SCOTUS Watch

[El Guapo]

We fought off the populist surge in 2016,

And how did that work out for you?

We didn't win. But we most likely wouldn't have won with Bernie, either, and in nominating him would have legitimized some of the worst, most dishonest, most unhinged thinking in America's political left.

Alternate histories can be whatever one wants to believe, and we're going to disagree here...but I believe Bernie would have won it. 2016 was going to be a change election, and Bernie was generally well-liked -- certainly better than Trump. The Democrats chose an unlikable establishment figure who was exactly wrong for the time. I hope they won't make the same mistake in two years.

Under President Sanders we might not be cruising smoothly to our socialist utopia -- Congress would have nothing to do with that, and we'd be bracing for a red wave right now -- but at least we wouldn't be picking fights with Europe's social democracies!

I don't think it's possible to really say. With Sanders as the nominee Trump would have mostly lost the "corrupt establishment" angle, but would have had a "crazy socialist" angle instead; Clinton also had a "sensible and in charge" / won't kill us all advantage versus Trump that Sanders wouldn't have had to the same degree. The main plausible reason that Sanders might have done better is that he wasn't under criminal investigation at the time, which was one of the main things that wound up bringing Clinton down.

I'm not sure the Clinton / Sanders administrations would have been super different policy-wise, just because the Republicans probably would have held at least one chamber of Congress either way, and they wouldn't be in the business of passing democratic bills of any type.

I will say the one upshot of Trump winning is that, with any Democrat as president, Republicans would be way more unified and energized, and Democrats would be facing a massive wipeout in the Senate, instead of probably coming out mostly even, with a slight chance of Democratic control.

[Fireball]

Alternate histories can be whatever one wants to believe, and we're going to disagree here...but I believe Bernie would have won it. 2016 was going to be a change election, and Bernie was generally well-liked -- certainly better than Trump.

I've seen actual data about this. Bernie has a glass jaw. People like him because they don't really know much about him. He's been on the periphery in politics for decades and has never been part of a real rough-and-tumble campaign. In 40 years in politics, no one has ever run a negative ad attacking him. Of course he appears as pristine as new fallen snow on the slopes of a Vermont mountain.

But his policy proposals are SOOOOOOOO sloppy that it takes nothing to deflate support for them. Hitting him with messaging about how he has never had a real job and has lived off the government all his life, about how his plans would require 50%+ tax rates, about how his health care plan would take away the coverage that you like (fact: most people like their doctor, and like their insurance, even if they don't like their insurance company), etc, destroys him with independents and even some centrist Democrats. Also devastating were messages about his wife's shady-as-hell mismanagement of money related to her university job — ie, the real reason he refused to release his income tax returns.

In polling run by an organization that was inclined to endorse Bernie before doing the research, he went from leading all Republicans better than Clinton was, to trailing all Republicans, including some Clinton was polling ahead of — including Trump. This was in the early spring of 2016.

In my entire career, I'd never seen messaging deflate a candidate so dramatically.

I'm not guaranteeing Bernie would lose — no one can guarantee anything like that. But the notion that he "would have won" isn't really based on anything.

[gbasden]

Vote for the Democrats because they can't get anything done?

I support health care reform, I just don't think the country is capable of doing single payer right now. Not in the way the rest of the world does. The ACA should have been the right direction. Using the free market and Federalism to enact change was something I would have thought Republicans could get behind, but stickin it to the Democrats has become the important platform of their party. The ACA as a framework to be improved over the years could have done a lot of good with Republican support.

I'll very happily take getting nothing done over the parade of daily horrible things the Republicans are getting done. And I agree - in theory the ACA should have been very Republican friendly. But it couldn't be more obvious that they now care little about helping normal people. Their energy is focused on large corporations and wealthy donors and people that don't fall into those categories are superfluous.

[LordMortis]

I'm more optimistic/naive I see the bad people as a small minority and trapped people (people stuck between Trump and their beliefs) as a bigger part, and apathetic people as a really big part. I'm also empathetic and can understand each group while agreeing with none.

That has been eroded in me. I desperately want to be wrong. But the faith. The hope is gone. There is nothing I have in common left to reason with the people I know who purport to be libertarians sleeping with republicans like I used to do and I can't even comprehend being a dyed in wool republican with the colors the GOP has shown over the last decade.

...

With regard to Bernie. Before the election, I would have thought he would have won, for good or ill. The election really evidenced how poorly I know my country, though. The real answer was the one that drove so many to Bernie. One dead horse the OO won't budge on, which is part of national problem and I think will hurt the nation even if/when we oust the current insanity and seek find a better normal again.

[Kraken]

I'm not guaranteeing Bernie would lose — no one can guarantee anything like that. But the notion that he "would have won" isn't really based on anything.

