The future of the GOP brand

[ElvisL1ves]

Some ends cannot be justified at all.

[adaher]

Perhaps, but Democrats have the power to amend bad bills. Sometimes process is important, and it’s wrong to circumvent the process in the hopes of gaining political advantage. The sad thing is that it actually hurt the Democrats. Instead of taking tough votes and standing by them they spent all of the 2014 campaign waffling on how they might have voted on various things if only they’d had the chance.

But anyway, the point I was making is that McConnell has kept his promises and the Senate now functions as it should. In small ways, that boosts the GOP brand. It can also be used in campaigns to convince Americans not to give Senate control back to the Democrats, who will use that power to avoid tough votes and to keep the minority from proposing amendments, which is important in states where there is also a respected Republican in the delegation. It tells voters that they must either send two Democrats to the Senate or their state will be denied a seat at the table. Whereas in McConnell’s Senate, both Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown can propose and influence legislation. Both Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio can propose and influence legislation.

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

Democrats have the power to amend bad bills.

Not at present, they don’t. Why do you think so?

they spent all of the 2014 campaign waffling on how they might have voted on various things if only they’d had the chance.

WTF?

But anyway, the point I was making is that McConnell has kept his promises

His last campaign was based on “pulling out Obamacare, root and branch”, although he softpedaled the replacement part. So, no he hasn’t, and isn’t going to.

and the Senate now functions as it should.

IOW, the GOP is in control, right?

In small ways, that boosts the GOP brand.

Only if it were true.

It tells voters that they must either send two Democrats to the Senate or their state will be denied a seat at the table.

Priceless.

Whereas in McConnell’s Senate, both Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown can propose and influence legislation.

For instance?

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

IMO, the best thing for Republicans to do in 2016 is be non-threatening. Democrats have a hard time getting whipped up to vote. Heck, if Republicans could be quiet and boring enough half of Democrats probably wouldn’t know an election was coming up.

Well, unfortunately, being quiet and boring and non-threatening appears to be quite beyond the Republicans these days.

[adaher]

Depends on who is being boring. The 2014 candidates did a very good job of avoiding controversy. It doesn’t matter if Donald Trump mouths off, he’s not going to be a nominee of anything nor is he a longstanding member of the party. You could pin Todd Akin on the Republicans because he was a GOP Senate nominee and longtime GOP officeholder. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, etc., will not be nominees for major offices in 2016.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Depends on who is being boring. The 2014 candidates did a very good job of avoiding controversy. It doesn’t matter if Donald Trump mouths off, he’s not going to be a nominee of anything nor is he a longstanding member of the party. You could pin Todd Akin on the Republicans because he was a GOP Senate nominee and longtime GOP officeholder. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, etc., will not be nominees for major offices in 2016.

It’s not just what Trump and Cruz say (though I’m not so sure Cruz doesn’t have a shot). It’s what they will make the eventual nominee say. Romney wouldn’t have said crazy stuff if he hadn’t had to run against all those crazies to win the nomination.

[elucidator]

All of which is excellent news for the Draft Romney movement! Pale, tired, and ill prepared!

[ElvisL1ves]

@iiandyiiii

It’s not just what Trump and Cruz say

If only they were the only two crazies in the field. It would be easier to pick out the ones who aren’t. OK, give me a moment there …

Romney wouldn’t have said crazy stuff if he hadn’t had to run against all those crazies to win the nomination.

And that says far more about the electorate than the field of candidates.

[adaher]

What you’re citing is CW among lefties. I’m not convinced. I see the last two elections as just an unusual candidate bringing out an unusual coalition. I was worried that Clinton might also inspire high turnout with a slightly different coalition but I’m not so worried anymore. So I figure this will be a “normal” election with neither candidate being particularly inspiring(or revolting). Which will mean lower turnout and swing voters being all important.

[DigitalC]

@iiandyiiii

It’s not just what Trump and Cruz say (though I’m not so sure Cruz doesn’t have a shot). It’s what they will make the eventual nominee say. Romney wouldn’t have said crazy stuff if he hadn’t had to run against all those crazies to win the nomination.

Right. If Trump keeps rising in the polls while saying stupid shit the others have to follow eventually.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

What you’re citing is CW among lefties. I’m not convinced. I see the last two elections as just an unusual candidate bringing out an unusual coalition. I was worried that Clinton might also inspire high turnout with a slightly different coalition but I’m not so worried anymore. So I figure this will be a “normal” election with neither candidate being particularly inspiring(or revolting). Which will mean lower turnout and swing voters being all important.

We’ll see. I think it’s just as likely that '08 and '12 were signs of a ‘new normal’ as that they were abnormal.

