What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

"You are playing into Donald Trump's hands," Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana said during Tuesday's debate. "The challenge isn't that it's a criminal offense to cross the border. The challenge is that Donald Trump is president, and using this to rip families apart. A sane immigration system needs a sane leader. And we can do that without decriminalizing."

Everything Bullock says is right except for the unstated assumption that absent Trump we will always have sane leaders.  The election is Trump is powerful empirical evidence that we can't rely on that assumption and that our laws need to be proofed against misuse by irresponsible leaders.

That notion - that law and government authority needs to be cabined to prevent abuse by bad leaders - is at the very heart and core of our constitutional system. If that concept is too subtle or complicated for most American to grasp, then we are in a very sorry state.

That notion is irrelevant in the context of the current political debate and campaign.

The law criminalizing crossing the border has been in place for 100 years. It wasn't a problem when Obama was President, and it wasn't a problem for all the other 20th century Presidents. The law is not the problem.

So why make it front and center NOW?

Why is it something the Dems are so intent on trumpeting NOW?

Answer: Because the contest NOW is to see who can be more against whatever that guy is for amongst the Dems, and this is way of signalling that. Again, maybe this is just standard primary virtue signalling, and once the general gets going we won't hear anything more about it, or at least we will hear a more comprehensive and nuanced plan. I sure hope so.

[Barrister]

Everything Bullock says is right except for the unstated assumption that absent Trump we will always have sane leaders.  The election is Trump is powerful empirical evidence that we can't rely on that assumption and that our laws need to be proofed against misuse by irresponsible leaders.

That notion - that law and government authority needs to be cabined to prevent abuse by bad leaders - is at the very heart and core of our constitutional system. If that concept is too subtle or complicated for most American to grasp, then we are in a very sorry state.

Of the 44 prior Presidents, how many would you say were insane?

I think a lot of America's current problems are unique to Trump himself.

[The Minsky Moment]

How does decriminalizing reduce tax expenditures if in fact it isn't commonly used? How does it speed of courts of justice?

It wasn't commonly used, it is now.  More than half of all federal criminal proceedings.  It's astonishing.

Trump bears a lot of blame here of course but this isn't all on him.  Both Bush and Obama expanded these kinds of prosecutions as a way of signaling "toughness" to provide political cover for immigration reform that never happened.  it's taken on a life of its own and transformed from an exceptional procedure used in specific cases to ubiquitous.  We are talking about >8000 prosecutions *per month* since the waning years of the Bush administration.

Criticizing this policy is the opposite of virtue signaling.  The policy is lousy but politicians are told to shut up about it because people might get the wrong idea from the messaging.  It is bad policy now driven almost entirely by fear of a backlash that would result from changing it, based on people's lack of understanding of the policy.

[The Minsky Moment]

Of the 44 prior Presidents, how many would you say were insane?

I would say Nixon got close. Wilson wasn't insane but he did cease to be competent and some and bad stuff happened late in that presidency.

But the bigger question is how reliable historical evidence is as a predictor of the future. If you asked me in 2016 I probably would have said 0% based on past evidence but it turned out the probability was not zero looking forward.

[Berkut]

Sigh. Never mind, I am wrong. The Dems are fine, and should just go about running as far to the left as possible, and it will all work out.

I know, this isn't an example of that. Nothing is an example of that. There are no examples of that. All the Dems are all moderates already, and the Dem message is perfectly aligned to have maximum effect. It's fine. It's all fine.

If Dems ever lose elections, it is always because human beings are just too fucking stupid to understand what's best for them, and there should be no attempt to reach anyone so stupid.

[Sophie Scholl]

Democrats have had lower to much lower vote totals in non-Presidential election years for quite some time now.  Add in this was a special follow-up election to a non-Presidential election year in a Republican dominated district and I don't think it is a Chicken Little outcome.  We shall see, of course, but I feel like people are reading too much into this.

[grumbler]

How does decriminalizing reduce tax expenditures if in fact it isn't commonly used? How does it speed of courts of justice?

