• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Colin Parkinson said:
Considering how long impeachment would take and the pitfalls, I think your 2nd option is much more useful and with better chances of winning the POTUS.
Click to expand...
A variation has been tried before by several Democratic-controlled Houses, in which they send bills to a Republican-controlled Senate where they know the bills won't advance. Then they bleat that Republicans are against whatever fairy tale happy ending story accompanies the bill, and about 5 minutes later social media are awash with the details of whatever poison pills were in the bill to assure failure. In short, it doesn't work, except to excite the Democratic base.

First they'll have to change the filibuster rule, or bills that are just facades won't even reach the president's desk. Changing that rule won't win them any points with most independents, and it won't be something they can hope to durably undo during the lame duck session following the next Senate flip back to Republican control.

If they don't want to eat the damage of changing the rule (and granting Republicans the same power for the future*), they'll have to bring forward bills substantively useful to Republicans, and if that's the case, they probably will have enough votes to override a veto. The gambit sounds like fun, but is somewhere between dangerous to future Democratic electoral prospects and impractical depending on how it's executed.

*Democrats typically have a lot more ambitions for new legislation than Republicans, so undoing the Senate filibuster gives Republicans the advantage (to easily undo whatever Democrats do). Being able to use the filibuster to protect whatever legislation they do get passed during their periods out of full control is critical to Democrats. They'd be cutting their own throats.
 
Brad Sallows said:
A variation has been tried before by several Democratic-controlled Houses, in which they send bills to a Republican-controlled Senate where they know the bills won't advance. Then they bleat that Republicans are against whatever fairy tale happy ending story accompanies the bill, and about 5 minutes later social media are awash with the details of whatever poison pills were in the bill to assure failure. In short, it doesn't work, except to excite the Democratic base.

First they'll have to change the filibuster rule, or bills that are just facades won't even reach the president's desk. Changing that rule won't win them any points with most independents, and it won't be something they can hope to durably undo during the lame duck session following the next Senate flip back to Republican control.

If they don't want to eat the damage of changing the rule (and granting Republicans the same power for the future*), they'll have to bring forward bills substantively useful to Republicans, and if that's the case, they probably will have enough votes to override a veto. The gambit sounds like fun, but is somewhere between dangerous to future Democratic electoral prospects and impractical depending on how it's executed.

*Democrats typically have a lot more ambitions for new legislation than Republicans, so undoing the Senate filibuster gives Republicans the advantage (to easily undo whatever Democrats do). Being able to use the filibuster to protect whatever legislation they do get passed during their periods out of full control is critical to Democrats. They'd be cutting their own throats.
Click to expand...
Except in this version, the bills will likley clear both houses and if they are aimed at something the public want and something else that Trump hates, it may cause him to veto an otherwise popular bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ytz
Colin Parkinson said:
Except in this version, the bills will likley clear both houses and if they are aimed at something the public want and something else that Trump hates, it may cause him to veto an otherwise popular bill.
Click to expand...
As long as the Senate filibuster rule remains, there aren't going to be many bills that clear both houses and can't override a presidential veto.

With the filibuster rule in place, a bill that can clear the Senate by definition has at least 60% support. Overall, Democrats are going to have more than half the votes in both chambers; if merely one-third of Republicans join that gets over the two-thirds threshold for an override.

Members know where a bill is going before it ever comes to a vote and the vote simply legitimizes something already negotiated and decided. If the Senate clearly indicates that enough Republicans are joining to get past a filibuster, everyone knows the bill is at least going to clear Congress and that it has close to two-thirds support in the Senate. If Republican members disinclined to support a Democratic bill see that it will nevertheless have enough votes to override a veto, there will be a preference cascade in favour of the bill. I expect most bills that get enough votes to override a veto to get well past two-thirds. It's pointless and self-damaging (except for those House members who represent strongly pro-Trump districts, if such things actually exist) to cast a futile vote against a bill that is popular and can't be stopped. Trump might be stubborn enough to pointlessly veto a bill that is coming to him with over two-thirds support, but it will only impose a slight delay on the inevitable.

I've been enjoying watching some of the framing. People talk and write as if the Republicans are going to have to yield to Democratic demands. Democrats are still going to have to find something to trade, too.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Except in this version, the bills will likley clear both houses and if they are aimed at something the public want and something else that Trump hates, it may cause him to veto an otherwise popular bill.
Click to expand...

The key is to keep it as simple as possible. Write that minimum wage increase legislation on one page. Dare Trump to veto it. And given how much poorer a lot of red states are, that would be interesting to see. Do the same with restoring Obamacare, etc.