We can agree to disagree on that, since the point is moot and unprovable. I will say that he is not the right candidate for 2020.

It's too early to tell if the electorate will be looking for another radical change, yearning for a return to milquetoast normalcy, or (shudder) strapping in to ride this handbasket all the way down. And since this is the SCOTUS thread I'll just leave it at that.

[Max Peck]

Bernie would have been routed in 2016.

Even in the magical timeline where he was more popular than Clinton, and therefore won the Democratic nomination?

[ImLawBoy]

Bernie would have been routed in 2016.

Even in the magical timeline where he was more popular than Clinton, and therefore won the Democratic nomination?

Yes. All the stuff that Fireball wrote, plus the socialism thing would have backfired in the general. Voting for a socialist would have been a road too far for many of the never Trumpers who held their noses and voted for Hillary. While it's impact (and possibly even its meaning) has changed since the Red Scare days, there's still enough baggage around the term that would turn off moderate conservatives. "Trump may be a horrible human being, but at least he's not a *shudder* socialist!"

[LawBeefaroni]

Obviously votes mattered in other states. And everyone knew going in what those states were.

This isn't really true. Very few people expected Trump to carry Michigan and Wisconsin, and not that many people expected him to carry Pennsylvania. And independents / third party voters exceeded Trump's margin of victory in all three states, meaning independent / third party voters (to say nothing of people in those states who didn't vote) had the power to swing the election, and probably very few in those states appreciated that in advance. Plus other states that Clinton was expected to (and did) carry were much closer than expected - in particular NH and VA.

Funny enough, I'm in Michigan and Wisconsin several times a year and it was pretty clear driving through, and spending time in, both in 2015 and 2016 that they weren't slam dunks.

[malchior]

But his policy proposals are SOOOOOOOO sloppy that it takes nothing to deflate support for them. Hitting him with messaging about how he has never had a real job and has lived off the government all his life, about how his plans would require 50%+ tax rates, about how his health care plan would take away the coverage that you like (fact: most people like their doctor, and like their insurance, even if they don't like their insurance company), etc, destroys him with independents and even some centrist Democrats. Also devastating were messages about his wife's shady-as-hell mismanagement of money related to her university job — ie, the real reason he refused to release his income tax returns.

Yes - especially since Trump's policy positions were rock solid. And his finances tidy and well-documented.

In polling run by an organization that was inclined to endorse Bernie before doing the research, he went from leading all Republicans better than Clinton was, to trailing all Republicans, including some Clinton was polling ahead of — including Trump. This was in the early spring of 2016.

In my entire career, I'd never seen messaging deflate a candidate so dramatically.

I'm not guaranteeing Bernie would lose — no one can guarantee anything like that. But the notion that he "would have won" isn't really based on anything.

This I get - and yes Bernie wasn't seriously vetted but Clinton was *under investigation* for most of the campaign. It was the height of irresponsibility to push on with that hanging over her head. What would have happened if they say made a major announcement about it 11 days prior to the election? Maybe Bernie wouldn't have won but running Clinton was a huge risk that sunk a nation. Thanks a fucking lot Dems.

[El Guapo]

But his policy proposals are SOOOOOOOO sloppy that it takes nothing to deflate support for them. Hitting him with messaging about how he has never had a real job and has lived off the government all his life, about how his plans would require 50%+ tax rates, about how his health care plan would take away the coverage that you like (fact: most people like their doctor, and like their insurance, even if they don't like their insurance company), etc, destroys him with independents and even some centrist Democrats. Also devastating were messages about his wife's shady-as-hell mismanagement of money related to her university job — ie, the real reason he refused to release his income tax returns.

Yes - especially since Trump's policy positions were rock solid. And his finances tidy and well-documented.

In polling run by an organization that was inclined to endorse Bernie before doing the research, he went from leading all Republicans better than Clinton was, to trailing all Republicans, including some Clinton was polling ahead of — including Trump. This was in the early spring of 2016.

In my entire career, I'd never seen messaging deflate a candidate so dramatically.

I'm not guaranteeing Bernie would lose — no one can guarantee anything like that. But the notion that he "would have won" isn't really based on anything.

This I get - and yes Bernie wasn't seriously vetted but Clinton was *under investigation* for most of the campaign. It was the height of irresponsibility to push on with that hanging over her head. What would have happened if they say made a major announcement about it 11 days prior to the election? Maybe Bernie wouldn't have won but running Clinton was a huge risk that sunk a nation. Thanks a fucking lot Dems.

I don't disagree, but you also have to bear in mind that, as Sanders approached winning the nomination, not just the GOP political machine (including its investigatory branches in Congress) would have turned on Sanders, but Russia and its operations (including hackers) too. I think it's likely that there would have been an October surprise regardless, just in a different form.

