Election Day

[Wayward Son]

Sounds more like The Walking Dead to me.  ("Hey, gov'nor, whacha got in your back room there?" )

There was an explicit scene in B5 where the Emperor of one of the races went into his "council chamber" which was a room with the heads of all of his advisors that he'd executed for displeasing him.

OK, that beats out Dead, where the Governor simply had a collection of zombie heads in fish tanks, snapping at him when he wanted to think.

[JoshuaD]

I don't know how he did, but Senator Sanders won me over. I went from probably not voting to actively supporting the guy in the past few weeks.

His personal virtues did a lot for me. He and I have some pretty different ideas about what the government should be, but I just really like him. He's that guy who shouldn't have gotten this far. I'd like to see him go all the way, and I'd be willing to vote for him.

[DJQuag]

This is an interesting piece on how the NYT being pretty obvious in their Clinton bias. It also puts lie to the narrative that Sanders is too extreme to get anything done with the opposition.

He's principled, honorable, and hasn't been paid off. He is by far the best candidate, and it says a lot about the political climate when Hillary Clinton is the second best option available.

ETA - Forgot the link. 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315?page=2

[AI Wessex]

You raise a fair point about bias in covering "fringe" candidates, which the Times has been very slow to get past with Sanders.  He's a mainstream candidate now who has to be taken seriously, with a clear and strong voice that is influencing Clinton's policy statements to reflect his, while at the same time she hasn't had nearly as much impact on his.  The Times editorial watchdog (Margaret Sullivan) agrees that the unusually significant changes to the original article's content and positive tone caused the revised article to reflect the Times editorial view, which has been less flattering.

I read the article you linked to and all of the articles it links to, as well.  I also agree that the Times introduced a point of view (which they're entitled to do), but there is one section in the original Steinhauer article that is consistent with the Times overall editorial perspective that is overlooked in the discussion:

Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate — from his notions about bank regulations, to the increase he seeks to the minimum wage, to his repeated attempts to get the federal government in the business of providing rebates for the purchase and installation of solar heating systems.

But from his days in the House, where he served from 1991 to 2007, and into his Senate career, Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others.

To paraphrase, he operates (and succeeds) at the margins because his larger ideas are not consistent with either Party's agenda.  You could argue that he has been effective, but you can also argue that while his changes have in some cases had a significant impact on legislation, he has not been a leader on program or policy development in either the House or Senate.  The changes made to the article put more emphasis on this aspect of his legislative history, which if heightening the Times editorial point of view, is not inaccurate.

[Pyrtolin]

Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others.

This is an interesting statement if you think about what the nominal responsibilities of the President in respect to Congress are. He doesn't set the legislative agenda or write the bills, but to the extent that he needs to approve to get them fully passed, that's a good level to operate at.

[AI Wessex]

That sets a low bar that every modern President has far surpassed or failed to succeed against.  The legacy of a President is not on how well s/he applies fit and finish, but on their domestic and international policy objectives (sometimes collectively called the eponymous "X Doctrine") and achievements.  Obama and Clinton are two recent officeholders who will be remembered for how stridently Congress tried to usurp that sense of initiative.

[Pyrtolin]

There are more than one bar. This is specific to going about those higher goals in regard to interactions with Congress, not the whole picture. Specifically just the bar for "Can the President get what's needed from Congress?", not the entirety of "Can the President accomplish major policy goals?"

A president who is consistently able to get things they want into legislation by making deals and accepting a few things they don't like but can work around can easily be more effective than one who can't penetrate Congressional deadlock and has to invest a lot of time and energy in constant battles of will.

[AI Wessex]

We can go round and round finding examples of great successes of Presidents with aggressive agendas (FDR) and those with great failures (Nixon, Bush II) and sometimes both (LBJ).  There are also successful accommodating Presidents (Clinton) and those who don't stand out (Ford).  Carter is interesting because he has come to be considered a failure because he didn't put forward a major agenda and bad things happened on his watch that were not within his ability to control.  So, there's some of each, both and neither.

I would rather go for a President who has the right ideas (Bernie) and can get things done (Hillary), but no one in this year's race measures up all on their own.

[DJQuag]

I wouldn't say Bush the 2nd was ineffective at getting his agenda accomplished. Didn't he largely get what he wanted in the first six years? The only major defeat I remember was over social security privitization.

And I still think you're overstating the difference in their abilities to work with Congress.

