|
Fried Chicken posted:And how quickly are the Dems going to be to unwind the policies they are putting into place now? (Remember when Obama was going to close Gitmo on day 1?). This is my favorite example of separation of powers.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
computer parts posted:This is my favorite example of separation of powers. He had majorities in the house and senate, so it is a poor example of it
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:He's not up for re-election until 2020. Thus why I'm not sold on it. There's no HFC-style bloc in the Senate to topple him, and by the time he's up for reelection I expect the Tea Party to have either faded into irrelevance, become the dominant force in the GOP and thus encouraged Mitch to retire, or split off to form a third party. The only way they get rid of Mitch in the short run is if the HFC says "Okay, now that we have Boehner's head on a pike, we're not going to let any laws get passed until the Senate gets rid of Mitch and puts Cruz or someone in his place" or something like that, which, y'know, good fuckin' luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're correct her website doesn't use the buzzword you're looking for, but she undeniably supports the policies you're asking her to support: I'm not asking for poo poo, I got into this to correct misinformation about Bernie's positions. And that article you linked doesn't mention demilitarizing the police, or in other words, removing military-grade equipment from local police departments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:He had majorities in the house and senate, so it is a poor example of it No, still a pretty good example unless you think parties vote in lockstep.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:House doesn't matter. Senate, though, that will be interesting. Republicans will certainly seek to knock out any SCOTUS nominee they can, but I don't actually think a moderate would have any greater chance of making it through than a liberal. No matter who they are, they'll be demonized as super liberal on the right and it'll be a question of what you can make stick with the public at large (or, if it even matters what the public at large thinks). There's a decent chance nobody at all could get confirmed. I honestly think this is the most likely result (presuming democratic president / republican senate) and any vacancies on the Court will simply result in a smaller Court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I honestly think this is the most likely result (presuming democratic president / republican senate) and any vacancies on the Court will simply result in a smaller Court. That's been the case for a lot of other appointments, stuff like US attorneys, judges, department staff, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, still a pretty good example unless you think parties vote in lockstep. The GOP did, at least back then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Thus why I'm not sold on it. There's no HFC-style bloc in the Senate to topple him, and by the time he's up for reelection I expect the Tea Party to have either faded into irrelevance, become the dominant force in the GOP and thus encouraged Mitch to retire, or split off to form a third party. He might be trying to motivate the base for 2016 or just doesn't give a gently caress. Being able to put bills on the President's desk is symbolic. Their senate majority is relatively safe in 2016 and will get even bigger in 2018. Knowing how they operated in 2011 it wouldn't surprise me if they think that the 2016 election is a gimme for them. There's about a 40% to 50% chance that the GOP will control the house, a filibuster-less senate and white house for 2 years. Ramming through everything they can and stacking the supreme court for 30+ years. Obamacare would be gone, anti-union stuff federalized, EPA gutted, huge tax cuts for the wealthy and more. The GOP is pretty extreme now and they'll actually do those things. And if history repeats itself the American voters will reward the GOP for the bad results of those policies (bad healthcare, majority of deficit due to tax cuts -> blame Democrats for that and spending).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Any slim chance of that died when they alienated the Smug Centrist/Moderate crowd. Has this actually happened? Has the realization that the Republicans really are that loving crazy finally broken through to the "truth is in the middle" professional pundit class?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I honestly think this is the most likely result (presuming democratic president / republican senate) and any vacancies on the Court will simply result in a smaller Court. The crazy is in the Senate, but is definitely not as powerful as in the house, because you can't really gerrymander entire states and the races are much more expensive. Thus, I think a tea party candidate pushed to win the primary will not win the general. gently caress, look at how Lieberman held on to his seat. Shouldn't the 2020 races be a very good chance for Democratic pickups? Those would be the 2014 class, which was a Republican gain, but if we are heading to the Republican establishment distancing itself, former locks can turn into three way races if the loser of the primary continues to the general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:I kind of assume they'd just toss a hyper-liberal or two at Congress and then nominate a 'compromise candidate' who was actually their first choice from the get-go It plays into this strategy and would make for amazing TV to nominate Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
foobardog posted:The crazy is in the Senate, but is definitely not as powerful as in the house, because you can't really gerrymander entire states and the races are much more expensive. Thus, I think a tea party candidate pushed to win the primary will not win the general. gently caress, look at how Lieberman held on to his seat. Even though no actual gerrymandering has taken or will take place, the Senate is sort of naturally gerrymandered. If you drew lovely GOP gerrymandered districts over the entirety of the US, that sort of resembles our current state borders. The GOP definitely has a built-in advantage when it comes to Senate seats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
I may have missed it in the 500 or so posts since last, but where is everyone watching the debate (will CNN have it for free?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Boon posted:I may have missed it in the 500 or so posts since last, but where is everyone watching the debate (will CNN have it for free?) I believe CNN will be livestreaming it for free on their website, 8:30 PM ET
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Even though no actual gerrymandering has taken or will take place, the Senate is sort of naturally gerrymandered. If you drew lovely GOP gerrymandered districts over the entirety of the US, that sort of resembles our current state borders. The GOP definitely has a built-in advantage when it comes to Senate seats. I definitely agree, but I think that will only keep the Democrats from ever getting a filibuster-proof majority, not them holding their majority forever. I think absent a split in the party, the Republicans would stand a good chance of actually getting a filibuster-proof majority themselves, but with it as is? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Has there ever actually been a grand-coalition style crossbench speaker of the house in US history?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
