Jump to content

U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

If Sanders does wind up getting the nomination (my money's still on Clinton), there's also the question of VP. Does Sanders seek to burnish (or Bernish?) his populist credentials by going with someone like Warren, or does he go for someone to the Right, for balance purposes (not Clinton herself, presumably, since she'd never accept, but there's no shortage of alternatives there)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump with double digit leads in both S.C. and Nevada. I see no way the Republican field will catch him. He owns a Casino in Vegas and has employed folks in Vegas making nice wages, those voters are likely to vote their wallets and brand recognition in what is de facto home turf for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, koudoulis said:

So can sanders win or is it a done deal? And for the republicans? I woke up to a glorious trump speech , not that it wasnt fun but it left me a little bit uncertain on humanitys future

If Sanders had lost or even won a narrow victory, it would be over, but as things stand, he still has some measure of hope. If he can somehow win or at least keep things close in Nevada or South Carolina, he may have a chance. His other opportunity is that Clinton may still be indicted over the emails. If that happens, then all bets are off.

For the Republicans, I think this has gone about as well as it could go for Trump. It's not so much that he won (that was crucial, but widely expected), but that Cruz and Rubio placed 3rd and 5th and Trump beat them by a factor of 3 (or by 20%+ if you prefer). People made much of Trump's loss in Iowa, but he only lost by 3% and only got 1 less delegate than Cruz. His victory in New Hampshire is much more decisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Triskan said:

The so-called Establishment really needed to coalesce around one guy to take on Trump.  Whoops.

Agreed, but why would folks who held off when Trump was just a popular loudmouth commit when he's a winning candidate with delegates? Clearly, Republican elites are wary of Trump, and at this point the window of viability for rallying around an anti-Trump is closing. Honestly, I don't know what stops The Donald, I really don't.

BTW, I don't think we've heard the last of Jeb! He's got tons of money, lots of endorsements, and an organization in South Carolina and Nevada. He can go the distance, and I would not be surprised to see him employ the same kind of character assassination against Rubio that his brother used so nastily against John McCain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

BTW, I don't think we've heard the last of Jeb! He's got tons of money, lots of endorsements, and an organization in South Carolina and Nevada. He can go the distance, and I would not be surprised to see him employ the same kind of character assassination against Rubio that his brother used so nastily against John McCain.

Yes... but people have made it abundantly clear that they don't want to vote for him. He got 6th place with less than 3% of the vote in Iowa and 4th place with 11% in New Hampshire. He's currently polling at around 10% (so probably 4th place again) in South Carolina and 5% (even worse) in Nevada. He has already spent tons of money (around $60M according to the WSJ) and it's gotten him absolutely nowhere. He will no doubt keep trying, but all he's really accomplishing is dividing the vote to make things easier for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably, the thinking would be that people may not want to vote for Jeb, but some of them might have to, if he's the last man standing as an alternative to Cruz or Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not at all clear to me that if the field winnows to one 'establishment' candidate against Trump that Trump wouldn't win in that situation anyway. He won across the board last night- every demographic and ideological grouping. Plus 2/3 of voters support his ban on Muslims traveling to the US. More candidates dropping out is likely to push Trump over 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lokisnow said:

 

Here is a thought.

If Clinton or sanders is the nominee and is elected, they will face a hor controlled by republicans, and there's about a seventy percent chance they will have a senate controlled by republicans (most of their win possibility is not in flipping the chamber proper, but having the veep tie breaker as bush did in his first term).

What does it mean, then, how they will govern? They will govern largely the same in terms of appointments and bureaucracy controlled by the executive branch and both maintain the Obama status quo n this respect.

however Clinton would pass a lot more legislation than sanders because she'd be willing to compromise to get the merest scrap of a concession. This outcome has tons of right wing legislation passed that is mediocrely watered down and occasionally features a classic Clinton progressive item like putting alimony and child support ahead of other creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. She accomplishes nothing of her agenda but successfully enacts weak versions of the majority of the republican agenda and the democrat base is completely infuriated that she's an even more betrayal oriented compromiser of their principles and priorities than Obama ever managed. She is contested in 2020, and does not earn the nomination.