Not that it matters, though.

[El Guapo]

Obviously votes mattered in other states. And everyone knew going in what those states were.

This isn't really true. Very few people expected Trump to carry Michigan and Wisconsin, and not that many people expected him to carry Pennsylvania. And independents / third party voters exceeded Trump's margin of victory in all three states, meaning independent / third party voters (to say nothing of people in those states who didn't vote) had the power to swing the election, and probably very few in those states appreciated that in advance. Plus other states that Clinton was expected to (and did) carry were much closer than expected - in particular NH and VA.

Funny enough, I'm in Michigan and Wisconsin several times a year and it was pretty clear driving through, and spending time in, both in 2015 and 2016 that they weren't slam dunks.

Driving through a state doesn't actually give you much in the way of solid data. I'm sure if you drove through Virginia outside of Arlington, or most of Minnesota, you would have seen many more Trump signs than Clinton signs. The point is that while there was some discussion in news about Pennsylvania, there was next to no discussion about whether WI or MI would be competitive.

[Defiant]

We fought off the populist surge in 2016, which the GOP didn’t. I hope we can again in 2018 and 2020.

While there's still some primaries to go, the bulk of the primaries have happened, and the establishment won in all but one of the contests (admittedly, that loss was a shock). While it remains to be see what will happen in the future, I think the signs point to the populists not winning this year.

[El Guapo]

Rosenstein Asks Prosecutors to Help With Kavanaugh Papers in Unusual Request.

A couple things about this. First, apparently usually DOJ attorneys review the executive branch documents of people nominated who previously worked in an administration, before releasing them. This is unusual in that they are extending the request for staff to work on this to the U.S. Attorney branches around the country, who do overwhelmingly criminal work. Apparently many people regard this as improper, but I'm not sure why - the only reason given in this article is that it would take them away from important criminal work, but then I assume the attorneys in DC are doing important work too. The reason for extending the range of volunteers is apparently that Kavanaugh has a much higher volume of documents than previous such nominees (such as Kagan).

Second, seems like this is something that could potentially (*potentially*) derail Kavanaugh's nomination, or at least seems like the kind of thing that McConnell might have been nervous about. This is a high volume of documents dating from an unpopular administration in which Kavanaugh was counsel and then staff secretary, during which two now largely unpopular wars were launched, among many other things. Odds that there is grist for contentious confirmation hearings in there seems pretty high. And if I were McConnell, one thing I would really not want to be doing going into the mid-terms is reliving and relitigating Bush-era policies.

Should be interesting. Though again, probably not going to derail the nomination.

[LawBeefaroni]

Obviously votes mattered in other states. And everyone knew going in what those states were.

This isn't really true. Very few people expected Trump to carry Michigan and Wisconsin, and not that many people expected him to carry Pennsylvania. And independents / third party voters exceeded Trump's margin of victory in all three states, meaning independent / third party voters (to say nothing of people in those states who didn't vote) had the power to swing the election, and probably very few in those states appreciated that in advance. Plus other states that Clinton was expected to (and did) carry were much closer than expected - in particular NH and VA.

Funny enough, I'm in Michigan and Wisconsin several times a year and it was pretty clear driving through, and spending time in, both in 2015 and 2016 that they weren't slam dunks.

Driving through a state doesn't actually give you much in the way of solid data. I'm sure if you drove through Virginia outside of Arlington, or most of Minnesota, you would have seen many more Trump signs than Clinton signs. The point is that while there was some discussion in news about Pennsylvania, there was next to no discussion about whether WI or MI would be competitive.

Well, that's the fault of the people driving discussion I guess. And I did mention that spent time in those states, didn't just drive through. And at that, I spent time in Madison and Ann Arbor. If the cracks were obvious there, which they assuredly were, I'm not sure how "discussion" didn't include those states.

[El Guapo]

Obviously votes mattered in other states. And everyone knew going in what those states were.

This isn't really true. Very few people expected Trump to carry Michigan and Wisconsin, and not that many people expected him to carry Pennsylvania. And independents / third party voters exceeded Trump's margin of victory in all three states, meaning independent / third party voters (to say nothing of people in those states who didn't vote) had the power to swing the election, and probably very few in those states appreciated that in advance. Plus other states that Clinton was expected to (and did) carry were much closer than expected - in particular NH and VA.

Funny enough, I'm in Michigan and Wisconsin several times a year and it was pretty clear driving through, and spending time in, both in 2015 and 2016 that they weren't slam dunks.

Driving through a state doesn't actually give you much in the way of solid data. I'm sure if you drove through Virginia outside of Arlington, or most of Minnesota, you would have seen many more Trump signs than Clinton signs. The point is that while there was some discussion in news about Pennsylvania, there was next to no discussion about whether WI or MI would be competitive.

