Buttload of Faith: the 2016 Presidential Primary Thread (Pt 2)

She's the worst kind of politician, a la Rahm. Entitled, tone-deaf, arrogant, bends with opinion, ruthless but mostly when it comes to self-interest.

I'm a bit torn, because one thing I'd look forward to in a hypothetical Sanders presidency is him calling out opponents by name, which is something he's made a habit of at various hearings and whatnot and what a lot of us wish Obama could/would do. But then I think, hmm, isn't that sort of undiplomatic straight talk exactly what Trump supporters see in that shithead? And then I feel bad.

I did like that Killer Mike clip that made the rounds. How will Bernie get cooperation from congress? Easy, once the same people who vote him into office mobilize to replace the Republicans with more moderate votes. (Sure, equally unlikely, but I appreciate the optimism.)

also waiting for her supporters to list her actual accomplishments as secretary of state instead of just touting her "experience" over and over

Experience=name recognition.

I did like that Killer Mike clip that made the rounds. How will Bernie get cooperation from congress? E

by appointing Killer Mike as congressional liasion

once the same people who vote him into office mobilize to replace the Republicans with more moderate votes

the people who will hypothetically vote Bernie into office don't live in the congressional districts that elect Tea Party Republicans to the House, which is exactly why those districts were drawn that way

If they really cared they would move there.

I don't know how good she is at the politics of getting legislation passed. The politics of getting elected, obviously she was badly out-strategized in 2008, and it would appear she's been blindsided again. I don't know about her election to the Senate--didn't they gift-wrap a seat for her? I think her biggest political liability is simply getting people to like and trust her. I think so much of her popularity within the party is a) indebted to her husband's popularity (I'm not generalizing, just talking about her case), and b) admiration/sympathy for what she went through in '98/99 (unless you thought she was devious there, too). Obviously I'm not a big fan, although on occasion I've liked her better the past eight years than I did before.

I don't know how good she is at the politics of getting legislation passed.

she was the junior senator and wasn't in there long enough to accomplish anything - the senate moves slowly

Linking to a (paywalled) piece on the WSJ that links Hillary to Obama's executive order seems to misunderstand

a: Who the WSJ is written for
b: What they think of Obama's executive orders
c: Why they would want to tie Hillary to them

I don't think Bernie is going to achieve all of his policy fantasies, but he will start with the goalposts in the right place, at least. And unlike House repubs, his positions are mostly popular with the electorate!

― schwantz, Friday, January 22, 2016 4:50 PM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

...the actual tenets of the aca are broadly popular with the electorate, but the aca itself is pilloried. presidential elections don't hinge on policy these days, if they ever did.

Whoa, really?

I don't want to get all meta about this, but when you hold popular positions, you usually come out ahead in the perception game when there's a political standoff. That perception, as you point out, can help move electoral outcomes.

Hillary was involved in that nuclear disarmament deal with Russia, right?

Other than that, went on wikipedia, it's a pretty fun read. I'd bet a lot of changes might be coming from her campaign: 'Her first 100 days found her travelling over 70,000 miles (110,000 km), having no trouble adapting to being a team player subordinate to Obama, and gaining skills as an executive.[54][55] Nevertheless, she remained an international celebrity with a much higher profile than most Secretaries of State.[29] Her background as an elected official gave her insight into the needs and fears of elected officials of other countries.[29]'

biggest accomplishments so far

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton's term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term.

In October 2009, Clinton's intervention – including juggling conversations on two mobile phones while sitting in a limousine[95] – overcame last-minute snags and saved the signing of an historic Turkish–Armenian accord that established diplomatic relations and opened the border between the two long-hostile nations.[96][97]

lol IBT is such a shitty "news" outlet

not that they're reportage is inaccurate there, but they are definitely slanted rightward

their

here's the Mother Jones version

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

which cites IBT

strange bedfellows etc.

wait so you think Bernie is going to compromise with Ryan's caucus? I'm confused

― Οὖτις, Friday, January 22, 2016 4:44 PM (1 hour ago)

no, but i think that any candidate is going to govern more moderately than he or she campaigns.

bernie can be described as a lot of things -- a curmudgeon, an ideologue -- but "incompetent" and "dumb" are not adjectives you hear thrown at him too much. a theoretical president bernie (which by the way i'm aware has no chance of happening) is going to be able to read the writing on the wall, see that his ideas are not going to be taken up by congress, and settle into being merely a pretty liberal president. hopefully one who won't get us involved in any more wars

there are legitimate reasons for being cautious about a bernie nomination. his gun record, for one thing, is not good, and to me that's a big issue. his general lack of interest in foreign policy could honestly be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective. there's also the idea that nominating him against, say, rubio or bush would harm downticket democrats. that's a real concern -- probably less so if trump or cruz runs though

what to me is not legitimate is just assuming that he's going to be the equivalent of house republicans and like, i don't know, be so single-minded about universal health care or free higher education that congress is going to grind to a halt. what is the precedent for that, exactly? krugman, whom i love and who is generally better at seeing through this sub-chait nonsense, succumbed to this today too in his column:

There’s a sort of mini-dispute among Democrats over who can claim to be Mr. Obama’s true heir — Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton? But the answer is obvious: Mr. Sanders is the heir to candidate Obama, but Mrs. Clinton is the heir to President Obama.