Sanders will likely refuse to compromise, and since he has chosen not to include any other legislators running on his agenda he gets to congress rather isolated and like carter is able to accomplish very little. Ultimately, the electorate is totally disenchanted with him after a "do nothing" first year completely drains all his political capital he spends most of his term with dire approval ratings in the mid thirties and he doesn't even run in 2020.

Tie breaker, sanders probably cannot get his 2017 replacement of Breyer appointed by a senate that is 50/50 but Clinton, going risk averse right away, would be willing to appoint the equivalent of a democrat Anthony Kennedy and make the court a little more conservative a little bit more swingy and "preserve" the seat. On the other hand, after sanders attempted extreme left wing justice equivalent goes down in flames, he probably appoints a stalwart democrat who is almost exactly like Breyer, and like the Ginsberg appointment in the 90s is already much older than the norm for appointed justices. This appointment sails through, the court goes through no change ultimately and democrats preserve the seat.

The lesson of miers/alito, after all, is that a president can successfully appoint a fairly partisan candidate if they first throw out a truly unacceptable candidate to soften up the reception for their actual desired appointment. Not that I think bush was that Machiavellian, nor do I think that sanders nor Clinton would take such a Machiavellian approach, but sanders is likely to stumble into the same scenario bush stumbled into and as a result of such blundering ultimately earn a better outcome for democrats.

(just added spoiler tags to make this easier to read, it really applies to you whole post)

I disagree.  If you look at his record in both the House and Senate, he found ways to get things done.  I am actually rather impressed by how much he accomplished in a Republican controlled Congress.

I really liked how this article laid it out

Despite the fact that the most right-wing Republicans in a generation controlled the House of Representatives between 1994 and 2006, the member who passed the most amendments during that time was not a right-winger like Bob Barr or John Boehner. The amendment king was, instead, Bernie Sanders.

Sanders did something particularly original, which was that he passed amendments that were exclusively progressive, advancing goals such as reducing poverty and helping the environment, and he was able to get bipartisan coalitions of Republicans who wanted to shrink government or hold it accountable and progressives who wanted to use it to empower Americans.

Sanders is probably not so unsure of himself. After all, he's done it before. When Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vermont, one of his big accomplishments was to increase civic life in the city. During the course of his terms, voter turnout doubled. In his eight years as mayor, he rejuvenated a city that was considered by many to be dying, laying out progressive policies that cities around the country later adopted, and he did all this without particularly alienating Republicans.

I honestly don't see him completely ineffective.  I don't think he'll be able to accomplish everything, but he will make progress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zaid Jillaini has a really bad habit of neglecting certain things that hurt his argument. For instance, he leaves out that not all those bills became law.
 And he doesn't really mention the current makeup of congress when they passed. Alternet is not what I'd describe as a source of journalistic integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lokisnow said:

 

What does it mean, then, how they will govern? They will govern largely the same in terms of appointments and bureaucracy controlled by the executive branch and both maintain the Obama status quo n this respect.

I disagree with this- there is quite a bit that can be done with an activist executive (although there are some yuuuge limits), that we could get from a Sanders administration but not Clinton. For examples, see Elizabeth Warren's reports on non-enforcement of labor standards in trade deals and weak punishment of corporate crime. Sanders could also try to break up 'too big to fail' banks under Section 121 of Dodd-Frank, but he'd need to get the Fed on board so it would be tough. There's a case (made by a frequent Sanders critic), though, that he could significantly influence Fed policy in other areas through a couple of appointees and by giving political cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lightysnake88 said:

Zaid Jillaini has a really bad habit of neglecting certain things that hurt his argument. For instance, he leaves out that not all those bills became law.
 And he doesn't really mention the current makeup of congress when they passed. Alternet is not what I'd describe as a source of journalistic integrity.