[AI Wessex]

By "accomplished", I meant to include if their policies were failures.  Bush II left us with Iraq, Afghanistan and the so-called Great Recession.  That's quite a legacy.

[Pyrtolin]

I would rather go for a President who has the right ideas (Bernie) and can get things done (Hillary), but no one in this year's race measures up all on their own.

And the point made above is that the evidence shows taht, in his own way, Bernie does have a track record of getting things done. It's a very subtle track record, because he doesn't fuss about having his name on the top line, but he actually has shown himself quite capable in a way that's very compatible with the President's nominal power in relationship to Congress. It's a difference of style, not necessarily capability.

[Fenring]

We've been round this bend before, and I don't think anything in the universe would sway Al from his belief that Bernie 'can't get things done.' I just read an article yesterday, which for the life of me I can't find right now, that he has a reputation in the senate as being the "amendment king." Here's another article on the subject, albeit not as good as the other one I read:

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

Instead of trying to bully in bills of his own he uses a bipartisan approach to try to modify existing bills to make them more progressive and add in items that will further his causes. In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win. His reputation as 'amendment king' is that of someone more successful than any other senator in furthering the causes he believes in without making it 'political' or all about him. To me this is a far more important characteristic for a President to have than would be a glory hound or someone who regularly locks horns with the other side. Bernie's relationship with the GOP is basically the opposite of Hillary's; he's that reasonable, friendly guy who they can work with sometimes, and she's their arch-nemesis and devil who they will go down fighting rather than agree to anything she says. Many GOP senators even remark at their liking for Sanders in a personal sense; a testament to the fact that you can be a decent guy and still work in Washington.

[DJQuag]

with a clear and strong voice that is influencing Clinton's policy statements to reflect his

https://youtu.be/O3iBb1gvehI

SFW

[AI Wessex]

Instead of trying to bully in bills of his own he uses a bipartisan approach to try to modify existing bills to make them more progressive and add in items that will further his causes. In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win.

How does that square with his platform that calls for radical change?

DJQuag, yes, she feels the Bern!

[DJQuag]

Because he's been very vocal about his stances and beliefs, and they haven't changed even whilst he's been compromising. He's very capable of compromising, while also using the soapbox of the presidency to call his opponents out and advance his ideas to the public.

[Fenring]

In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win.

How does that square with his platform that calls for radical change?

That is his personal belief, and also what he thinks is the personal belief of many Americans. He wants people to stand up and fight for what they believe in, which in turn has no bearing on whether he's able to compromise or not. Do you really not understand something about this or are you just stonewalling?

[AI Wessex]

In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win.

How does that square with his platform that calls for radical change?

That is his personal belief, and also what he thinks is the personal belief of many Americans. He wants people to stand up and fight for what they believe in, which in turn has no bearing on whether he's able to compromise or not. Do you really not understand something about this or are you just stonewalling?

That makes no sense to me for a candidate, who has to offer clear policy objectives and plans. If he were running for the Office of Motivational Speaker, perhaps...

[Fenring]

That makes no sense to me

Gee, what a surprise :p

[Pete at Home]

In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win.

How does that square with his platform that calls for radical change?

That is his personal belief, and also what he thinks is the personal belief of many Americans. He wants people to stand up and fight for what they believe in, which in turn has no bearing on whether he's able to compromise or not. Do you really not understand something about this or are you just stonewalling?

That makes no sense to me for a candidate, who has to offer clear policy objectives and plans. If he were running for the Office of Motivational Speaker, perhaps...

Facepalm.

It's the most powerful and most honest use of the executive.  You compromise on what you sign, but appeal directly to The People to put pressure on their reps.  You use the bully pulpit to expose the workings of every back room deal.  It's the only honest and effective way to fight against contributor back door oligarchy.

[Pete at Home]

I would rather go for a President who has the right ideas (Bernie) and can get things done (Hillary), but no one in this year's race measures up all on their own.

And the point made above is that the evidence shows taht, in his own way, Bernie does have a track record of getting things done. It's a very subtle track record, because he doesn't fuss about having his name on the top line, but he actually has shown himself quite capable in a way that's very compatible with the President's nominal power in relationship to Congress. It's a difference of style, not necessarily capability.

Interesting. Thanks. 

[AI Wessex]

It's the most powerful and most honest use of the executive.

