US Politics -- Where Candidates Fall like Leaves

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It may be that even with a majority in the House and Senate the Reps will not find the votes to repeal all those things.  But I submit that this is not where the attack on those rights and laws will come from.  It only takes a few, unelected fanatics to file a law suit tailored to get to SCOTUS.  And a one judge shift would be all it took to get rid of ACA, abortions, etc.  Hell they have already gutted the 1st & 3rd through 8th amendment, and the equal voting rights law, amongst other important laws and rights.

How do you see the base's reaction going when they have unilateral control of the government and their elected officials don't do what they've been promising them for years?

And the Notorious RBG has to retire sooner than later. A 6-3 conservative majority could be devastating.

[BloodRider]

How do you see the base's reaction going when they have unilateral control of the government and their elected officials don't do what they've been promising them for years?

More spurious lawsuits.

[Bonesy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-elle-interview-111281

I doubt she has any plans to retire in the next four years..

Yes, she's 81, but the leading cause of mortality I believe is heart disease and likely would have occurred by now?

[TrackerNeil]

I understand what you're saying, and in normal times I would agree with everything you said. These aren't normal times though. Please address my hypothetical:

The rabid base, and not the traditional establishment types, will be picking the nominee. Every poll I've seen over the last 6 months indicate that a large majority of the base believes:

1. The main reason they lost to Obama in both elections is because the nominee wasn't a true conservative, and didn't fight for true conservative ideas/principles.

2. They overwhelmingly dislike/do not trust Republican Congressional leadership, and if they fail to act should they gain unilateral power then they most be replaced.

3. If they keep failing us, they will be primaried.

You need to view things from the base politics perspective in the near term, as that is what completely drives politics at the moment on the right.

 

Also, I think it's a mistake to compare what GWB tried to do with repealing the ACA. One was popular, the other, not so much.

I agree that the threat of a primary is a potent one, but that does not mean that someone like Lisa Murkowski is going to vote away money from tens of thousands of her constituents. What it likely means is that she'll try to oppose the ACA enough to fend off a primary challenger but not so much that she ticks off her exchange-using constituents.

[Paladin of Ice]

How do you see the base's reaction going when they have unilateral control of the government and their elected officials don't do what they've been promising them for years?

And the Notorious RBG has to retire sooner than later. A 6-3 conservative majority could be devastating.

There's very likely to be much more turnover than just Notorious in the next 8-12 years. 4 Justices are at least 77 years old, (RBG is 82, Scalia is a couple of months away from 80, Kennedy is 79 and Breyer 77) and Alito and Thomas are both in their mid to late 60s (65 and 67, respectively) which isn't all that old but it's certainly old enough for one's physical health to start developing issues. Add on another 8-12 years and who knows if they'll still be serving at that point.

[TrackerNeil]

There's very likely to be much more turnover than just Notorious in the next 8-12 years. 4 Justices are at least 77 years old, (RBG is 82, Scalia is a couple of months away from 80, Kennedy is 79 and Breyer 77) and Alito and Thomas are both in their mid to late 60s (65 and 67, respectively) which isn't all that old but it's certainly old enough for one's physical health to start developing issues. Add on another 8-12 years and who knows if they'll still be serving at that point.

Yup. It is super-important that we get another Democrat in the White House. It's the difference between liberals taking over the Supreme Court or cementing conservative control for the next 10-20 years.

[Kelli Fury]

RBG isn't going to retire until she's dead I'm sure, that woman is a force and she knows how important her voice is.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

More spurious lawsuits.

And when that's not good enough?

I agree that the threat of a primary is a potent one, but that does not mean that someone like Lisa Murkowski is going to vote away money from tens of thousands of her constituents. What it likely means is that she'll try to oppose the ACA enough to fend off a primary challenger but not so much that she ticks off her exchange-using constituents.

You could be correct, and in normal times I'd be in agreement with everything you've said, but the base is foaming over the top. The inmates are running the asylum.

There's very likely to be much more turnover than just Notorious in the next 8-12 years. 4 Justices are at least 77 years old, (RBG is 82, Scalia is a couple of months away from 80, Kennedy is 79 and Breyer 77) and Alito and Thomas are both in their mid to late 60s (65 and 67, respectively) which isn't all that old but it's certainly old enough for one's physical health to start developing issues. Add on another 8-12 years and who knows if they'll still be serving at that point.