No one gets all the bills they sponser passed. (but the ones mentioned there did pass). [and the dates are on the admendments, and the only time during the period that Dems controlled the House was 2007-2010]

The main point I was tryin to refute does hold: He has built coalilitions and worked with others to get things done. lokisnow didn't think he would compromise or work with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Why haven't Fiorina and Christie dropped out?  What are they possibly waiting for?  Neither has managed even a top 5 finish in either New Hampshire or Iowa. 

I think Fiorina is hoping to buy out one of the smaller campaigns and lay off half their staff, then claim it as an example of fiscally responsible leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

That's a question that requires research I'm not interested in conducting, so I'll pass on that one. However, it's interesting to note that Bernie himself has flipped on gay rights when the political atmosphere allowed it, and this does not bother me in the slightest. Politicians always shape their message to suit the electorate, and Sanders is no exception.

Also, I don't necessarily want a politician who never changes her mind. I've changed my mind in twenty years; why would I expect anything different from my elected officials? Also, I know I would hate to be judged by opinions I changed ten years ago. Great Zeus.

I'd encourage you to do the research at some point. My guess is she won't be making it into the updated version of Profiles in Courage.

There is nothing wrong with a politician changing their position on an issue. In fact, it can be a healthy thing. But with Clinton, I personally feel she changes her positions for political expediency, not because she has a change in values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Presumably, the thinking would be that people may not want to vote for Jeb, but some of them might have to, if he's the last man standing as an alternative to Cruz or Trump.

I'll bet that is just what Bush is thinking, as evidenced by his plan to knife Rubio and Kasich. The only way that makes sense if is Jeb! figures that, by putting Kasich and Marcobot out of the way, he'll be the sole establishment candidate, to whom all Republicans must then flock. I'm not sure it will work that way, but I'd rather the Democrat ran against him than Kasich or Rubio, so, fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd encourage you to do the research at some point. My guess is she won't be making it into the updated version of Profiles in Courage.

There is nothing wrong with a politician changing their position on an issue. In fact, it can be a healthy thing. But with Clinton, I personally feel she changes her positions for political expediency, not because she has a change in values.

Plus, all other things being equal, if you have a choice between someone who recently changed their position in order to support something that you think is good, when it's become broadly popular with the Democratic base, and between someone who held that same position, as a matter of principle, long before it became broadly popular with the Democratic base - who would you rather pick? 

Sanders was right on DOMA, right on opposing Bill Clinton's welfare reform, right on opposing Bill Clinton's "tough on crime" doubling down on the sentencing disparities on crack vs. powder cocaine, etc. 

And he was right about these things back when being right wasn't popular with the Democratic party because Bill and Hillary were triangulating the party far to the right. That shows character and principle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a question. At least over here, it's reported that New Hampshire was a big win for Sanders, still (according to HuffPost) with four delegates undecided, Hillary (15) have two more delegates from NH than Sanders (13). Doesn't appear to be too much of a win for Sanders, even with 60% of the votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Iceman of the North said:

Just a question. At least over here, it's reported that New Hampshire was a big win for Sanders, still (according to HuffPost) with four delegates undecided, Hillary (15) have two more delegates from NH than Sanders (13). Doesn't appear to be too much of a win for Sanders, even with 60% of the votes.

The actual delegate counts are, at this point in time, basically irrelevant. This is all optics, posturing, trying to sell the best narrative and, of course, reading the tea leaves. 

This is a "big" win for Sanders, in large part, because he overperformed expectations in demographic groups that were expected to break in Clinton's favor, including the middle-aged, women, and self-described moderates. The real question is whether he can show similar gains with minority voters to reduce the strong lead that Clinton has with them. If he can, Clinton might be in some trouble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...