2016 Presidential Democratic Primary Thread

[Hicks]

If there were truly an obtainable middle ground, I would agree. The powers that be, mainly on the far right, make the middle unobtainable.

I hear this a lot, but what middle ground has the left been willing to concede on? To me it's just a lot of screaming and pointing fingers with very little willingness on either side to compromise. Of course, I'm just a no man in no man's land, so what do I know.

I do not have high hopes that Hillary would be effective in office. 

Take the vitriol that has been aimed at Obama since day one and multiply it by 100. 

That's the level of obstruction she will have to deal with.   

I don't disagree that if there is one thing that could unit the GOP clans, it's another Clinton. But do you really think it would be better with Bernie? Pretty sure Republicans would take just as much issue with his spend first, ask questions later attitude.

Of course, you can't respond to me so as not to disrupt your perfect post count.

I would like to think that if by some miracle Bernie wins, that you would see a more energized Democrat base than what we have seen in our lifetimes.   Yes the Repubs would fight us, but maybe, just maybe, we would finally be ready to fight back. 

Also, post counting is for n00bs. 

[sls.stormyrider]

the way the Senate works now (or doesn't work) is that it takes 60, not 51 for a majority. I don't see any Prez who can do that by him - herself
(LOL at the Christie commercials where he says that he'll be able to get Congress to follow him and do the right thing)

[runawayjimbo]

Late night watching the Birds and no one here today so it's time to start running out the clock...

uh, he's running for president of what country?  prioritizing american workers, as president of the United States, is jingoistic?  racist?
i think you have blown a gasket duder, and owe Senator Sanders an apology.

I didn't say racist. But if he grants amnesty, aren't all workers American?

Also, Trevor Noah reads the paug. He owes Sanders an apology for calling him "just another disingenuous politician":  http://on.cc.com/1MRfa4r

agree to a point. Clearly, there are people in both parties who care more about party and power than they care about you and I.
But I think if you look back over the last 4 admins, the GOP seems to be clearly more obstructive.
2 govt shut downs
a record # of fillibusters.
getting rid of their own speaker because he's too moderate

The idea that filibuster is evidence of obstruction doesn't really hold a lot of weight for me for 2 reasons. First, a filibuster should only be considered obstruction if it successfully blocks the matter at hand. Rand Paul filibustered for 10 hours on reauthorization of the Patriot Act but in the end it passed so how could this count as obstruction? A better measure would be how often cloture votes fail. So I looked at the record from the Senate.gov page and tallied up how many times a cloture vote failed (i.e., votes on cloture minus cloture invoked). And it turns out since Obama has been president, cloture has failed 121 times vs. 135 during W, not exactly a landslide. Of course, that doesn't really tell you anything because you need to consider which party is in the minority. And when you look at it this way, Rs blocked cloture 91 times in Obama's first 6 yrs vs. Ds 57 from 2003-2006, or an avg of 15.2 R vs 14.25 D per year, again, more for Rs but not the overwhelming onslaught it is often made out to be. But of course, even THAT doesn't really tell you anything because we don't know whether these cloture motions were filed on actual important legislation or whether it was over Obama's nomination for Assistant Undersecretary to the Director of Advanced Public Bathroom Logistics. My point is that the filibuster in and of itself is by no means evidence of obstruction to me. It's far more nuanced than that. Which brings me to point #2...

If/when the GOP wins back the White House and Ds regain Senate (because it will happen at some point), will people still find the filibuster to be evidence of obstruction? Or will there suddenly be a groundswell of support to protect from the tyranny of the majority?

hell - if Obama says that he likes an idea that a republican thought of, the GOP all of the sudden hates it
(ex Gregg bill on a deficit commission, appx 10 co-sponsors until Obama said he liked it, "death panels" were originally a GOP idea, ACA actually with GOP hatched ideas)

While the Heritage Foundation originally conceived the individual mandate, the actual plan was vastly different from the ACA. The mandate was needed to prevent anti-selection problems (the very same problems the ACA is suffering from today, even with the mandate), but that's where the similarities end.

Also, should people not be allowed to change their mind on the best course action with regard to policy? As a healthcare provider, aren't the challenges of health care reform different today than they were from the predominately managed care environment of 20 years ago? Finally, while I recognize the perceived hypocrisy (although as I said, I don't even really see it as that), you're not actually telling me the Republicans had a good idea, are you? :wink:

Most of us who were, um, hopeful when Obama went into office have seen time and again the left coming toward middle ground. ACA is a perfect example of this.