like what? candidate obama was candidate obama! he was running a primary campaign, no shit! (leave aside for now the fact that candidate sanders is well to the left even of candidate obama.) then...he became president obama when the structural realities in congress (among other things) dictated that he needed to. i don't see any reason why a similar thing wouldn't happen with sanders, except that sanders would be better on almost every issue

i literally have no idea what is going to happen in this election these days. I cannot possibly believe the republicans will nominate trump but it sure looks like they might.

his general lack of interest in foreign policy could honestly be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.

given that foreign policy is going to be one of the only areas the next President is going to have any real control over, I consider this a massive liability. (Not happy about his gun happy record either)

not that Hillary's foreign policy track record is glowing or anything - I'm reliably certain she'll start at least one war of her own, cuz she's gotta be "tough"/Thatcher syndrome

well yeah, that's kind of what i meant when i said it depended on your perspective. sanders might be better just by virtue of not being a hawk. bernie might not have served as secretary of state (and been disastrous at it), but he did vote against the iraq war, the patriot act, etc...

In October 2009, Clinton's intervention – including juggling conversations on two mobile phones while sitting in a limousine[95] – overcame last-minute snags and saved the signing of an historic Turkish–Armenian accord that established diplomatic relations and opened the border between the two long-hostile nations.[96][97]

― Frederik B, Saturday, 23 January 2016 00:37 (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

iirc they signed the agreement at a press conference, both parties almost immediately refused to ratify it, the border is still closed and everyone hates each other. I think that counts as padding the resume.

Warren certainly fired a shot in Hill's general direction to back the F off Bernie today. We so sure she's not getting ready to endorse Sanders?

https://twitter.com/joshsmith/status/690336946103562240

including juggling conversations on two mobile phones

This is pretty much par for the course for any half-decent GS-15+ in DC? And there's usually no limousines involved, just Red Top or whatever's around. Again, who is the fucking audience for this nonsense?

People who think The West Wing is more accurate than Veep.

Given what we've endured the last 15 years, Sanders' lack of foreign policy experience is not a disqualifier. I'd ask Kerry to stay. He has not been horrible, certainly more impressive than Clinton.

he hugs Saudi royals with the same passion with which he salutes their dignity and fair-mindedness

What kind of person would Bernie hire as Secretary of Defense? How well did he know people who served in Vietnam?

Being really generous, I might say that Clinton had the ugly job of presiding over a department which had been gutted and drained by the preceding administration, and spent more than a couple of years on the mend, and in the meantime, Obama's overriding focus was on domestic policy goals. Kerry's been able to shine because the priorities of the administration have changed, and State is no longer the demoralized mess it was in 2009.

or Secretary of State?

Sec of Defense: Jim Webb

duh

Sec of State: Chelsea Clinton

I've a soft spot for Kerry after the medal throwing, the Kerry Committee on the Contra-drug link, and the investigations into BCCI.

being generous, i'd say hillary does indeed have impressive experience -- she's seen extremely up close how the presidency works, she's been a senator, she's been secretary of state. there doesn't seem to be much evidence that her experience has made her terribly good at those things tho, and her association with 90s retreads is uninspiring

i guess bernie was pragmatic as mayor of burlington?

and beyond policy questions is whether either has the capability to manage the executive branch, eg here in nyc diblasio probably has better intentions than bloomberg, but seems much less effective at running the show

she's not good at politics!

There's some truth to this. I respect her chops as a policy wonk, but I'm not sure her political skills have really been proven. Her record of electoral success is basically two easy NY Senate races. Bernie has a much more impressive record of winning competitive races (and as an Independent, which is not easy in American politics). On the other hand, it's always better to be lucky than good, and so far it looks like her luck might hold this year, if either Trump or Cruz ends up as the GOP nominee. Those two could make her seem downright likable.

can we not use the phrase "policy w---" ever plz

I'm not trying to oversell it, but there's a reasonable argument to be made that the same sort of political instincts that allow a politician to run a sharp campaign are equally necessary to being a successful president, iow a president who achieves their policy objectives. If HRC wins, she'll be incredibly lucky that Paul Ryan is another w*** who seems not too attached to the goddamn Hastert Rule.

^edited for your viewing pleasure

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/bernie-sanders-and-the-realists

now this is a piece that criticizes the sanders campaign while deigning to give it some of the respect it deserves

Not sure what the objection to "wonk" is. Isn't WonkBlog still a thing? Anyhow, let me phrase it differently: I think she has a good grasp of policy detail and for the most part well-thought out policy positions that she can ably defend in a genteel debate-type setting (whether she can effectively sell them to the electorate at large in the face of crude populist attacks being a different question).

to me it's shorthand for "doing your research like an intelligent person," a concept that Beltway elites can't understand w/out belittling (I'm not attacking you, I hope!).

Ah, I see. Seems like we need a word for the opposite of "wonk" then to describe politicians like Trump, who seems to think the minutiae of policy are for losers.

Latest poll shows Clinton up by 29 points in Iowa. Polls are weird.

Btw, what are the great accomplishments that Sanders has done?

he voted against the iraq war

nah -- ryan being a wonk is seen (for now) as a positive because it makes him seem 'smart'

maybe he gets a pass because beard + bro lifting also makes him 'charismatic'?

Latest poll shows Clinton up by 29 points in Iowa. Polls are weird.

Btw, what are the great accomplishments that Sanders has done?

He pretty much spearheaded fixing the VA. You know the VA, right? Those are all the people Hill sent to Iraq. How's that?