Exclusive footage from Trump Tower of Trump sending out his surrogates for the day.
-----
This year's election sucks so much, even memes have scandals. Ken Bone revealed his real reddit account on his AMA, ppl find his porn comments, review of his vasectomy, and he thought the Trayvon Martin shooting was justified.
And Hannity (self admitted not-journalist) had Clinton's accusers on for a special last night that of course studiously avoid anything about Trump's accusers.
One would think, if she had both houses, she could do some meaningful things on the progressive side like Wall Street accountability (like meaningful penalties on individuals and corporations guilty of white collar crime), forcing most of the Forture 500 companies to bring their profits back to the U.S. subject to proper taxation and any number of things on the electoral reform front.
that will never ever happen down there. They might do some cosmetic changes, but make no mistake about it, Hillary and the Democrats are just as beholded to gun lobbies as the Republicans are.
they are? how so? they get like 10k from the NRA's political victory fund, I'm sure they wouldn't miss that.
The ACA needs a bunch of fixing. Public payer option, and filling in the many gaps that people fall through would go along ways. I don't know that it survives, and it is successful without some real changes.
they are? how so? they get like 10k from the NRA's political victory fund, I'm sure they wouldn't miss that.
The power the NRA has over the Dems is voter turnout, particularly in the swing states, the Dems may not like them but they try not to piss them off either.
The NRA can get their supporters out like almost no other lobby and 10,000 or 15,000 voters in a swing state can elect or unelect a senetor.
I think HRC would want a public option in Obamacare or Medicare for all.
Balance the budget, push USA closer to single payer health care and 3 liberal or even moderate Supreme Court justices... that would be a pretty satisfying presidency for HRC
Not gonna happen. Obama couldn't get single payer through with a super-majority in the senate and control of the house, HRC isn't likely to have either.
She'll get the Supreme Court nominees (although I strongly suspect Garland will be confirmed in the lame duck session so it might only be 1 or 2 depending on 2020). As for signature legislation I think that gun control is more likely to be the signature legislation she can get through (and even that will be more limited then ought probably just an assault weapon ban, gun show loophole closure, and expanded background checks).
The notion Hillary having the full deck (WH, Congress and the Senate) will matter kind of ignores that Obama had it for almost 2 years and he didn't get anything meaningful done. So she needs to be careful how she uses political capital and not go for something too big too early.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Not gonna happen. Obama couldn't get single payer through with a super-majority in the senate and control of the house, HRC isn't likely to have either.
She'll get the Supreme Court nominees (although I strongly suspect Garland will be confirmed in the lame duck session so it might only be 1 or 2 depending on 2020). As for signature legislation I think that gun control is more likely to be the signature legislation she can get through (and even that will be more limited then ought probably just an assault weapon ban, gun show loophole closure, and expanded background checks).
I suspect though the GOP will not be as obstructionist, their own party is a mess, they are slowly losing the country and they know it.
The power the NRA has over the Dems is voter turnout, particularly in the swing states, the Dems may not like them but they try not to piss them off either.
The NRA can get their supporters out like almost no other lobby and 10,000 or 15,000 voters in a swing state can elect or unelect a senetor.
Consider something like 70% of the population supports better gun control, and I don't think they will be shying away from it.
I think this is an issue she will push.
Hillary has said she is proud the NRA hates her.
The notion Hillary having the full deck (WH, Congress and the Senate) will matter kind of ignores that Obama had it for almost 2 years and he didn't get anything meaningful done. So she needs to be careful how she uses political capital and not go for something too big too early.
I think she should go for something as big as she can realistically muster. Even if the Democrats take both houses the margin isn't likely to be enough to stave off the traditional mid-term losses so she basically has two years to get something noteworthy done.
I think the most important achievement of a Clinton presidency will be the Supreme Court nominations and what that likely means for Citizens United. Until they get the big money out of politics gun control, healthcare and even foreign relations will be subject to industry lobbyists. The repeal of CU won't fix the money in politics issue but it will certainly help.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
I think she should go for something as big as she can realistically muster. Even if the Democrats take both houses the margin isn't likely to be enough to stave off the traditional mid-term losses so she basically has two years to get something noteworthy done.