[adaher]

Which is a weird thing to predict given that those elections had one candidate at the head of the ticket, and that the Democrats suddenly discovered a midterm problem in that same period.

Although the Democrats have had bad midterms before(as have Republicans), the Obama era is the first one where Democrats decided that they had a midterm “problem”.

So what makes more sense? That Obama, as candidate and as President, has made elections a little weird lately, or that a huge change occurred that just happened to coincide with his rise? IMO, the explanation is simple: Obama inspires a lot of unmotivated voters to come out. Those voters will not be there for Clinton, and have not been there in midterms. Democrats want to console themselves that these are “Presidential election-only” voters. I think the chance of that being true is pretty small.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Which is a weird thing to predict given that those elections had one candidate at the head of the ticket, and that the Democrats suddenly discovered a midterm problem in that same period.

No, because midterm elections have pretty much nothing to do with presidential elections, at least not in the last decade or two.

So what makes more sense? That Obama, as candidate and as President, has made elections a little weird lately, or that a huge change occurred that just happened to coincide with his rise? IMO, the explanation is simple: Obama inspires a lot of unmotivated voters to come out. Those voters will not be there for Clinton, and have not been there in midterms. Democrats want to console themselves that these are “Presidential election-only” voters. I think the chance of that being true is pretty small.

I think you’re wrong, based on your track record of wishful thinking – I’ll continue to be skeptical of any prediction you make that just happens to reinforce what you want to happen, especially for presidential elections. I don’t have such a track record – I was pessimistic pretty early on in 2014 (and 2010, I think).

We’ll see. You’ll note that I’m not making any particular early predictions, except to challenge the ones (like yours) that I think are foolish. It’s way too early for that, in my view. I’m optimistic that the Democratic candidate will win, but not nearly enough to be particularly confident about it.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

No, because midterm elections have pretty much nothing to do with presidential elections, at least not in the last decade or two.

Then why did the Democrats suddenly develop a problem with midterms while Obama was President?

I think you’re wrong, based on your track record of wishful thinking – I’ll continue to be skeptical of any prediction you make that just happens to reinforce what you want to happen, especially for presidential elections. I don’t have such a track record – I was pessimistic pretty early on in 2014 (and 2010, I think).

Yes you were, and you should be skeptical due to my bias. That does not mean you should dismiss it out of hand though. Democrats have their own biases, biases that lead to thinking that Presidential elections are inherently better for Democrats based on the results of only two elections with the same guy running. That is wishful thinking as well. There is zero evidence to support a “new normal” that suddenly popped into being in 2008.

The Republicans at least know they have a problem with a significant chunk of the electorate, and the smarter candidates are taking steps to fix the problem.

[ElvisL1ves]

What steps are those, pray tell?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Then why did the Democrats suddenly develop a problem with midterms while Obama was President?

A combination of factors, including low enthusiasm and a backlash (probably partially motivated by racism) against Obama and his policies. And midterms are typically worse for the party that won the presidency.

Yes you were, and you should be skeptical due to my bias. That does not mean you should dismiss it out of hand though. Democrats have their own biases, biases that lead to thinking that Presidential elections are inherently better for Democrats based on the results of only two elections with the same guy running. That is wishful thinking as well. There is zero evidence to support a “new normal” that suddenly popped into being in 2008.

I’ll go with Nate Silver and other prognosticators with great Presidential track records.

This election probably won’t be mysterious, unless it’s really close. We knew pretty early on that Obama had a big advantage against McCain and Romney – even at Obama’s nadir (after the 1st debate w/ Romney) Silver had him at 60% or higher chance of winning.

Chances are we’ll have a good idea pretty early on for this election too.

The Republicans at least know they have a problem with a significant chunk of the electorate, and the smarter candidates are taking steps to fix the problem.

I see no evidence of this in the Republican primaries – and a lot of evidence of the opposite.

[Nema98]

If either Jeb Bush or George Pataki don’t get the nomination, the “brand” of the GOP will be down the toilet.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

I spent the 18 months of the 2011-2012 campaign asserting over and over that the 2010 midterms had exactly zero predictive ability for the presidential race. Which proved to be absolutely accurate.

Is it my fate to spend the 18 months of the 2015-2016 campaign asserting over and over that the 2014 midterms have exactly zero predictive ability for the presidential race?

That takes some of the fun out of of Trump being the public face for Republican candidates. Not all of it, fortunately.

[septimus]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

Clinton also had to deal with a right wing Congress for the most part. Both these things todays Republicans can claim as a historic victory for their ideological side …

Oh my. Fighting the ignorance about the deficit reduction of the 1990’s is like playing whack-a-mole. Oh well, I’ll do my ignorance-fighting duty one more time:

@septimus

Was it the Democrats or the Republicans who achieved “one of the supreme budgetary accomplishments in American history” ?

