I think the general strategy, because Democrats did the same thing in 2010 and 2012 and were more successful, was that you make your GOP opponent unelectable, and you make yourself less unelectable by muddying the waters about your ideology. “See, he’s a far right extremist and I’m a moderate!” When Republicans were helpful enough to self-destruct, it worked like a charm. When they were skilled politicians, it didn’t work as well.
An issue that Jonah Goldberg brought up a couple of weeks ago as well was that Reid was denying these Democrats the opportunity to prove they weren’t beholden to Obama. He was trying to protect them by avoiding tough votes, but if those tough votes had been taken, threatened Democrats could have voted against the leadership more often and touted those votes on the campaign trail. Instead, Reid only allowed votes where Democrats were mostly in agreement, thus all Democrats voted 95% or more with the leadership.
That’s a cautionary tale for Republicans too. The Hastert Rule is a problem. McConnell seems to have absorbed the lessons of Reid’s tenure, but the House Republicans still don’t seem to get how damaging it can be to your more moderate members to deny them the ability to join the Democrats on key votes.
I don’t know how “uncomfortable” they’ll be. He’s not running for re-election and no one is going to be surprised that he’s not going to sign bills repealing the ACA or forcing him to decide on the Keystone Pipeline or a strict border security bill with no other immigration provisions.
If it had been a more narrow margin, like 51 votes, I wouldn’t have expected Reid to run a great many filibusters since needing every GOP vote would be enough to put the Blue/Purple GOP Class of 2010 on the spot. Since 54 votes gives a little cushion for strategic defections, I assume Reid will force those senators to side with the GOP in its attempt to reach 60. So I expect less stuff to reach Obama’s desk for a veto than otherwise.
It’s not about making Obama uncomfortable, it’s about making Hillary Clinton have to defend or repudiate Obama’s vetoes. Plus Obama wants a positive legacy, like all Presidents. The fact that he won’t be having another election means he has no hope of ever working with anyone but the Republicans. If the Republicans send popular bills that make things a little better on certain issues to his desk, signing them is his best chance of concluding his Presidency on a positive note. The last two years of the Clinton administration were pretty productive, no reason Obama’s last two years can’t be as well.
OK.** Mr. Smashy**, what’s first? Roll back gay marriage? Throw a bunch of moochers off their health insurance? Deport eleven million Latinos? Virulently oppose the minimum wage movement? How about shutting down Planned Parenthood? Fuck the environment, China’s economy is (cough, cough, HACK!, cough…) booming! Maybe free the financial sector from all that needless regulation, so they can come up with new and creative approaches!
Clinton never had to deal with four years of “NO!” I very much doubt this Republican legislature - whose makeup is unlikely to be significantly different - is going to send him anything reasonable to sign. They’ll double down.
Or cue the local minimum wage supporters calls of “Congress is useless so it’s up to us to get the minimum wage raised on the local level and show congress this is what we want.”
Actually San Francisco passed a minimum wage increase by something like over 70%. And it raised the minimum to gradually go up to $15. As for businesses, it’s just another cost of doing business. Is it harder for them? Sure. But no less than when their landlords raise the rent on their rental space or when their supplier raises their costs. Somehow, that’s totally fine to conservatives but wage increases to their workers is apocalyptic.
Clinton had a relationship with Newt Gingrich, plus he was a lot more of a skilled politician than Obama. Clinton took GOP opposition, opposition that also led to a shutdown and made them pay for it and pay dearly. There has been no penalty for opposing Obama. He just hasn’t been able to get the public on his side. So what has to happen is that he has to establish a relationship with some rather strange bedfellows. But I don’t know, the way McConnell was talking I have to wonder if he and McConnell might hit it off in a way that he and Boehner did not. McConnell right now is a rock star to even the Tea Partiers. Ted Cruz was asked if he wanted to run for Senate Majority leader and he said no way, it’s McConnell’s. McConnell wouldn’t mind a legacy himself. Maybe he and Obama will establish a good relationship and he’ll be able to spend political capital getting the Tea Partiers to back him.
Liberal jourmalists have gone out to search for intellectuals in the lost states. One person was found in Kentucky and one in North Carolina. Five were found in Virginia, but all five commute to work in DC. They work in some sort of humanities fields except one was a physics professor.
Dems have to give the Latinos a reason, next two years, to continue to support them. Even if the R’s reject everything that Obama tries to do by executive order, they have to see that the Dems are their home
I think they see that just fine. They are just better at using political power than African-Americans. Stay home or vote for Republicans a little more and Democratic politicians get really concerned about your needs.
I am hopeful that more votes might actually reach the Senste floor. Reid was adept, disturbingly so, at preventing Senate votes. Will be disgusted if Repubłicans do the same. Debate, vote and get things on Obama’s desk and make him pass or veto.
McConnell made very firm promises in that respect, so you can hold him to them. He said Democrats will be able to offer amendments. That should make them less inclined to filibuster.
