First hypothetical scenario: Surprisingly-cooperative bipartisanship. Gridlock between the President and Congress magically ceases. Bills pass without a hitch. No obstructionism. Both sides compromise early and often, always meeting in the middle ground. The peace and quiet leaves the media utterly baffled. Second hypothetical scenario: All-out, extreme obstructionism by both sides. Both sides say, “Bipartisanship? Forget it.” The President vetoes everything the Republicans come up with, and also uses executive power to an extreme extent. Congress blocks and obstructs everything. Republicans and Democrats block and obstruct everything the other party comes up with. The vitriol, blame and finger-pointing reaches new heights for shrillness.
The second scenario, obviously, would give a much uglier impression from the perspective of many voters. But which scenario is more likely to help the Democratic presidential candidate win in 2016, and which is more likely to help the Republican presidential candidate win in 2016?
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the first probably helps the Democrats more – Presidents tend to get credit or blame for major things that occur on their watch, and if good things happen in Obama’s last two years, he’ll get most of the credit. I say unfortunately because this means the Republicans are incentivized to push for the 2nd option.
Hypothetical scenario #1 is laughable. If Republicans weren’t willing to work with the President the last six years, it ain’t gonna happen now. Especially when it’s been quite effective for them.
I think the President was smart to throw down a challenge on immigration reform, and he might be able to make it work if he takes firm control of the media narrative. He needs to be seen as attempting to cooperate and being rebuffed at every opportunity. And he needs to play up the GOP schism between those who want meaningful immigration reform and those who don’t. Keep hammering this stuff home, and Latinos will turn out in droves to say “fuck you” to the GOP in 2016.
And if he takes executive action and Republicans move to impeach him? Even better.
I think hypothetical #1 helps the Republicans more. It would improve the reputation of both the Republicans in Congress and President Obama if they worked together and got stuff done.
But Obama has nowhere to go with that improved reputation. He can’t run for a third term in 2016 so he’s no threat to the Republicans. But the Republican congressmen can use their improved reputation when seeking re-election and try to maintain their majority.
I think the Republicans have made everything about Obama, and how bad they think he is – I think they’re in a corner, because any moderation at all with respect to working with him would be a betrayal of a significant portion of their base. So I think #1 would screw them with their own supporters, unfortunately.
I think for 2016, the first scenario helps Democrats more, then 2nd helps Republicans more.
But lest you assume that this means Republicans are sure to change nothing about their approach, there are other considerations besides just 2016. The Republican brand is in the crapper even worse than in 2008. They’ve won not for being Republicans, but because they are not Obama. And despite Obama, the Democratic brand is down, but not as deeply unpopular as the Republican brand. They need to create a rising tide that will lift all boats. Not speaking in economic terms here, but political terms. Bipartisanship and cooperation will increase the popularity of both sides. Sure, it will help Democrats, but in the long run it will help Republicans more because Republicans have further to go to regain the trust of the American public.
I also think that although cooperation buoys Democrats more than Republicans for 2016, it can never hurt to go into 2016 less hated than today. Democratic voters tend to be unmotivated. Give them nothing to vote against, and that puts the onus on Democrats to give them something to vote for, which hasn’t always been easy for them.
The first is better for the Republican party, but the second is better for the Republicans currently in office. Any Republican pursuing compromise is going to get primaried out.
2014 says otherwise. Cantor was the only victim, and that’s because he got totally snuck up on like in a slasher movie.
Virginia conservatives are sneaky, they almost snuck up on Mark Warner too. But since this was the end of the movie, our hero survived after a dramatic chase. But like in the movies, his adversary will be back and running for governor in three short years.
Best way for the Pubs is to send a bunch of bills to Obama and force Obama to veto them. Then they can say a Republican president in 20116 will stop the obstructionism.
But what’s the flipside? If Obama and a Republican Congress spend two years tearing each other - and the country - apart, both sides get their reputations trashed.
And the result in 2016? Obama retires like he would have done anyway. And the people vote out the Republican Congress. So the Democrats take back over in Congress.
Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential candidate distances himself (or herself) from Obama. The Republican candidate also obviously has no Obama connection. But the voters aren’t interested in another two years of gridlock with the sides just flipped. The Democratic candidate rides in on the coattails of the Congressional turnover.
Keystone actually would be overridden if he vetoed so he’d probably sign simply so he wouldn’t like like a fool.
A border security bill he could veto and have it hold up, but then Hillary Clinton would have to explain why she’s against border security or publicly disagree with his veto.
Actually, given the way things are now, that might be a favor to Clinton. I don’t think she’s going to be hesitant anymore to draw distinctions between herself and Obama.