foobardog posted:I definitely agree, but I think that will only keep the Democrats from ever getting a filibuster-proof majority, not them holding their majority forever. I think absent a split in the party, the Republicans would stand a good chance of actually getting a filibuster-proof majority themselves, but with it as is? they've won like three straight senate cycles and havent
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Some pretty reliable conservative states like Texas or Georgia should be purple in ten years and Blue in20 at least in regards to statewide elections. At least one presedential election cycle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Has there ever actually been a grand-coalition style crossbench speaker of the house in US history? The original intent of the speaker was for it to be a non-partisan role, but as far as I know that never happened and in practice it has always been the leader of the majority party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I honestly think this is the most likely result (presuming democratic president / republican senate) and any vacancies on the Court will simply result in a smaller Court. Nine little justices jumping on the bed One fell off and bumped his head! Went to the Senate and the Senate said, "No more Justices jumping on the bed!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
*on the bench
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:*on the bench Can't ruin the rhyme scheme, man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I believe CNN will be livestreaming it for free on their website, 8:30 PM ET Right on, awesome, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Has there ever actually been a grand-coalition style crossbench speaker of the house in US history? Would our brief time as a single party democracy count?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Has this actually happened? Has the realization that the Republicans really are that loving crazy finally broken through to the "truth is in the middle" professional pundit class? Did you happen to catch this David Brooks column in the NYT last week? He's as professional pundit-y as they come and he seemed to be having a moment of clarity: David Brooks posted:By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
PDP-1 posted:Did you happen to catch this David Brooks column in the NYT last week? He's as professional pundit-y as they come and he seemed to be having a moment of clarity: Yeah, but that's happened before with other pundits, like David Frum a few years ago when he left Marketplace and so forth. The question is whether or not the rest of the media follows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Interestingly to me is that the removal of the filibuster moves us to a VERY new political order which I think would cement this period as a revolutionary time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Brooks blames Rush but of course he should be blaming Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Brooks blames Rush but of course he should be blaming Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan. Nah, Nixon, Goldwater, and Reagan were all Very Serious People, in Brooks's worldview.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Brooks blames Rush but of course he should be blaming Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan. For the current atmosphere? That's just stupid. Say what you want about Nixon as a paranoid, diseased crook; and Reagan and Goldwater as racist, senior ideologues; but each of the three of them actually understood that politics is done by politicians making deals and compromises and coming together where they could. Nixon created the EPA and the Southern Strategy. Reagan bloated our military and helped reform the tax code and raise taxes. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was instrumental in passing the Panama Canal Treaty. Our current era of "the only compromise we accept is 100% of what we want" comes straight from the right-wing media machine of the '90's through today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:He had majorities in the house and senate, so it is a poor example of it We aren't Canada, we, by design, have significantly weakened party discipline. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst, but it's unarguably more democratic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:53
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Eschers Basement posted:For the current atmosphere? That's just stupid. They all laid the seeds of the modern GOP. They are the founding fathers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:They all laid the seeds of the modern GOP. They are the founding fathers. Sure. But those folks at least pretended to be serious, policy-oriented people, which was enough for Brooks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Our current era of "the only compromise we accept is 100% of what we want" comes straight from the right-wing media machine of the '90's through today. And by Reagan getting rid of the fairness doctrine he allowed people like Rush & Co. to start forming the right-wing media machine. Goldwater and Nixon kind of get a pass from this blame, but Reagan totally deserves to get his grave pissed on even more for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Sure. But those folks at least pretended to be serious, policy-oriented people, which was enough for Brooks. oh I see your distinction. Ok.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:And by Reagan getting rid of the fairness doctrine he allowed people like Rush & Co. to start forming the right-wing media machine. FCC doesn't regulate cable so that wouldn't have done anything. I guess for Rush specifically it would, but not Fox News. Also arguably the Fairness Doctrine would be used today for things like Climate Change Denial or Creationism. computer parts fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:And by Reagan getting rid of the fairness doctrine he allowed people like Rush & Co. to start forming the right-wing media machine. Yeah, Reagan really cemented the culture war as the Republican angle of attack too. computer parts posted:FCC doesn't regulate cable so that wouldn't have done anything. I think you're wrong that network news has no effect on the media narrative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think you're wrong that network news has no effect on the media narrative. Actually I don't know if it would even effect Rush because the Fairness Doctrine just had to be instituted at a broadcaster level. So as long as they had an Anti-Rush program going on at 3am that would still technically conform to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually I don't know if it would even effect Rush because the Fairness Doctrine just had to be instituted at a broadcaster level. So as long as they had an Anti-Rush program going on at 3am that would still technically conform to it. Yeah, I still think the way it changed the nightly news mattered. Even if we'd still have all the hateful corners of cable/radio/web, it matters that we removed the one non-ratings related obligation in the news media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:14
|
|