Well, that's the fault of the people driving discussion I guess. And I did mention that spent time in those states, didn't just drive through. And at that, I spent time in Madison and Ann Arbor. If the cracks were obvious there, which they assuredly were, I'm not sure how "discussion" didn't include those states.

The point is just, whether or not they *should* have been discussed or regarded as competitive states, I don't think that they were in fact prior to the election. Except maybe Pennsylvania.

[Fireball]

But his policy proposals are SOOOOOOOO sloppy that it takes nothing to deflate support for them. Hitting him with messaging about how he has never had a real job and has lived off the government all his life, about how his plans would require 50%+ tax rates, about how his health care plan would take away the coverage that you like (fact: most people like their doctor, and like their insurance, even if they don't like their insurance company), etc, destroys him with independents and even some centrist Democrats. Also devastating were messages about his wife's shady-as-hell mismanagement of money related to her university job — ie, the real reason he refused to release his income tax returns.

Yes - especially since Trump's policy positions were rock solid. And his finances tidy and well-documented.

When it came to policy expectations, Trump as held to a far lower standard by the media than any other candidate in history. Sanders was held to a lower standard than Hillary, but it's not even comparable compared to the cakewalk that Trump got. The same reporters who giggled at Trump's incoherency but made Hillary explain every fucking comma in every one of her position papers would have done the same thing to Sanders — and his policy positions were far, far less defensible than hers.

This I get - and yes Bernie wasn't seriously vetted but Clinton was *under investigation* for most of the campaign. It was the height of irresponsibility to push on with that hanging over her head.

She was "under investigation" in the most inane and political of terms. There was never any real substance to the "charges" being floated in the media against her. If a strong candidate against Trump emerges in 2019 and suddenly the FBI starts investigating him in 2020, should we all immediately walk away?

[Fireball]

Obviously votes mattered in other states. And everyone knew going in what those states were.

This isn't really true. Very few people expected Trump to carry Michigan and Wisconsin, and not that many people expected him to carry Pennsylvania. And independents / third party voters exceeded Trump's margin of victory in all three states, meaning independent / third party voters (to say nothing of people in those states who didn't vote) had the power to swing the election, and probably very few in those states appreciated that in advance. Plus other states that Clinton was expected to (and did) carry were much closer than expected - in particular NH and VA.

Funny enough, I'm in Michigan and Wisconsin several times a year and it was pretty clear driving through, and spending time in, both in 2015 and 2016 that they weren't slam dunks.

Driving through a state doesn't actually give you much in the way of solid data. I'm sure if you drove through Virginia outside of Arlington, or most of Minnesota, you would have seen many more Trump signs than Clinton signs. The point is that while there was some discussion in news about Pennsylvania, there was next to no discussion about whether WI or MI would be competitive.

Well, that's the fault of the people driving discussion I guess. And I did mention that spent time in those states, didn't just drive through. And at that, I spent time in Madison and Ann Arbor. If the cracks were obvious there, which they assuredly were, I'm not sure how "discussion" didn't include those states.

The point is just, whether or not they *should* have been discussed or regarded as competitive states, I don't think that they were in fact prior to the election. Except maybe Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania was the most heavily-fought battleground state of the 2016 campaign, in terms of candidate time and resources put into the state by both sides. Michigan emerged as a battleground in the closing weeks. Everyone was blindsided by Wisconsin.

[El Guapo]

If a strong candidate against Trump emerges in 2019 and suddenly the FBI starts investigating him in 2020, should we all immediately walk away?

Incidentally, this is essentially 100% guaranteed to happen, regardless of who said democratic frontrunner might be. The only real chance of preventing that is democrats taking at least one chamber of commerce, as then they might muck things up on this via subpoenas.

[malchior]

She was "under investigation" in the most inane and political of terms. There was never any real substance to the "charges" being floated in the media against her. If a strong candidate against Trump emerges in 2019 and suddenly the FBI starts investigating him in 2020, should we all immediately walk away?

I didn't say they had substance. I said there was far too much political risk. And they ignored that risk to the ruin of our nation. Again fuck the Dems for that. As to the future that is a strong possibility but that was the price of putting forward a candidate that couldn't smash Trump into bits. It should have been a slam dunk.

[LordMortis]

Well, that's the fault of the people driving discussion I guess.

Ding! Though the discussions were there. They were "meh" Even after Clinton lost to Sanders. But those in the driver's seat had better places to go.

http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewt ... 3#p2337583

http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewt ... 6#p2361546

http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewt ... 7#p2340127

http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewt ... 7#p2344047

[Defiant]

As to the future that is a strong possibility but that was the price of putting forward a candidate that couldn't smash Trump into bits. It should have been a slam dunk.