The ACA in its final form was not much different from the plan laid out by candidate Obama in 2008. In fact, the only substantive difference is that he embraced Hillary's idea of the individual mandate. But other than that, his plan is almost identical: exchanges, employer mandates, expansions of Medicaid, no public option. I mean, I guess by "hopeful" you mean you thought he intended to tack to the left and you were just chalking his reluctance to be forthright up to not believing what a candidate says (a instinct that I would implore you to embrace universally). But it's not true that the ACA represents an enormous olive branch from Obama to appease Republicans. In fact, the only concessions he made were to appease reluctant members of his own party since Ds were calling all the shots back then.

I would like to think that if by some miracle Bernie wins, that you would see a more energized Democrat base than what we have seen in our lifetimes.   Yes the Repubs would fight us, but maybe, just maybe, we would finally be ready to fight back. 

If Bernie were to win, Ds would likely take the Senate back as well. But the House would still be in GOP hands so I'd expect a lot more bickering and finger pointing and polarization.

Also, post counting is for n00bs. 

In that case I'll fuck up your perfect karma too.

[rowjimmy]

Webb is out.

Yeah, I don't care either.

[sls.stormyrider]

without quoting everything-

yes, I admit that Republicans have come up with good ideas. I have even voted for a few of them.
I also am against the use of filibuster in general, whether it is used by a Dem or GOP. Also, the threat of fillibuster is often just as strong as the actual fillibuster - same as veto. That said, I agreed with Rand Paul

Yes, as Hillary pointed out, people can change their minds. Many "liberals" of today were not always in favor of gay marriage.
Romney wrote an editorial in USA today espousing Romneycare, and how the principles should be used to guide the Federal plan. A few years later, he said that if Obama asked him if we should use it for the Federal plan he would have said NO WAY (emphasis was made in romney's speaking tone)
As soon as the term "death panel" was coined, all of the GOP used it, even though the ethical panels a)were not about euthanasia, they were about a consult to assist people with difficult, expensive, end of life decisions, and b) the concept was conceived by a Republican. That is more than hypocrisy, that is lying. Hypocrisy is when the GOP fled co - sponsorship of Gregg's bill.
And then there were the 2 govt shutdowns, with threats of a 3rd. Ted Cruz is proud of them.
Then there is the fact that Mitch McConnell did his best to squash the compromise of the "gang of 7", not to mention the fact that the right considers "compromise" a dirty word.


Like I said, are the Dems sometimes obstructive? yes. but the GOP has perfected it to an art form.
That, and the crazies on the right have more power than the crazies on the left.

[Hicks]

Obama wanted a public option as part of the ACA and didn't get it. 

If a public option had been included the healthcare landscape would look very different.   

[runawayjimbo]

yes, I admit that Republicans have come up with good ideas. I have even voted for a few of them.
I also am against the use of filibuster in general, whether it is used by a Dem or GOP. Also, the threat of fillibuster is often just as strong as the actual fillibuster - same as veto. That said, I agreed with Rand Paul

Fair enough. I still would contend the original idea of compelling people by force to buy a product from a private company was and continues to be a shitty one tho.

Like I said, are the Dems sometimes obstructive? yes. but the GOP has perfected it to an art form.
That, and the crazies on the right have more power than the crazies on the left.

A socialist is in a dead heat (at least in the national polls) with one of the most formidable campaign machines and money raising organizations in the party's history. What does that say about the power structure on the left?

To the extent that the "crazies" have more power, I would say that signifies the GOP Congress is more willing to part with their leadership than the Dems are. For a country that says it is fed up with the status quo, I fail to see how this is a bad thing (of course, I view gov't inaction as a feature not a bug). If the Dems were more willing to stand up for their purported beliefs instead of taking their marching orders like good soldiers from Pelosi & Reid, maybe there would be real debate about the proper direction of this country. But as long as the parties continue to march in lockstep with their leaders, we should get used to further entrenchment and polarization.

Obama wanted a public option as part of the ACA and didn't get it. 

If a public option had been included the healthcare landscape would look very different.   

Huh. I had to look this one up because I didn't remember it. But given his reluctance to talk about it, I would refer you to my statement about snake-oil slinging campaigners.

