Jan. 31st, 2016

I think so long as there's a GOP House majority that depends on the Freedom Caucus, Congressional obstruction will look much as it does now, whether the President is Clinton, Sanders, Bloomberg, Kasich, or whomever. But the Sanders campaign talking point of breaking the deadlock by sweeping in a new Congress *in 2016* is at least as unrealistic as the Clinton campaign's that somehow they'll be more responsible with her in the White House.

The only two way it changes is if someone like Cruz gets elected (I much prefer deadlock) or if a Democratic President runs hard in 2018 against Congress, being willing to lose a big battle or two where the public is on her/his side leading up to the election.
It's imperative to do that, even if the Democrats hold a nominal majority, but not a solid enough majority to prevent obstruction.

Bill Clinton should have done that, but didn't. He was too much of a people-pleaser to not take whatever the best deal he could get at the time, because he'd be litting people down (as he saw it) if he didn't. So we got things like DADT.

Obama didn't, I think because the economic conditions left him very little latitude in public opinion. When the public is already scared but not angry, it's dangerous to challenge them too much.

Who'll be more likely to take that aggressive approach, should they get in? I think Sanders. But I'm not sure he'd be effective at it. That's why I support Sanders, but I can't yet promise to keep supporting him. The primary season is an audition. And despite how long some of us have been following it, it's all Spring Training until Monday. I want to see how both Sanders and Clinton handle the ups and downs of a real campaign with real voter feedback.


Dvd Avins

October 2016


Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 06:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios