2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Gredival]

Err, I misread but my comment still applies to him!

The only one with flat true that rivals him is Hillary. The only ones with combined mostly true + true that are close are Hillary and Bernie. Bernie might be better by 4% on true + mostly true, but I'd take 35/50~ over 20/54~

[notorious bum]

Slick Willy was a real stand-up guy.

[dasva]

Well remember these are just the sets that got picked out as "catching their eyes" not really a measurement of overall honesty. Of course there are other things too like potential bias but yeah I mean the very fact Bill got most honest should raise some red flags

[Andalusian girls]

Another statistic with inverse correlation to standing: lying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/op...an-others.html

Though it is delicious irony that Bill Clinton is overall the most honest politician of the past two decades.

reality has a well-known liberal bias

[6souls]

Rubio has a plan to outlaw gay marriage should he be elected; stack the deck in the supreme court to change the law.

[notorious bum]

[Sho]

Best.

[Yuri-G]

Rubio has a plan to outlaw gay marriage should he be elected; stack the deck in the supreme court to change the law.

good luck with that, Rubio. good luck indeed.

[Waraji]

I mean, any republican candidate can do a great amount of damage by flipping the SCOTUS judges towards more conservative.

[Quicklet]

Empty promise for the purpose of winning primary votes. I'm not convinced a Republican president could turn the court more conservative even if they wanted to. In fact I'm not even sure the next vacancy is going to get filled in a timely manner with how bad Congress is right now. It's going to be ugly.

[Gredival]

Empty promise for the purpose of winning primary votes. I'm not convinced a Republican president could turn the court more conservative even if they wanted to. In fact I'm not even sure the next vacancy is going to get filled in a timely manner with how bad Congress is right now. It's going to be ugly.

Congress can stall, or even reject a candidate, but eventually a SCOTUS vacancy would get filled within a year. If the GOP takes the Presidency, you can bet you're going to get someone closer to Alito/Scalia/Thomas in jurisprudence than Kennedy or even Roberts.

SCOTUS is almost as politicized as other branches at this point, but with the way obstructionism can limit the other branches advancing rights in the courts (judicial "activism") is one of the few outlets the civil rights movement has now.

The days of Presidents nominating moderate justices, or justices that could ultimately represent another side are long gone and the danger is that Ginsburg's seat is probably the most likely one to vacate. That would be absolutely disastrous.

[Quicklet]

I completely disagree. If a vacancy opens up in 2016-2017, the only way I see it being filled is if Republicans lose decisively or they hit 60 seats in the Senate. Anything in-between ends in a stalement with neither side budging. Everything is too polarized and the stakes are too high for either side to give up a seat when it is the only functioning branch of government right now.

[Gredival]

Obama got two candidates through within a year each when the GOP's top priority was to be obstructionist. I don't think the Dems can block a Republican appointee for four years, especially given that they are the party that's supposed to care and not let everything go to shit just to say no. Additionally, consider how many Dems in red states that can't be an automatic no just because a justice is too conservative.

[Marootsoobutsu]

I completely disagree. If a vacancy opens up in 2016-2017, the only way I see it being filled is if Republicans lose decisively or they hit 60 seats in the Senate. Anything in-between ends in a stalement with neither side budging. Everything is too polarized and the stakes are too high for either side to give up a seat when it is the only functioning branch of government right now.

This is extremely naive. The Democrats aren't as unified as the Republicans are-- and the Republicans are pretty darned fractured. And as Gred said, Obama got his people in against a strong GOP majority. Supreme Court Justices are very, very, very rarely blocked, and it would take an enormous amount of political clout-- political clout the Democrats won't have if the Republicans win the White House-- to shut down the President's nominees.

[Gredival]

The Democrats aren't as unified as the Republicans are-- and the Republicans are pretty darned fractured.

When it comes to internal strategy, they are shot to hell. But they are pretty damn united when it comes to saying no to anything Obama wants.

[Quicklet]

Obama got two candidates through within a year each when the GOP's top priority was to be obstructionist. I don't think the Dems can block a Republican appointee for four years, especially given that they are the party that's supposed to care and not let everything go to shit just to say no. Especially with how many Dems in red states that can't be an automatic no.

That's the thing though. There aren't that many Dems in red states to worry about anymore. I know it seems like a given that SCOTUS positions get filled, but so much has happened in the past 10 years that is going to weigh on the next vacancy. We are in an unprecedented time of divisiveness and it's going to be reflected in the supreme court confirmation process.

Why would Democrats support a supreme court justice who would endanger Roe v. Wade, endanger LGBT rights, endanger workers' rights? If a Republican got into the White House you'd see the Dems in the Senate turn obstructionist extremely fast on core issues. The supreme court is a core issue.

This is extremely naive. The Democrats aren't as unified as the Republicans are-- and the Republicans are pretty darned fractured. And as Gred said, Obama got his people in against a strong GOP majority. Supreme Court Justices are very, very, very rarely blocked, and it would take an enormous amount of political clout-- political clout the Democrats won't have if the Republicans win the White House-- to shut down the President's nominees.