I don't hear Bernie talking about compromises or incremental progress, so would you expect that a reluctant Congress would hope to mollify him with amendments?  A major component of "liberal disappointment" with Obama is that he accomplished so much less than he promised.  Granted Trump's never held office, but then why take what he says seriously?  He could "work around the edges" and not call for sweeping changes once he's in office. 

I'm surprised that people here who like Bernie so much for his boldness appear to be willing to take less and say they will still be satisfied. Would you be happy if Sanders accomplished as much in office as Clinton claims she wants to do?  If her goals are more modest, mightn't she do more than she promises and exceed expectations? 

Does it really matter which one is elected, in that case?

[Pyrtolin]

A lot of small changes stacked on top of each other can easily add up to a few large changes that never actually happen.

And you're confusing scope of ultimate vision with strategy to implement that vision. How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Clinton may be promising to swallow a turkey whole, but the elephant is, once finished, a much larger goal to reach.

[Fenring]

It's the most powerful and most honest use of the executive.

I don't hear Bernie talking about compromises or incremental progress, so would you expect that a reluctant Congress would hope to mollify him with amendments? 

Are you joking? This is a Presidential campaign and he's trying to rile people up and get them excited. If you think that can be done without going for broke with your beliefs then I don't know what you think a campaign should look like.

The idealist in me still hopes for Bernie to win, but the comedian in me is hoping that Hillary will beat him so that you can enjoy four years of a Trump presidency. No matter what he does in office I promise you I'll look back at this with some sense of satisfaction.

[AI Wessex]

Are you joking?

Let me repeat the obvious in the form of a question.  Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

And you're confusing scope of ultimate vision with strategy to implement that vision.

Mebbe, mebbe not.  You can't fight a war one soldier at a time.  Sanders initiatives are far larger than an elephant, and somewhat less than a war.  Which of those analogies will apply to him will depend on how much he actually tries to achieve in office.

[JoshuaD]

Ai:Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

As an aside, Bernie's got much wider across-the-aisle appeal. Look at the moderate conservatives you've got lined up in this thread saying "Yea, I like Bernie."

There's no chance I vote for Clinton. But Bernie's got me sold.

[Fenring]

Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

By posing this question you are implicitly stating that Obama shouldn't be blamed for any lack of success he encountered in his Presidency, which by corollary I assume you want to lay at the feet of the GOP. Your point, I take it, is that Sanders couldn't do any better than Obama did so what's the difference. This is a much more complex question than can be fielded here, but in short it depends on information we don't have. It depends heavily on to what extent Obama always was a company man, versus having had a real vision and then once in office having been instructed by the powers that be that he'd better play ball or else. I can't say I know which is more true, or if it's a blend. My instinct tells me it's a little of both but I can't be sure.

To whatever extent it was the system at fault (and I would put it that way rather than blame the GOP, who are merely agents of the system) the only cure is raising public awareness not to put up with it. There are certain kinds of changes you can't really make from within while the people think there's nothing wrong going on. With pressure for change coming from local constituencies things start to happen, even if slowly. But being quiet about it publicly while trying to wage a battle against the system from within (or against the other party) is a losing game since the entrenched power structure will always beat you in this kind of game.

The Occupy movement was a good sign, and Sanders picked up that torch successfully. Maybe if Obama had only come along now he could have done the same; I don't know. But there is a right time and place for things and if Obama came at the wrong time to make positive change then I can't blame him for that. But that doesn't mean I have to accept your implicit defeatism and say that because one guy couldn't do it no one can.

[Pete at Home]

"Let me repeat the obvious in the form of a question.  Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?"

Because he didnt make us take a loyalty oath to him, maybe?  :. Look, different people have different motives and expectations.  Obama wasnt worse than the Bishes or Clinton.  But Sanders acctually gives me hope.

[AI Wessex]

By posing this question you are implicitly stating that Obama shouldn't be blamed for any lack of success he encountered in his Presidency, which by corollary I assume you want to lay at the feet of the GOP.

Answer the question without somehow making it about me asking it.

Your point, I take it

I didn't make a point, so don't make one for me just to quibble with it.

[Seriati]

Are you joking?