Yeah, just like all those Republican candidates who smashed Trump to bits in the primary. Oh wait.

Clinton was an imperfect candidate - she both had strengths and weaknesses. But that's true of 90+% of presidential candidates.

[Rip]

You mean you guys still haven't heard? It will be Clinton again in 2020.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ain-214766

[LordMortis]

You mean you guys still haven't heard? It will be Clinton again in 2020.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ain-214766

I think you'd be just as happy if Pelosi ran and if she does and she wins the democratic primary and 2020 is between Pelosi and Trump. I'm calling it now. It's the end of the republic.

[malchior]

As to the future that is a strong possibility but that was the price of putting forward a candidate that couldn't smash Trump into bits. It should have been a slam dunk.

Yeah, just like all those Republican candidates who smashed Trump to bits in the primary. Oh wait.

Clinton was an imperfect candidate - she both had strengths and weaknesses. But that's true of 90+% of presidential candidates.

Trump won in a clown car primary process and never had more than 40% of a primary for awhile. Also, she lost by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I think it is reasonable to posit that anyone with similar strengths/weaknesses but wasn't completely unlike-able and wasn't under investigation would have dunked a bucket right in his face.

[El Guapo]

As to the future that is a strong possibility but that was the price of putting forward a candidate that couldn't smash Trump into bits. It should have been a slam dunk.

Yeah, just like all those Republican candidates who smashed Trump to bits in the primary. Oh wait.

Clinton was an imperfect candidate - she both had strengths and weaknesses. But that's true of 90+% of presidential candidates.

Trump won in a clown car primary process and never had more than 40% of a primary for awhile. Also, she lost by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I think it is reasonable to posit that anyone with similar strengths/weaknesses but wasn't completely unlike-able and wasn't under investigation would have dunked a bucket right in his face.

I really don't think that's a safe assumption. First, even if the primary process wasn't a "clown car", since Trump was getting 40% in a *very* crowded field (no mean feat in race with almost two dozen candidates!), it's fair to think that he would have been getting 50%+ in a smaller field. It's not like Trump was getting 40% in a primary field with people like Sanders and Warren - he was out-dogwhistling candidates in a primary field with people like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, and a party which ran Mitt "self-deportation" Romney in 2012. So yeah, Trump won in a crowded field, but there isn't much basis for thinking that he wouldn't have won in a narrow GOP field too.

Second, once Trump gets the nomination, partisanship was going to take over to a significant degree, and GOP voters were chomping at the bits after two presidential terms out of power. I don't think any Republican candidate would get less than 45% - 46% of the vote minimum against any democrat in 2016.

[malchior]

I really don't think that's a safe assumption. First, even if the primary process wasn't a "clown car", since Trump was getting 40% in a *very* crowded field (no mean feat in race with almost two dozen candidates!), it's fair to think that he would have been getting 50%+ in a smaller field. It's not like Trump was getting 40% in a primary field with people like Sanders and Warren - he was out-dogwhistling candidates in a primary field with people like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, and a party which ran Mitt "self-deportation" Romney in 2012. So yeah, Trump won in a crowded field, but there isn't much basis for thinking that he wouldn't have won in a narrow GOP field too.

I disagree but mostly because Trump's populism slow-rolled. Still it might have been outweighed by the fact that the media was drawn to him like a moth to a flame. They bear a lot of the blame too for the way they covered him.

Second, once Trump gets the nomination, partisanship was going to take over to a significant degree, and GOP voters were chomping at the bits after two presidential terms out of power. I don't think any Republican candidate would get less than 45% - 46% of the vote minimum against any democrat in 2016.

I agree but again the thin margin of victory is why I think he loses to anyone who hadn't been hated on for years and *was being investigated for Federal crimes*. I can't stress that second point enough. The Republicans recognized early (like 4 years early) that Clinton was the shoo-in, set up obvious Home Alone level traps, and the dipshit Dems walked into every single one of them.

[LordMortis]

Trump won in a clown car primary process and never had more than 40% of a primary for awhile. Also, she lost by 80,000 votes in 3 states. I think it is reasonable to posit that anyone with similar strengths/weaknesses but wasn't completely unlike-able and wasn't under investigation would have dunked a bucket right in his face.

Don't know about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Kasich_2016.svg

Kasich was very strong but was seriously fllawed in the way GOP loved. Right until they chose their anointed one.

OtOH, he understood the PAs, Ohios, Michigans, and Wisconsins... I suppose to Clinton's credit fuck all if it did him any good, either.

[El Guapo]

I really don't think that's a safe assumption. First, even if the primary process wasn't a "clown car", since Trump was getting 40% in a *very* crowded field (no mean feat in race with almost two dozen candidates!), it's fair to think that he would have been getting 50%+ in a smaller field. It's not like Trump was getting 40% in a primary field with people like Sanders and Warren - he was out-dogwhistling candidates in a primary field with people like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, and a party which ran Mitt "self-deportation" Romney in 2012. So yeah, Trump won in a crowded field, but there isn't much basis for thinking that he wouldn't have won in a narrow GOP field too.

