Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
Defiant wrote:Eh? The Democrats were far less obstructing under Bush than the Republicans have been under Obama.LordMortis wrote:
The president has all the power when it's a republican president and democrats are obstructing and Congress has all the power with a Democratic president with a republican Congress obstructing. Puh-lease.
Less obstructive or less vocal or less effective. It seems to me every time we get into "Republican obstruction" talk we start reading how their obstruction was taken as an extension from the democratic playbook under Bush, when Clinton was a senator to boot. "Let the people decide" for supreme court nominations, for instance started as a democrats game.Defiant wrote:Eh? The Democrats were far less obstructing under Bush than the Republicans have been under Obama.LordMortis wrote:
The president has all the power when it's a republican president and democrats are obstructing and Congress has all the power with a Democratic president with a republican Congress obstructing. Puh-lease.
Defiant wrote:Less obstructive. There was plenty of bipartisan things that got passed (eg, education reform) or things that were pushed by Bush that democrats relented on (eg, Tax cuts).
I don't remember Bush as being great at reaching across the aisle. And my first memory of Obama's presidency after "we need to heal" was "Republicans, get in the back seat. It's me and the American people in the front seat."Maybe Bush was really good at reaching across the aisle, but considering how Obama gave plenty of overtures with regard to that (often giving up key points right from the onset rather than negotiation in order to try to win support across the aisle, or you know, nominating centrist justices) I don't think that was it.
Lots of which was probably during the first half of his first term (IIRC, that congress was unusually productive, and has been followed by very unproductive congresses).LordMortis wrote:
But Obama has got stuff passed.
My memory was that he tried to reach across the aisle only after he got frustrated because he was getting shot down by his own party. I fully admit my memory is not something that should be trusted.Defiant wrote:And yet, even though congress had a majority during that time, he also tried to reach across the aisle and didn't get much response from the other side (at least with regard to Obamacare, IIRC)
The big stuff, however, was mostly before the Republicans got control of the House in the 2010 elections (and subsequently the Senate) - mostly Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. The Tea Party base is incensed mostly because the Republicans have not yet repealed Obamacare (on account of Obama still holding the veto) and because they've essentially failed to undo the New Deal (again, veto). Other accomplishments since then are mostly stuff that's within unilateral executive power (e.g., the coal EPA regulations and Paris agreement, Iran agreement, etc.).LordMortis wrote:I don't remember Bush as being great at reaching across the aisle. And my first memory of Obama's presidency after "we need to heal" was "Republicans, get in the back seat. It's me and the American people in the front seat."Defiant wrote:Less obstructive. There was plenty of bipartisan things that got passed (eg, education reform) or things that were pushed by Bush that democrats relented on (eg, Tax cuts).
But Obama has got stuff passed. That's why "the base" are so pissed at McConnell and still the government shut downs the tea party have clamored for haven't happened and everybody keeps telling me that Obama has been the most effective president of in last 100 years and point me to link list of exactly how amazing his accomplishments are. I was just pointed to this last week:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/
Maybe Bush was really good at reaching across the aisle, but considering how Obama gave plenty of overtures with regard to that (often giving up key points right from the onset rather than negotiation in order to try to win support across the aisle, or you know, nominating centrist justices) I don't think that was it.
He did with Education. He also tried with immigration reform, IIRC. There are probably other examples.LordMortis wrote: I don't remember Bush as being great at reaching across the aisle.
Obama bent over backwards with regards to Obamacare, from what I remember, in order to try to get moderate Republicans to support it. Republicans pressured those moderates not to support it, so the Democrats went ahead and passed it without Republican support.And my first memory of Obama's presidency after "we need to heal" was "Republicans, get in the back seat. It's me and the American people in the front seat."
hepcat wrote:GOP Obstructionism in Five Charts
There we go. From your chartshepcat wrote:GOP Obstructionism in Five Charts
Bill Clinton implied it. Z ran with it. And I've been defending that I think it's puppies ever since.hepcat wrote:No one said it never happened with Democrats.
Now that I can support.But it's certainly true it's become ridiculous under the republicans.
Or at least, that was the justification that you gave to the authorities.hepcat wrote:If I see it jump from 7 to 27 in the same time span, I start shaving the head of every kid I see.
“Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?”
Has Bernie or his following even accused her of selling out to fossil fuel? I though it was common knowledge the Bernie supporters say it's the banks she's sold our soul to.I do not have... I ???? money from people that have worked for fossil fuel companies. I am so sick... I AM SO SICK of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I am sick of it.
linkHere's how it works:
Donors who are rich — and willing — can give $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 to the Democratic National Committee and $10,000 to each of the state parties, about $360,000 in all. A joint fundraising committee lets the donor do it all with a single check.
This, however, is very disappointing. (Even if the Greenpeace person didn't accuse her of thing Bernie apparently does)Defiant wrote:Fact checking the Clinton-Sanders spat over Big Oil contributions
Sanders claim gets three Pinocchios out of four
Point-by-point explanation at the link. You know this fellow is right because he's an assistant professor of English.1. Assume that Donald Trump will be the Republicans’ 2016 nominee, though it’s now clear he won’t be.