The Federal Budget of 1993 is one of the greatest and most important stories in modern U.S. political history. The story can be found easily with Google but let me summarize it here anyway. (The budget planned for four years, so dollar figures following need to be divided by 4 to get annual averages.)

At the time of Clinton’s election, the federal debt had grown to alarming proportions. Clinton’s 1993 budget cut spending by $250 billion, perhaps the largest spending cut in all of history. (This was offset by such things as interest on the ever-mounting debt, and $150 billion in new investments.) The 1993 budget achieved a further $250 billion in deficit reduction by raising taxes; the most controversial tax hike was that of the maximum marginal income tax rate (the rate payed by Bill Gates, George Soros, etc.) which was increased from 31% to 39.6%. As high as this might seem, 39% was still less than the rate during most of the Reagan Administration, and certainly less than under Eisenhower, when the rate was 91%.

What were the results of the 1993 budget? The deficit did fall: from $255 billion annually when Clinton took office, to almost nothing in 1997; and by Clinton’s last year there was a surplus of $236 billion. Moreover, from 1993 to 2000 U.S. employment fell from over 7% to 4%; constant-dollar GDP rose by 33% over the same period; and of course stock prices soared.

Contrary to right-wing dogma, U.S. entrepreneurs kept on entrepreneuring (and at an unprecedented rate) despite the 39.6% income tax. The 1993 Budget led directly to one of the most prosperous periods in American history. At the beginning of Clinton’s term, the federal debt was seen as a most important problem; by the end of the term the U.S. Treasury was redeeming its bonds at an unprecedented rate and there was concern that this would cause trouble! (Many contracts were tied to the price of Treasury debt instruments which were disappearing.)

Now who should get credit for the 1993 Budget? Let us review voting on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Bill of 1993.

This Bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 218 to 217. Every single Republican in the House voted against the Bill. The Bill went to the U.S. Senate where the vote was 50-50. Every single Republican Senator voted against the Bill. The Vice President ascended the dais of the Senate chamber and broke the tie; William Jefferson Clinton signed the Bill into Law; the biggest spending cuts in U.S. history were passed; and this budget ushered in an era of prosperity almost unmatched in modern U.S. history. Let me repeat: Not even one single Republican Congressman voted for this Budget. Republicans natter about spending cuts, but on the biggest cut ever, every single Republican stood up and said “Nay”. Of course they would: Raising taxes on the rich (to a level still less than they were under Reagan!) was “class warfare” and would doom America! :smack:

It is said that this was the very first time in all of history that major legislation passed without one single vote from the “opposition” party. Republicans led by Newt Gingrich appeared on TV, predicted a recession, and declared that the Democrats must accept complete responsibility for the consequences of their Budget. As we now know this Budget was central in rejuvenating America’s economy; and America never came remotely close to recession throughout the entire Clinton double term. The Democrats should be proud to accept “complete responsibility” for this.

Perhaps I should apologize for reciting this well-known story at great length … but I’m not sure it is well known. The modern Republican Party stands for nothing if not prevarication, bullshit, hypocrisy and the assumption that the American people want to be fed stupid drivel by commentators preaching to a lowest denominator, so I’m afraid even some Dopers might have been misled.

This thread was provoked by a post in another thread where I asked a Doper who’s probably a “fiscal conservative” to compare the “fiscal conservatism” of Reagan and Clinton. In his response he didn’t mention Reagan, but wrote:

Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Newt Gingrich and the Republicans who took over Congress balanced the budget. Clinton’s first act upon becoming President was an attempt to increase the deficit.

(I’ve left that Doper unnamed, so that he can continue “fighting his own ignorance” anonymously. )

The quotes I’ve found by professional economists all praise Clinton’s 1993 Budget:

[ul][li]“liquidating the deficit ranks as one of the supreme budgetary accomplishments in American history.”[/li][li]“Without question, the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Bill has been remarkably successful in its goal of reducing the federal budget deficit.”[/ul][/li]
Of course the Republicans continued to apply monkey-wrenches to federal budgeting throughout the Clinton years. One instructive lesson about the nature of “Republican leaders” comes from a book by none other than right-winger Tom DeLay:

"[Gingrich] told a room full of reporters that he forced the [1995] shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One…Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child…

“Fiscal conservatives” seem to run away and hide when asked to put up facts or shut up. I’m posting this in GQ, though I’m afraid if right-wingers try to rebut it, a Moderator will need to convert it into a Joke Thread.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

I think I’ve figured it out. Their plan is to drive us insane by making us repeat arguments until we can’t stand it anymore. Then they’ll own the Forum.

It’s a good plan. I can fell it working…