That's the thing though, the "traditional mid-term losses" may not apply this time. The GOP is going to be in shambles when this is over, much worse than they were in 2008. And one of the big reasons they stormed right back into control of Congress in 2010 was because of the push for health care reform drained all of Obama's political capital, and he was (fairly or not) pretty severely punished for it. So it's a balancing act, going for something big might not work (like Obamacare really didn't) and it could cost them the House, Senate, or both. But she's a lot more shrewd about these things than Obama was, so I suspect she realizes going for incremental change in the beginning is the wiser approach.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Assuming the house stays Republican, I wonder if Clinton could, right from the start, plan an agenda of popular, well-communicated policies and then hang the defeat of those pieces of legislation on the House. Basically, assume obstructionism right from the start and enter 2018 campaign mode right away. She does pride herself on working across the aisle, but I don't think that's going to work for her this time.
I suspect though the GOP will not be as obstructionist, their own party is a mess, they are slowly losing the country and they know it.
Paul Ryan (if he survives his own vote as Speaker) has said as much. Although he obviously would like a Republican president and congress he has publicly stated his weariness with the obstructionist, do-nothing approach congress has taken in recent years.
That's the thing though, the "traditional mid-term losses" may not apply this time. The GOP is going to be in shambles when this is over, much worse than they were in 2008. And one of the big reasons they stormed right back into control of Congress in 2010 was because of the push for health care reform drained all of Obama's political capital, and he was (fairly or not) pretty severely punished for it. So it's a balancing act, going for something big might not work (like Obamacare really didn't) and it could cost them the House, Senate, or both. But she's a lot more shrewd about these things than Obama was, so I suspect she realizes going for incremental change in the beginning is the wiser approach.
It would also be nice if Liberals took the time to come out and vote during the midterms. The GOP base always seems more motivated, outside of the gerrymandering for house votes.
It's not really the messed up system that led to Trump, it's the messed up Republican party that led to Trump. They're going to have to do some serious soul searching after this election, because they've basically catered to the extreme elements because they viewed it as the only way they could win a general election....but obviously they still can't actually win a general even with that group, and it's driving too many crucial, growing voting blocks to the Dems. So it'll be fascinating to watch if they will again dismiss the postmortem analysis that says they need to appeal to more women and minorities, and stick with trying to win with the crazy ass alt-right that demeans those groups, or whether they'll finally ditch that faction and focus on trying to embrace the future and not the past.
Yes, I agree with your points. I still maintain that the USA electoral system is in need of a fix. Whether it be an overhaul of the donations allowed through superpacs, better representation of the middle/lower classes, etc something needs to be done. I know many American citizens who plan to spoil their ballots because they are frustrated with their choices and how those choices came to be. The separation betweeen the elite rich and the middle/lower socioeconomic classes is widening and people feel contempt.
The notion Hillary having the full deck (WH, Congress and the Senate) will matter kind of ignores that Obama had it for almost 2 years and he didn't get anything meaningful done. So she needs to be careful how she uses political capital and not go for something too big too early.
True, although one of the reasons for that was however Obama trying to build bi-partisan relationships. Clinton will probably be more ruthless. After the Trump campaign nobody expects her to be nice to the Republicans anyway.
I think they'll lose control of the senate anyways (assuming they have it to begin with)...
The field is not favorable for them in 2018. 23D-8R-2I are up for re-election and the independents caucus with the democrats so really it's 25-8.
... The way I see it the choice is get something done and lose the senate or get nothing done and still lose the senate.
But they don't have 60 in the senate so they can't actually get anything done. That's the thing about Obama in 08, he had the absolute most stacked deck you can have, he had the 60 seats. Ted Kennedy dying took it to 59 and killed everything they wanted to do. Filibuster sucks but we know the GOP will kill everything they can with it. It'll take a spectacular collapse by the GOP down the stretch to bring 60 into play. All she can really do is appointments, and she can get those through with no issue (straight up and down vote). Actual legislation won't happen though because in today's America it takes 60 votes to get anything done.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