Let me repeat the obvious in the form of a question.  Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

Because they've always been unrealistic in their expectations.  They represent a minority of the voting populace, which means a majority of the government is made up of people who don't share their views.  Couple that with their absolute conviction that any negative results of any policy they favor must only be attributable to either "obstructionism" or "not going far enough" and your in a situation where anything less than a full out win is an unbelievable failure, and anything that goes wrong is proof of an unbelievable failure or the inadvisability of "compromises" or "concessions" to the other side, which obviously caused the failure, and you're left with perpetually dissatisfied liberals even after the most liberal President in forty years.

I've rethought it, I can't vote for Sanders, but the difference is I can respect him.  I firmly believe that even if elected, he won't be able to get any grand sweeping changes through Congress, but it's very possible he could cut deals where he gets more of what he wants than I'd like, but gives his opponents more of what they want than he'd like (something the current President won't do).

[Pyrtolin]

Let me repeat the obvious in the form of a question.  Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

Because his negotiation strategy failed, and he didn't shift it well enough or use the tools that he had at his disposal well enough to make as much progress as people would have like to see. Clinton may absolutely be more willing to apply those tools forcefully, but Sanders offers a proven track record of applying them with finesse and actually accomplishing a lot against odds taht seemed stacked against him.

Clinton may be able to pull off a few big upsets, but that needs to be weighed against Sanders being able to score a mountain of small victories that amount to much more meaningful change, and that's without getting into the difference in potential coattails so far as setting how favorable the congress he needs to deal with is.

[AI Wessex]

Clinton may be able to pull off a few big upsets, but that needs to be weighed against Sanders being able to score a mountain of small victories that amount to much more meaningful change, and that's without getting into the difference in potential coattails so far as setting how favorable the congress he needs to deal with is.

If Sanders is the nominee and is elected, if he does this I would take it as a big win.  So, I'm back to being ok if it's either Clinton or Sanders, and for once I'm pretty confident I'll be right this time.

[AI Wessex]

So, we're veering ever more deeply into la-la land for this election.  This article in the NYT describes the feverish behind the scenes efforts in the GOP to deny Trump the nomination.  It makes no sense for them to field an independent candidate if Trump ends up the nominee if they want to win the election outright.  Even though it's not stated, the only way for the GOP establishment to get what it wants is for the election to get thrown to the House because no candidate received the necessary number of electoral votes.  To do that, they would have to deny Clinton a plurality in enough states, but even that seems a bit far-fetched since she would get all of the Democratic Party votes but Trump and the as-yet-unknown 3rd candidate would split the Republican vote.  Strange times, strange times...

[Gary238]

Really are strange times. It rubs me the wrong way when the losing team scrambles to change the rules, but I gess that's always been part of the game.
I'd love to see a four way Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Whoever general election.

[AI Wessex]

The rules changes are usually initiated by the candidate leading with the most delegates. In 2012 Romney's team used that to create the rule requiring candidates on the 2nd ballot to have won the majority of delegates in at least 8 caucuses or primaries.  That won't work this year to unseat Trump given that Cruz may not reach that threshold due to Kasich drawing delegates from both of the others.  So, Trump may not have the necessary number to win on the first ballot and the "GOP establishment" will have to rig the rules committee to deny him the easy path on the second ballot.  We also have to keep in mind that the delegates awarded in Colorado, Pennsylvania and a few other states are not committed and in theory can vote for anybody even on the first ballot.  That means that even if Trump has the votes, he may still not get the nomination.

[NobleHunter]

Really are strange times. It rubs me the wrong way when the losing team scrambles to change the rules, but I gess that's always been part of the game.
I'd love to see a four way Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Whoever general election.

That'd look a lot like a Canadian election, well one from the '90s (NPD, Liberal, Alliance, PC, respectively). I don't think the Electoral College is set up to get along with that many choices.

[DJQuag]

So Clinton's spokesperson has said that she is refusing to do anymore debates with Sanders because he has been too "negative."

I'm not surprised she's scared. Sanders would run rings around her.

[D.W.]

Not sure about running rings around her, but it would defiantly give him much needed exposure.  It does work to the Clinton campaign's advantage to ignore him and hope he goes away.  Beat the drum that the contest is already over and he's a distraction.  She has zero to gain no matter how well she performs in a debate against him.  The level of blunder he would have to make for her to come out ahead would have to be ridiculous, even by the standard of this primary season's antics.

[LetterRip]

This seems like it would be ripe for mocking.  If she can't handle the absolute kid gloves that Bernie has treated her with, what will she do against a opponent who doesn't take pains to be nice to her.

