooth path to their legislative agenda regardless the outcome of the 2016 elections.
8
"a vast political revolution scaring the opposition into agreement before quickly moving on"
Well, the strong Republican showing in the last Congressional election doesn't seem to have scared Obama into agreement.
Well, the strong Republican showing in the last Congressional election doesn't seem to have scared Obama into agreement.
6
The "strong" Republican showing in the last Congressional election was based on a voter turn out of 37%. Actually the low voter turn out is in itself the only scary part.
52
2014 mid terms had 2 notable results. One, the elections were the most expensive in the history of mid terms. Two, the voter turnout was the lowest since 1942, a war year at that!
Dems have more problems in our own camp than to worry about a so-called "strong showing" for the Repubs.
Voting should be mandated by law. This is ridiculous.
Dems have more problems in our own camp than to worry about a so-called "strong showing" for the Repubs.
Voting should be mandated by law. This is ridiculous.
8
@Spitzer, Jack - The turnout was low in states with noncompetitive elections. Where the voting was close, it was quite high for a midterm.
Yes, a democratic victory will just mean that Clinton will be able to slow the bleeding. Any hopes for a cure are illusory. Still, that's something. A stalemate is preferable to a rout.
Although, there may be a small chance the next president can achieve more, because she will not be black. Clinton is certainly not popular in Red America, but supposedly nobody will suggest that she is a muslim socialist or ask for her birth certificate.
Although, there may be a small chance the next president can achieve more, because she will not be black. Clinton is certainly not popular in Red America, but supposedly nobody will suggest that she is a muslim socialist or ask for her birth certificate.
11
The GOP will beat up Hillary because she is a woman. Which will blow up in the GOPers' faces. Mostly because they are stupid.
But Hillary is a woman with strong arms. She will be more than ready to redden the bottoms of the recalcitrant GOPers. Remember, she is the one who said "vast right wing conspiracy." Hillary has not forgotten.
But Hillary is a woman with strong arms. She will be more than ready to redden the bottoms of the recalcitrant GOPers. Remember, she is the one who said "vast right wing conspiracy." Hillary has not forgotten.
Hillary, like Obama, she will support the status quo. Nothing new will come from her.
Our model should be floor debate in Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan.
1
What Congress does when faced with such a mandate is not something they have to explain.
Again, I am assuming when I say this that these candidates will really run on an issue or couple of issues! I am sure that Sanders is running that way. I am also sure that Walker was too. I am not sure about every candidate on this score.