I disagree but mostly because Trump's populism slow-rolled. Still it might have been outweighed by the fact that the media was drawn to him like a moth to a flame. They bear a lot of the blame too for the way they covered him.

Second, once Trump gets the nomination, partisanship was going to take over to a significant degree, and GOP voters were chomping at the bits after two presidential terms out of power. I don't think any Republican candidate would get less than 45% - 46% of the vote minimum against any democrat in 2016.

I agree but again the thin margin of victory is why I think he loses to anyone who hadn't been hated on for years and *was being investigated for Federal crimes*. I can't stress that second point enough. The Republicans recognized early (like 4 years early) that Clinton was the shoo-in, set up obvious Home Alone level traps, and the dipshit Dems walked into every single one of them.

I'm not sure what you mean by Trump's populism "slow-rolled". He called Mexicans rapists within a few weeks of declaring his candidacy. His whole popularity and viability was predicated on being the Republican candidate who was most consistent and explicit about Obama being a secret Muslim. He was for the wall immediately. He was who he was from (before) day 1.

In some ways it's kind of amusing that you are taking the fact that Trump was getting 40%+ of the vote in a huge primary field as an indicator that he was actually a weak candidate who should have lost but for the primary structure.

I don't disagree about it being somewhat reckless to run a candidate under investigation. At the same time, Clinton held very significant leads for most of the election, and had the election been held at any almost other time in the process she would have won. And I also think that you're underestimating the likely impact of a hack of Sanders's e-mails during the campaign (which almost certainly would have happened).

Anyway, I would agree that running a candidate under investigation (even though it was a pretty spurious investigation) was a problem. I agree that Sanders *could have* won. I strongly disagree that Sanders would have been a slam dunk. I think Biden would have been the strongest available candidate (although Biden running would have hurt Clinton more than Sanders, and probably would have helped Sanders's primary viability).

[malchior]

I'm not sure what you mean by Trump's populism "slow-rolled". He called Mexicans rapists within a few weeks of declaring his candidacy. His whole popularity and viability was predicated on being the Republican candidate who was most consistent and explicit about Obama being a secret Muslim. He was for the wall immediately. He was who he was from (before) day 1.

In some ways it's kind of amusing that you are taking the fact that Trump was getting 40%+ of the vote in a huge primary field as an indicator that he was actually a weak candidate who should have lost but for the primary structure.

He got 24% of Iowa. He got about 35% in NH. It was up and down. Do you think it would be the same if the field is 2 or 3 and one of those is especially strong instead of a bunch of guys diluting each other? That the narrative wouldn't be about how he was second best in the race? Instead, he stole all the oxygen out of a massively diluted field. That is why I think it is worth thinking about - that is all. Let's say Ron Paul was 15 years younger. I think he might have had a shot with Republicans in that mood.

In the end, yes Trump tapped into the racism and yes he had the media literally following him around to capture sound bites from the class clown. Maybe he still wins in a tighter field. It's unprovable as some would say but interesting to think about. I'm not saying it with any particular strength either. More that he wasn't the strongest candidate by any shot. He had a lot of lucky and a lot of manufactured breaks.

I don't disagree about it being somewhat reckless to run a candidate under investigation. At the same time, Clinton held very significant leads for most of the election, and had the election been held at any almost other time in the process she would have won. And I also think that you're underestimating the likely impact of a hack of Sanders's e-mails during the campaign (which almost certainly would have happened).

Anyway, I would agree that running a candidate under investigation (even though it was a pretty spurious investigation) was a problem. I agree that Sanders *could have* won. I strongly disagree that Sanders would have been a slam dunk. I think Biden would have been the strongest available candidate (although Biden running would have hurt Clinton more than Sanders, and probably would have helped Sanders's primary viability).

I agree that Biden was the strongest out of the next level. Too bad they threw in whole hog on Clinton so early and smothered anyone else's chance. The slam dunk line incorporates a theory that the margin was so thin that any one of her many negatives - not to least her sub-par charisma and federal investigation not existing should have tilted it the other way. It wasn't that competing candidates would be perfect. It would be that they wouldn't have the massive negatives that made Trump a choice of sway-able votes in the places that mattered in this idiotic system.

[El Guapo]

I'm not sure what you mean by Trump's populism "slow-rolled". He called Mexicans rapists within a few weeks of declaring his candidacy. His whole popularity and viability was predicated on being the Republican candidate who was most consistent and explicit about Obama being a secret Muslim. He was for the wall immediately. He was who he was from (before) day 1.