[ytowndan]

A socialist is in a dead heat (at least in the national polls) with one of the most formidable campaign machines and money raising organizations in the party's history. What does that say about the power structure on the left?

Except it's not a "dead heat" in the national polls at all.  Clinton is still up by a large margin of 20-30 points depending on which national poll you're looking at.  And her lead gets even bigger when Biden is not included.  Sanders is even down again in New Hampshire by 8 points according to the latest PPP poll.  (However, that could just be an aberration, as a Boston Herald/FPU poll of NH Dems from just a day earlier had him leading Clinton by 8 points, so we'll have to see what happens.) 

All this and the Clinton Machine hasn't even really had to flex its muscles yet.  The real strength of the establishment will come out if/when it does become a truly competitive race.  Don't get me wrong, I want Bernie to win and I believe he can, but the rosy picture of the left that you're painting is highly exaggerated. 

To the extent that the "crazies" have more power, I would say that signifies the GOP Congress is more willing to part with their leadership than the Dems are. For a country that says it is fed up with the status quo, I fail to see how this is a bad thing (of course, I view gov't inaction as a feature not a bug). If the Dems were more willing to stand up for their purported beliefs instead of taking their marching orders like good soldiers from Pelosi & Reid, maybe there would be real debate about the proper direction of this country.

I couldn't agree more, and this helps illustrate my point above.  If you want to see the left wing of Congress, look no further than the several dozen members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (all are House Democrats with one exception -- Bernie Sanders).  The CPC is the official left wing of the Democratic Party, and they can't even muster a majority of members willing to back single-payer healthcare or tuition-free college.  Now, I'm not trying to paint the CPC as a bunch of Wall Street Dems.  They're not.  But most would be considered center-left at best, and they're nowhere near as powerful as the Freedom Caucus is on the right (or whatever the Tea Party calls themselves now). 

What remains of the American Left is highly disorganized and operates almost entirely outside of electoral politics, and the few who do make it into office are quickly marginalized by the Democratic Party.  Bernie is an exception and he has proven himself to be a master of grassroots organizing.  He attracts gigantic crowds and raises unbelievably large sums of money from small donors.  His strategy could very well change things going forward.  But it's way too soon to celebrate a "rebirth" of the left. 

[PIE-GUY]

I don't know what y'all are blabbing about, but this rules:

[mbw]

 

[ytowndan]

 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

[whatapiper]

I can't imagine anything better to watch while waiting for this left turn red signal to turn green.

[runawayjimbo]

A socialist is in a dead heat (at least in the national polls) with one of the most formidable campaign machines and money raising organizations in the party's history. What does that say about the power structure on the left?

Except it's not a "dead heat" in the national polls at all.  Clinton is still up by a large margin of 20-30 points depending on which national poll you're looking at.  And her lead gets even bigger when Biden is not included.  Sanders is even down again in New Hampshire by 8 points according to the latest PPP poll.  (However, that could just be an aberration, as a Boston Herald/FPU poll of NH Dems from just a day earlier had him leading Clinton by 8 points, so we'll have to see what happens.) 

All this and the Clinton Machine hasn't even really had to flex its muscles yet.  The real strength of the establishment will come out if/when it does become a truly competitive race.  Don't get me wrong, I want Bernie to win and I believe he can, but the rosy picture of the left that you're painting is highly exaggerated. 

Fair point, it's a dead heat only in NH. I don't think it's a stretch to say he's outperformed even his own expectations when he got into it, but you're right, she is in firm control. And now with Biden out and most polls showing Hillary getting the best post-debate bump, the drama is fading fast.

Maybe a better measure of the radicalization of the left to which I was speaking is this YouGov poll which shows a near majority of Democrats prefer socialism over capitalism. So while the power on the left still resides in the establishment (which, as discussed, is consistent with the right), the attitudes of the Democratic voters are clearly shifting. Unfortunately (for your side), the electorate in total is still widely opposed.

I don't know what y'all are blabbing about, but this rules:

It's the smoke billowing from the crowd ~1 min that really sets it off for me.

[rowjimmy]

Socialism over capitalism...
If that's radical, then I certainly prefer to be rad.

And I've been rad for a long time, too.

[runawayjimbo]

Socialism over capitalism...
If that's radical, then I certainly prefer to be rad.

And I've been rad for a long time, too.

I kinda assumed
You were always rad, duder
Spittin hawt haikus