If I were his campaign manager I'd get cartoons about cowardice circulating ('If you can't handle little ol Bernie, how will you be able to win against mean ol' Trump) on the internet to mock her with and embarrass her into doing a debate.

[Fenring]

Unfortunately, LR, the same reason Hillary is a liar is the reason Bernie won't do that. He has refused at every opportunity to engage her negatively, and now that she's calling bully on him it will go unanswered. Maybe that's for the best.

[scifibum]

That sort of mockery would be a little ironic.  He can call her out, but he needs to do it respectfully.

[AI Wessex]

I think the explanation may be simpler.  She's ahead with what she hopes is a glide path to the nomination.  Bernie has hard-core support from a segment (big but not as broad as hers), and she doesn't want to give him more public exposure, as it won't help her but could cut into her own support.  Calling him negative is just an excuse, a little unfair, not beanbag, but not out of bounds.  If you don't like Clinton you won't like her less because of this.  If you do like her you'll shrug it off.

[LetterRip]

I think she can be called out in a manner that is sufficiently respectful.

'If Hillary Clinton is afraid to debate Sanders in New York, where she was a Senator and has 'home turf advantage', how can we have confidence in her ability to successfully debate with Trump in the primaries?'

AI - I agree that she is hoping for said glide path, and the calling him negative is just an (idiotic) excuse.

[D.W.]

Maybe that's not a fair criticism at all.  I mean, are we confident Trump and Hillary (if both the nominees) would ever consent to a debate?  We all assume they will have to, but given this climate?  I'm not sure that's a given.

[AI Wessex]

For Trump there are only 3 certainties in life: death, taxes and getting clobbered by Hillary in the general election.  We can be confident that he will lie, cheat and steal his way out of all of them if he can.

[Fenring]

For Trump there are only 3 certainties in life: death, taxes and getting clobbered by Hillary in the general election.  We can be confident that he will lie, cheat and steal his way out of all of them if he can.

I will be sure to remind you of this statement should President Trump ever be sworn in. He is more likely to be defeated by the RNC than by Hillary.

[Pete at Home]

So Clinton's spokesperson has said that she is refusing to do anymore debates with Sanders because he has been too "negative."

What a loser.  *Sanders* is too "negative"?  I'm hard pressed to think of a less negative presidential candidate in the last 30 years.

[Pete at Home]

Really are strange times. It rubs me the wrong way when the losing team scrambles to change the rules, but I gess that's always been part of the game.
I'd love to see a four way Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Whoever general election.

I wish that too, but I don't think Sanders will do that ... he'll honor his new commitment to the DNC, even if they backstab him.

[Wayward Son]

He is more likely to be defeated by the RNC than by Hillary.

I kinda doubt that, Fenring.

For one, not nominating Trump will cost the Republican Party quite a bit.  It will alienate a large segment of Trump supporters who will feel that the RNC "stole" Trump's nomination, which is a price the RNC may not be willing to pay.

And while Hillary has a -13 point unfavorability rating among voters, Trump is posting a -33 point average.  While people hate Hillary, they really hate Trump.

So with the RNC having so much to lose, and Hillary being less unpopular than Trump, I'd say there is a better chance of him being defeated in the general election.

[Pete at Home]

It's the most powerful and most honest use of the executive.

I don't hear Bernie talking about compromises or incremental progress

He's talked about it, but it's not his focus.  Don't obfuscate it; it's a simple idea.  set your sights high, guide the people towards your goal, and then take whatever steps you can take in that direction.  As opposed to Obama who misleads people about where he's going on SSM.  Compromise isn't the goal, it's the only honest means towards your end.

[Fenring]

For one, not nominating Trump will cost the Republican Party quite a bit.  It will alienate a large segment of Trump supporters who will feel that the RNC "stole" Trump's nomination, which is a price the RNC may not be willing to pay.

Maybe so, WS, we will see. Just remember how consistently wrong people have been about Trump's appeal and his chances from the start until now. Are you so sure you understand how he generates support? if I had told you a year ago that he would personally torpedo Bush's campaign and send it down in flames like the Hindenburg I bet you would have called me crazy. After all, Trump ran before and never achieved much, while Bush had a dynasty behind him. People were all but resigned to a Bush vs. Hillary election before primary campaigns were even announced. I wonder that people whose predictions were that far off before can now feel sure about the outcome.