I didn't realize so many were at or nearing 80. Scalia will have to die to be removed from the bench. The man lives to be a judicial curmudgeon.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

My prediction has finally come true:  Bobby Jindal is dropping out

[Horza]

Does this mean Christie and Huckabee go back to the main stage or does Rand or Jeb get pulled down to the kids table?

[Bonesy]

That is a really good question.

I think Christie and Huckabee will be pressured to bow out to avoid this conundrum.

If they do not, I suspect more than just Paul gets relegated. And I doubt Bush will be one of them.

I predict Trump, Carson, Rubio, and Bush will remain at the big kids table.

[Shryke]

I disagree, and I'll cite an example in support. Back in 2005, when GWB was still flying high on his reelection success, he proposed to "spend his political capital" by pressing for a privatization of Social Security. (You remember that, right?) So he spend a good bit of time traveling around the nation, using "the bully pulpit" to promote his idea. You know what happened? The proposal, which had roughly 55% disapproval, got even less popular, and by the end of Dubya's little jaunt had risen to nearly 70%. The filibuster didn't protect Social Security; Bush couldn't find a single Republican willing to sponsor a bill on Congress! The proposal failed because it would have taken away benefits from many Americans (particularly middle-class white Americans), and even conservatives are loath to do that. So parliamentary tricks don't protect social welfare programs; public support does that quite nicely.

So let's say that next year Republicans take unified control of DC. Do you really think that President Rubio's first act will be to sign a bill stripping health insurance from 17 million Americans?  Fat chance, I say, and history agrees with me. And do you really think Republicans are going to undo the DOMA repeal, which back in 2010 was polling with two-thirds support? Or end immigration protections for the fastest-growing demographic in the nation? Not only would that doom a Republican president, but Republican governors are going to scream bloody murder. It would be an electoral disaster, and I doubt few if any of those proposals would find much support in Congress.

I'm not saying Republicans couldn't do harm with a filibuster-less Senate, but your doom-and-gloom predictions are, I think, largely fantastic.

I think you are both right and wrong here. While the GOP may not be able to attack these programs directly (or maybe they will cause who the fuck knows with the GOP these days), they can very easily use their position of power to undermine them really really badly. I mean, it's what they've been doing already with less power anyway.

They can also take control of the SCOTUS for a generation if they win next term and use that to do the same kind of thing. Which they've been doing already as well. And at that point they'd control all 3 branches of government.

Look at the way they've shit on workers rights or elections or abortion these past many years. They could be doing alot more without a veto in the way and with the SCOTUS firmly on their side.

[TrackerNeil]

I think you are both right and wrong here. While the GOP may not be able to attack these programs directly (or maybe they will cause who the fuck knows with the GOP these days), they can very easily use their position of power to undermine them really really badly. I mean, it's what they've been doing already with less power anyway.

Oh, sure, they'll snip away here and there, but a direct assault? They just don't do it. Hell, two years ago they wouldn't even take Obama up on his offer to work with them on chained CPI. The GOP won't go after programs that benefit middle-class white people, particularly the elderly, because that is their base. 

As to SCOTUS, I don't know if the filibuster prevents the GOP from putting arch-conservatives in place anyway. It didn't stop John Roberts or Sam Alito. Hell, it didn't stop Clarence-frickin'-Thomas, the most controversial nomination in modern history.

[Fez]

That is a really good question.

 

I think Christie and Huckabee will be pressured to bow out to avoid this conundrum.

 

If they do not, I suspect more than just Paul gets relegated. And I doubt Bush will be one of them.

 

I predict Trump, Carson, Rubio, and Bush will remain at the big kids table.

It depends on whether the networks change their criteria for being included at the main debates. So long as it remains something like "average of at least 2.5% support in the past 5 national polls," most of candidates will still make it to the big table. But now that the field seems to be mostly consolidating to Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush, maybe they'll change the criteria. At the same time though, in the state-specific polls, depending on the state and the poll, Kasich, Christie, Paul, and Fiorina sometimes are doing as well or better than Cruz, Rubio, and Bush; so its difficult to completely right them off yet.