In some ways it's kind of amusing that you are taking the fact that Trump was getting 40%+ of the vote in a huge primary field as an indicator that he was actually a weak candidate who should have lost but for the primary structure.

He got 24% of Iowa. He got about 35% in NH. It was up and down. Do you think it would be the same if the field is 2 or 3 and one of those is especially strong instead of a bunch of guys diluting each other? That the narrative wouldn't be about how he was second best in the race? Instead, he stole all the oxygen out of a massively diluted field. That is why I think it is worth thinking about - that is all. Let's say Ron Paul was 15 years younger. I think he might have had a shot with Republicans in that mood.

In the end, yes Trump tapped into the racism and yes he had the media literally following him around to capture sound bites from the class clown. Maybe he still wins in a tighter field. It's unprovable as some would say but interesting to think about. I'm not saying it with any particular strength either. More that he wasn't the strongest candidate by any shot. He had a lot of lucky and a lot of manufactured breaks.

I don't disagree about it being somewhat reckless to run a candidate under investigation. At the same time, Clinton held very significant leads for most of the election, and had the election been held at any almost other time in the process she would have won. And I also think that you're underestimating the likely impact of a hack of Sanders's e-mails during the campaign (which almost certainly would have happened).

Anyway, I would agree that running a candidate under investigation (even though it was a pretty spurious investigation) was a problem. I agree that Sanders *could have* won. I strongly disagree that Sanders would have been a slam dunk. I think Biden would have been the strongest available candidate (although Biden running would have hurt Clinton more than Sanders, and probably would have helped Sanders's primary viability).

I agree that Biden was the strongest out of the next level. Too bad they threw in whole hog on Clinton so early and smothered anyone else's chance. The slam dunk line incorporates a theory that the margin was so thin that any one of her many negatives - not to least her sub-par charisma and federal investigation not existing should have tilted it the other way. It wasn't that competing candidates would be perfect. It would be that they wouldn't have the massive negatives that made Trump a choice of sway-able votes in the places that mattered in this idiotic system.

I think it's probable that if the field were Trump and 3 other Republicans (say) that Trump probably gets a way higher percentage of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. I do think that Ron Paul probably could have been competitive, insofar as Ron Paul is also a racist quasi-populist bigot.

FWIW Biden did not run because of his son's death. I also think the DCCC had less of an impact in clearing the field than Clinton's high polling numbers and warchest.

[Kraken]

It still saddens me that Biden missed his chance. I think he would have demolished Trump and been a good heir to Obama and a fine president. I hope he doesn't try to do that in '20. His time has passed.

[Fitzy]

Huh. I "left" the Democrats years ago because the candidates they were fielding in my area didn't match what I liked. I briefly returned this year because Maryland is a registered party only vote in primary state, which I'm not knocking, but I voted for an extreme long shot in my district primary, I think she lost by like 80-10 or something. I really liked her. I'm one person who is an introvert, but maybe it's worth considering being more active. I've just never felt it fair, if the majority of Democrats wanted to go left, it seemed better to step out and hope for a center party to form. I've been waiting a long time. It's something to consider I suppose.

There's no such thing as "the center". There's no such thing as "the middle." Those are amorphous phrases that have no bearing in actual policy discussions. You can't form a political party around an approach as opposed to a platform. And the American political system can't support three major parties.

Of course there is a center. If there wasn’t, one of the two parties would long ago have gained absolute dominance. People may lean one direction or the other, I do, but that’s a function of the political dominance the two parties set up. Give me a reasonable alternative and I’m there. In the meantime, I’ll lean Democrat, but if a Republican, assuming a return to normalcy, better represents me I’ll vote for them. There are plenty of Democrats serving state wide offices in red states and the reverse to show I’m hardly unique.

And of course our system, as setup in the constitution, could support multiple parties. It’s literally designed to support no parties. That it can’t do so, isn’t a function of the government or the official system, but of 180 years of the two parties setting up the system for the maintenance of their own power. So I suppose if by political system you mean the infrustructure set up by the two parties to keep their power, than sure.

The center is more than compromise. It’s the advocating of a steady and reasonable amount of change and a rejection of extremism from either side. There’s no fancy slogans. There’s no fun. It’s just doing the job without denigrating the other side. Anyone I’ve wanted to support had specifically defined problems with specific policy ideas as solutions to the problems, combined with a willingness to compromise. It’s not a bad thing. Just boring.

[El Guapo]

[El Guapo]

FWIW, Paul is pretending to be concerned.

Odds that he casts a decisive no vote are approximately 1% (unless something unexpected comes out).

[El Guapo]

Half as good as Harriet Miers!

Like Nate Silver has said before, I don't think this means much, EXCEPT that Kavanaugh's margin for error is not huge. One significant blow up has the potential to send things off the rails.