There's no evidence to back up that assertion. If anything the Democrats have been extremely unified as a minority party in Congress. According to conservatives, all the Republicans do is cave to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on negotations over the budget and keeping the government open.

I agree that a long-term refusal to confirm justices to the Supreme Court would be unprecedented in modern history, but I don't see a convincing argument that obstructionism would be bad for the Democrats when it has worked out so well for Republicans. This isn't like replacing Scalia with Alito. Replacing RBG with a conservative justice would create a full revolt from the progressives on the scale of the tea party revolt after the ACA was passed.

[Marootsoobutsu]

That's the thing though. There aren't that many Dems in red states to worry about anymore. I know it seems like a given that SCOTUS positions get filled, but so much has happened in the past 10 years that is going to weigh on the next vacancy. We are in an unprecedented time of divisiveness and it's going to be reflected in the supreme court confirmation process.

Why would Democrats support a supreme court justice who would endanger Roe v. Wade, endanger LGBT rights, endanger workers' rights? If a Republican got into the White House you'd see the Dems in the Senate turn obstructionist extremely fast on core issues. The supreme court is a core issue.



There's no evidence to back up that assertion. If anything the Democrats have been extremely unified as a minority party in Congress. According to conservatives, all the Republicans do is cave to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on negotations over the budget and keeping the government open.

I agree that a long-term refusal to confirm justices to the Supreme Court would be unprecedented in modern history, but I don't see a convincing argument that obstructionism would be bad for the Democrats when it has worked out so well for Republicans. This isn't like replacing Scalia with Alito. Replacing RBG with a conservative justice would create a full revolt from the progressives on the scale of the tea party revolt after the ACA was passed.

There are so many blue-dog Dems still around, it's silly to say the Dems are united. And, I'm sorry-- we are not at a point of unprecedented divisiveness. We really, really aren't. I mean, to point out the biggest elephant in the room, The freaking Civil War. The 1960s were more divisive than we are now, as were, in a lot of ways, the 1900s, the 1920s, and the 1970s. Pretty much the entirety of the 1800s was WAY worse than what we have now, and for more recent history, look no further than Bill Clinton's impeachment and the following Senate vote. This is not uncharted territory, this is nothing new, it's relatively mild compared to a great many instances in living memory, let alone longer-term American history. You just becoming aware of it doesn't mean it isn't something that was always there. The 1980s under Reagan and Bush I, and Bush I and Clinton in the 90s were pretty exceptionally communicative for the history of American politics, as were the first 4~ years of Bush II, which makes the last 10 years in particular look a lot worse, but really... this is Politics As Usual for most of American history (and, really, probably most of world history).

[Pirian]

hmm not coming up as an image, dunno why, oh well

Spoiler: show

[Gredival]

hmm not coming up as an image, dunno why, oh well

Spoiler: show

http://imgur.com/lybZA33.jpg

Since BG switched over to https, you need to use https when trying to post images on the board including using https in your sig.

[Quicklet]

There are so many blue-dog Dems still around, it's silly to say the Dems are united. And, I'm sorry-- we are not at a point of unprecedented divisiveness. We really, really aren't. I mean, to point out the biggest elephant in the room, The freaking Civil War. The 1960s were more divisive than we are now, as were, in a lot of ways, the 1900s, the 1920s, and the 1970s. Pretty much the entirety of the 1800s was WAY worse than what we have now, and for more recent history, look no further than Bill Clinton's impeachment and the following Senate vote. This is not uncharted territory, this is nothing new, it's relatively mild compared to a great many instances in living memory, let alone longer-term American history. You just becoming aware of it doesn't mean it isn't something that was always there. The 1980s under Reagan and Bush I, and Bush I and Clinton in the 90s were pretty exceptionally communicative for the history of American politics, as were the first 4~ years of Bush II, which makes the last 10 years in particular look a lot worse, but really... this is Politics As Usual for most of American history (and, really, probably most of world history).

There are 14 Blue Dog Democrats left in Congress. That's less than the House Freedom Caucus. They simply do not matter as a voting bloc anymore because the Deep South is almost completely red now. This is what gerrymandering does. There are very few vulnerable Democratic reps in conservative districts because most of them have been defeated.

Here is one way you can measure the divisiveness of politics right now:

Spoiler: show

The last two congresses have been the least productive in the past ~70 years. We have had a credit downgrade and the longest government shutdown in almost 20 years (which is more or less where this disfunction started incubating). We have ground troops in a new country and Congress can't even take up a new authorization for the use of military force. Most of the important bills that actually do get passed are passed because of Democrat support because Republicans can't manage to unify to pass anything that won't be vetoed.

It's funny that you mention the 1960s and 1970s because I think that's in many ways a good starting point for comparison, but yes, I think the amount of division and rancor between parties (primarily from the hardline conservative side itching for full control of their party) is getting to the same levels as those other periods you listed.

My point still stands that I don't believe Democrats would confirm a nominee that would shift the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction, and I sure as hell don't believe Republicans would allow Kennedy or especially a Scalia to be replaced by a more solidly liberal justice. Maybe they would give a pass on Ginsberg, but you are going to have conservatives screaming that it's the end of the world if the court returns to a 5-4 liberal split.