It requires discipline to keep bills tight and not add amendments. But if executed well, either Republicans will provide a veto proof majority to pass it or they vote it down or Trump vetos and then 2028 becomes easier for the Democrats.

After all, cost of living and healthcare sucks right now. And it's not like the public is giving much grace to the GOP on those. Best to hammer those home. Especially in red states where people are starting to notice (see rural hospital closures).

I also don't think they should impeach Trump first. Go after Hegseth. RFK Jr. Tie it to competence and issues bothering the American people. Heck, there's things out there that Republicans enabled that are universally loathed. Flock cameras comes to mind. Start making criminal referrals for things that violated the law. And then when Trump pardons them or simply refuses to prosecute, remind people this why the administration's remaining enablers need to be booted.

There's a lot of material to work with. Given how exceptionally corrupt, criminal and anti-public interest this administration and their enablers have been. Doing so deftly, in a manner that keeps the public onboard for the next two years, is the real challenge. In a target rich environment, target selection and sequencing becomes a critical skill. Remains to be seen if Democrats can be that Machiavellian.
 
One last thing to keep in mind: 2028.

The GOP bench isn't deep. And their primaries will be dominated by the very base that just gave them this disaster.

The Democrats arguably have the widest bench in decades. But it remains to be seen where the base lies in this new configuration.

But after 4 years of Trump, 2 of which have Nosferatu Miller as his COS? Voters might end up electing a black Muslim trans sprinter who works at an abortion clinic. Miller isn't exactly known for compromises or his skill at handling the economic issues voters are concerned about.
 
brihard said:
In response to the pending loss of legislative control, the executive continues making good mature decisions that will definitely improve the functioning of the White House and should improve U.S. national security.

As always when I post a Truth Social screenshot, I verified it’s real.

Probably just addled trolling, but just the fact that he says these things bonkers.

View attachment 103006
Click to expand...
#AmericanKadyrov
 
ytz said:
The GOP bench isn't deep.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to be if DeSantis throws in, and Rubio's a widely-mentioned contender whose only real exploitable weakness is his time with the Trump administration. The Democratic bench isn't deep either. Of the names I most commonly see, Ocasio-Cortez and Harris are intellectual lightweights and Newsom is too California for the rest of the country, and they've all had lots of national air time. Shapiro is the only consistently mentioned candidate who is comparable to DeSantis or Rubio, and most Americans probably haven't seen a lot of him yet. (Vance is a substantial cut below DeSantis, Shapiro, and Rubio.)

Strategically it's helpful if a leading candidate emerges quickly, which is easier if the pool is thin (vice "wide"). The fantasy some Democratic commentators talked up in 2016 was that Clinton should run practically unopposed except by one or two token candidates to occupy podiums at the debates, and spend most of her time in effect campaigning forward for the general election. Sanders spoiled that. (The Clinton establishment hated Sanders for that; after the party pulled a couple of slimey manoeuvres to shut out Sanders, the Sanders supporters hated the Clinton establishment right back, and it cost her votes.)
ytz said:
The Democrats arguably have the widest bench in decades.
Click to expand...
Wide (lots of candidates) isn't deep (lots of competent candidates). The Democrats had almost 30 people start for their 2020 primary. Very wide. The best they figured they could do was to recycle Joe Biden into the White House; Sanders was the last other candidate to exit. Not deep.

Generally any reasonable opposition party candidate has a good shot to win after two terms of the other party. Even a moderately unreasonable Democrat will most likely win after two terms of Trump. If anti-Jewish sentiment keeps Shapiro out and it comes down to Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, or Newsom, Democrats will be gambling (particularly if Harris is chosen). 2016 was supposed to be a sure thing. 2024 they stubbornly clung to one dead-end and then another, even as all the indicators were telling them no, no, no. Democrats are quite capable of selecting a weak candidate.
 
ytz said:
One last thing to keep in mind: 2028.

The GOP bench isn't deep. And their primaries will be dominated by the very base that just gave them this disaster.

The Democrats arguably have the widest bench in decades. But it remains to be seen where the base lies in this new configuration.

But after 4 years of Trump, 2 of which have Nosferatu Miller as his COS? Voters might end up electing a black Muslim trans sprinter who works at an abortion clinic. Miller isn't exactly known for compromises or his skill at handling the economic issues voters are concerned about.
Click to expand...
The Dem's are quite capable of being stupid enough to run KH again. I don't doubt both side ponying up terrible choices yet again. The Dems are also to blame for Trump being elected by attempting to run the nearly dead and someone so toxic, her own party did not want her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top