[Fireball]

Huh. I "left" the Democrats years ago because the candidates they were fielding in my area didn't match what I liked. I briefly returned this year because Maryland is a registered party only vote in primary state, which I'm not knocking, but I voted for an extreme long shot in my district primary, I think she lost by like 80-10 or something. I really liked her. I'm one person who is an introvert, but maybe it's worth considering being more active. I've just never felt it fair, if the majority of Democrats wanted to go left, it seemed better to step out and hope for a center party to form. I've been waiting a long time. It's something to consider I suppose.

There's no such thing as "the center". There's no such thing as "the middle." Those are amorphous phrases that have no bearing in actual policy discussions. You can't form a political party around an approach as opposed to a platform. And the American political system can't support three major parties.

Of course there is a center.

Except, research shows, there really isn't. There isn't a broad swath of the American population that has "centrist" positions on most questions of public policy. It's far more likely that someone claiming to be "centrist" actually holds an assortment of extreme views that don't place him in either traditional party coalition, and any aggregated group of "centrists" is going to be a collection of people whose extreme views don't line up with one another. If you tried to form a party from self-identified "moderates," you'd end up with a large party that's far-left on economics and far-right on social issues, a smaller one that's far-right on economics and far-left on social issues, and an itty-bitty one that's moderate on everything — and maybe a center-right party comprised of people who almost always vote Republican these days, but who don't like it all the time because the party has veered so far to the extreme, but that wouldn't really be a "centrist" party.

Also, an interesting fact about American partisanship: research shows that self-identified independents are actually more partisan than self-identified partisans. Someone who describes themselves as a "conservative independent" or "an independent who leans Republican" is far less likely to ever vote for a Democrat than someone who simply identifies as a Republican, and the same is true on the left. So, in fact, the sort of crossover voters you're describing are actually more likely to exist inside the Democratic and Republican parties than to exist outside of them.

[Captain Caveman]

It’s all out in the open why Kavanaugh was nominated.

[Zarathud]

Activist judge.

[El Guapo]

Interesting. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that Kavanaugh will be confirmed, but I think the risk of his nomination getting derailed are higher than people think. Basically I think the situation is ripe for a political bomb to throw things out of whack, and it seems like there's a reasonable chance of a bomb coming out of Kavanaugh's documents from the Bush administration. But we'll see.

[Kurth]

Huh. I "left" the Democrats years ago because the candidates they were fielding in my area didn't match what I liked. I briefly returned this year because Maryland is a registered party only vote in primary state, which I'm not knocking, but I voted for an extreme long shot in my district primary, I think she lost by like 80-10 or something. I really liked her. I'm one person who is an introvert, but maybe it's worth considering being more active. I've just never felt it fair, if the majority of Democrats wanted to go left, it seemed better to step out and hope for a center party to form. I've been waiting a long time. It's something to consider I suppose.

There's no such thing as "the center". There's no such thing as "the middle." Those are amorphous phrases that have no bearing in actual policy discussions. You can't form a political party around an approach as opposed to a platform. And the American political system can't support three major parties.

Of course there is a center.

Except, research shows, there really isn't. There isn't a broad swath of the American population that has "centrist" positions on most questions of public policy. It's far more likely that someone claiming to be "centrist" actually holds an assortment of extreme views that don't place him in either traditional party coalition, and any aggregated group of "centrists" is going to be a collection of people whose extreme views don't line up with one another. If you tried to form a party from self-identified "moderates," you'd end up with a large party that's far-left on economics and far-right on social issues, a smaller one that's far-right on economics and far-left on social issues, and an itty-bitty one that's moderate on everything — and maybe a center-right party comprised of people who almost always vote Republican these days, but who don't like it all the time because the party has veered so far to the extreme, but that wouldn't really be a "centrist" party.

Also, an interesting fact about American partisanship: research shows that self-identified independents are actually more partisan than self-identified partisans. Someone who describes themselves as a "conservative independent" or "an independent who leans Republican" is far less likely to ever vote for a Democrat than someone who simply identifies as a Republican, and the same is true on the left. So, in fact, the sort of crossover voters you're describing are actually more likely to exist inside the Democratic and Republican parties than to exist outside of them.

I think this is interesting, but I’d love to know what the “assortment of extreme views” are that are held by most people claiming to be centrists. What makes the view extreme?

I’m feeling more and more that there’s no room for self-proclaimed centrists (I consider myself one) because any view that does not toe the line with party orthodoxy on one side or the other is automatically deemed “extreme.”

I see it in the discussion of judicial nominees all the time now. If I hear one more commentator or pol go off on how a judicial nominee’s views are “outside the mainstream” of legal thought, I’m going to stick an ice pick in my ear.