Even Huckabee and Santorum still can cling to the faint hope that if Carson and Cruz implode*, the evangelics need to vote for someone, and it might very well be them. Its only Graham, Pataki, and Gilmore who have absolutely no potential path at this point.

What it really comes down to is fundraising though. So long as candidates are raising enough to stay out of debt, there's no need for them to drop out at this point. Not all the candidates are independently wealthy enough that campaign debt is something they can just ignore; that's one of the reasons Walker dropped out so early.

Here's a chart of where all the candidates stood in terms of campaign cash-on-hand as of Sept. 30. It doesn't include super PAC support, but those can't do things like pay for campaign staff or events. Going off that, I'd say Santorum will be the next to go (Pataki doesn't actually do anything besides show up the early debates, so expenses aren't a problem; and Trump is so low only because he self-finances as needed rather than storing money in his campaign in advance.

*Its starting to look like we're currently in the midst of the Carson implosion and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Cruz starting to be in second place in the polls behind Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Oh, sure, they'll snip away here and there, but a direct assault? They just don't do it. Hell, two years ago they wouldn't even take Obama up on his offer to work with them on chained CPI. The GOP won't go after programs that benefit middle-class white people, particularly the elderly, because that is their base. 

As to SCOTUS, I don't know if the filibuster prevents the GOP from putting arch-conservatives in place anyway. It didn't stop John Roberts or Sam Alito. Hell, it didn't stop Clarence-frickin'-Thomas, the most controversial nomination in modern history.

Oh yes they will. They just package it as, "We won't touch your benefits, we'll just take them away from your grandchildren."

My generation is going to have to pay for everything and will likely not get any of the benefits.

[TrackerNeil]

Oh yes they will. They just package it as, "We won't touch your benefits, we'll just take them away from your grandchildren."

That's what GWB said in 2005--his plan did not affect benefits for current or near-retirees--and it still went over like a lead balloon. Americans like Social Security, and the GOP therefore won't touch it.

[Ormond]

Oh yes they will. They just package it as, "We won't touch your benefits, we'll just take them away from your grandchildren."

My generation is going to have to pay for everything and will likely not get any of the benefits.

That's basically how they have already been trying to package it. I don't think any right-wing proposal about Social Security has ever proposed substantially reducing benefits for those already receiving them or even for those within a decade or so of retirement. But that hasn't worked for them so far -- most people really DO care about their grandchildren, after all. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

That's what GWB said in 2005--his plan did not affect benefits for current or near-retirees--and it still went over like a lead balloon. Americans like Social Security, and the GOP therefore won't touch it.

They keep talking about it. It's not a dead issue. Every Republican presidential candidate except Trump has advocated for changing SS in some way.

That's basically how they have already been trying to package it. I don't think any right-wing proposal about Social Security has ever proposed substantially reducing benefits for those already receiving them or even for those within a decade or so of retirement. But that hasn't worked for them so far -- most people really DO care about their grandchildren, after all. 

Again, they're still pushing for it. Practically everyone I know in their 20's does not think SS will be there for us when it's time for us to retire. But we will still pay for it for most of our lives.

Edit:

The entire Reagan through Clinton era can be summed up as "mortgage tomorrow for a better today."

And older citizens care about the younger generation the same way Walmart shoppers care about slavery. When asked outside of the store if they were OK with paying less for products made by pseudo slaves they always say, "Of course not, that's horrible." And then they walk right into the store without a second thought.

[TrackerNeil]

They keep talking about it. It's not a dead issue. Every Republican presidential candidate except Trump has advocated for changing SS in some way.

Again, they're still pushing for it. Practically everyone I know in their 20's does not think SS will be there for us when it's time for us to retire. But we will still pay for it for most of our lives.

People are still talking about unicorns, but I don't expect them to show up any time soon.

I don't know why people think Social Security is going somewhere. The program is fine, and if it hadn't been pillaged by Congress for other purposes, it would be more than fine. It will pay out at current levels until around 2036, and after that even if nothing is done it will pay at about two-thirds. There are many proposals for extending that time, none of which involve going into space or breaking into another dimension. The program is too popular for Congress too simply let it expire, regardless of what many think.

[Shryke]

When they will do with SS is increase the retirement age likely. That's the easiest sell.