2. Nominate the only person who can reunite the Republican Party once Trump failing to get the nomination has fractured it beyond repair.
3. Fracture the Democratic Party by broadly supporting the Clinton camp’s attempts to smear Bernie Sanders and his supporters.
4. Fatally underestimate the electoral chances of the two men now most likely to be the Republican presidential nominee in November: Ted Cruz and John Kasich.
5. Fail to nominate their most popular candidate, in particular the one with the best chance of beating Ted Cruz or John Kasich in the fall.
6. Freeze one of the most popular Democrats nationally, Bernie Sanders, out of the picture altogether.
7. Reject Sanders’ call for a fifty-state general-election campaign.
8. Do nothing whatsoever to address outstanding concerns about the character, integrity, and judgment of the Party’s front-runner.
9. Over-rely on the national media to set the political narrative for the campaign season, further alienating voters who want to vote for a candidate with vision.
10. Ignore the youth vote.
Kraken wrote:
Point-by-point explanation at the link. You know this fellow is right because he's an assistant professor of English.
Also a 50 state strategy would be a dumb idea. You might also call it a "waste a lot of time and money in states that you'll never win" strategy.Defiant wrote:Kraken wrote:
Point-by-point explanation at the link. You know this fellow is right because he's an assistant professor of English.
The same one that had claimed Clinton's support among African Americans had collapsed.
I'll agree there are a few reasonable points in there, but most of it comes with a yugely pro-sanders, massively anti-clinton lens. Also, not sure Sanders has a 50 state strategy when his campaign claims (after the fact) that he didn't bother with some of the states he lost.
Electability is going to be my major criteria when CA finally gets to vote in the primary. I'm giddy at the fact that for once my primary vote might matter. I prefer Sanders over Clinton mostly because I don't want another Hawk escalating military conflicts around the world, but given the horror of a Trump or Cruz presidency I will hold my nose and vote for whoever has the better shot of preventing that outcome.El Guapo wrote:
I will say that ironically (given how Clinton was positioned going into the primaries) is that electability is my main concern with Clinton. I like her more than Sanders substantively, but her unfavorability rating is a concern. Of course, one could argue that Clinton's unfavorability is largely already "baked in", whereas Sanders hasn't yet endured the kind of attacks he'll take in the general, so his unfavorability would be likely to rise as he entered the general election. BUT that still leaves Clinton's unfavorability as more of a sure thing whereas Sanders will probably rise but by an unknown amount.
For a general election, yeah. There you really want to concentrate on the swing states as well as maybe states where it might be able to help down ballot, even if the state is solidly red or solidly blue.El Guapo wrote:
Also a 50 state strategy would be a dumb idea. You might also call it a "waste a lot of time and money in states that you'll never win" strategy.
) schedule, and when you're trying to win votes from your own party, it makes sense. Although you're still going to want to spend time and money efficiently, where you're going to get the most bang for the buck. In a hypothetical race between two independents (which Sanders and Trump both are) you don't want to get hung up on the conventional red/blue split. You won't want to contest all 50 states, but you certainly need to reevaluate all of your assumptions when the parties themselves are not driving.Defiant wrote:For a general election, yeah. There you really want to concentrate on the swing states as well as maybe states where it might be able to help down ballot, even if the state is solidly red or solidly blue.El Guapo wrote:
Also a 50 state strategy would be a dumb idea. You might also call it a "waste a lot of time and money in states that you'll never win" strategy.
What makes you think swift boating someone can work?Fitzy wrote: The republicans will hammer that. And it will work.
It remains to be seen if it will sink him, but I concur, it's the biggest strike against his image and it will be hammered to death by republicans to mobilize their the very large over 60 demographic vote against him.Fitzy wrote:How is Sanders going to attract people from the center when every attack ad against him, will be him superimposed on a Soviet flag.
I get people don't like Hilary, but Sanders so called electability is a fragile platform that will collapse when people realize he is a socialist.
The republicans will hammer that. And it will work. There are enough people alive now who remember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Any sane Republican would beat her in a general election, rather easily (IMO). She's an awful general election candidate. She's not even really a good primary candidate (based on what I've seen during her last two primary campaigns).El Guapo wrote:electability is my main concern with Clinton.
What's (not so) funny about that is that Kasich seems like he might be a wolf in rhino's clothing, which the hard right would love, as they wouldn't lose the senate to elect him, and he could dance in to the Whitehouse against Clinton or Sanders on "a mandate of the people" and put in an extreme supreme court justice and neuter obamacare and the EPA and slash funding of everything and protect tax shelters for the rich. Our federal level politics is just so... so... I don't know the word.RunningMn9 wrote:I don't think that Kasich would have any trouble with Clinton in the general, but of course, he cannot get passed the stupidity of his own party.