Not sure what that first section is asking.  Decriminalization isn't commonly used because it isn't current law.  Not prosecuting improper entry for first offenses or while seeking asylum would reduce the number of cases the fixed number of judges and courts have to process and rule on would improve the speed of legal process for the half of the Federal case load that isn't prosecution of improper entry.

And the only legit argument I can see is the idea that it would stop the bullshit Trump is doing now....except that it won't, because it cannot be done, now, and would only be done if Trump were already gone....in which case the argument is not to decriminalize, but rather to get rid of Trump.

There bare two arguments:  (1) Trump is overzealous in his prosecutions, and (2) the current law is subject to future abuse, as it has been past abuse (The Shrub, Obama, and Trump).  Solving the former problem doesn't solve the latter one.

If this is a serious policy proposal, then the only possible scenario it could be implemented is after the Dems secure the White House and the Senate. At that point, it would make good sense to not only look at this, but an overall and comprehensive reform of immigration that would include a lot of adjustments.

Duh.

So what is the utility of bringing this up NOW, in the context of a campaign? It cannot be done unless you win. And if you win, it would certainly be part of a larger reform package. Why is this important, then, to call out specifically RIGHT NOW???

I think most of the candidates have a number of policy positions.  Why are you so fixated on this one RIGHT NOW???

Because it is virtue signalling that you are super duper totally awesomely progressively against THE WALL. Except that the only people who care about that message are never, ever, EVER going to vote for Trump.

If I truly believed that you knew more about the candidates' mtivations than they did, this might be somewhat credible.  As it is, it sounds to me like bullshit rhetoric.  Again, why are you so fixated on this issue, to the point of producing ad hom attacks on those who support it?  Not everything is about electoral calculus.

And it is also signalling to others who *might* vote for you that you are in favor of an "open border" - why, you want to actually repeal the law that makes it against the law to cross the border without permission!

This is just bad politics, being done in the service of the wrong target audience.

Decriminalization isn't legalization, any more than decriminalization of speeding 10 mph over the speed limit is legalizing speeding.  I guess that there are pinheads who conflate decriminalizing simple improper entry with "open borders," but those pinheads will never vote for any but he Trumpiest candidates anyway, so no loss.

[The Minsky Moment]

The law criminalizing crossing the border has been in place for 100 years.

I wouldn't point to the law's antiquity as a justification for continuation.  The history of that law is pretty ugly.

It wasn't a problem when Obama was President, and it wasn't a problem for all the other 20th century Presidents. The law is not the problem.

It was a problem under Obama.  Obama got a lot of criticism for it.
But the  justification under Obama is that he needed to seem to be acting "tough" to build political capital and cover for immigration reform.
We aren't getting immigration reform under Trump = the policy isn't just signaling to build political capital for reform.  The policy is the end in itself.  That's what has changed.

[FunkMonk]

Democrats have had lower to much lower vote totals in non-Presidential election years for quite some time now.  Add in this was a special follow-up election to a non-Presidential election year in a Republican dominated district and I don't think it is a Chicken Little outcome.  We shall see, of course, but I feel like people are reading too much into this.

This is the correct take.

[Sophie Scholl]

Sigh. Never mind, I am wrong. The Dems are fine, and should just go about running as far to the left as possible, and it will all work out.

I know, this isn't an example of that. Nothing is an example of that. There are no examples of that. All the Dems are all moderates already, and the Dem message is perfectly aligned to have maximum effect. It's fine. It's all fine.

If Dems ever lose elections, it is always because human beings are just too fucking stupid to understand what's best for them, and there should be no attempt to reach anyone so stupid.

Your obsession with turning the Democrats into the Berkut Party is getting tired.  They aren't your party.  Your party is dead.  The same with many here.  You can either fight to rebuild and retake it, accept the opposition for the time being, or bow out.  Having the parties be Right and Righter isn't a legitimate outcome to the Republican Party and Trump drag their political stances further and further to the Right.  Your goal seems to be, from what I can see, to remove anyone on the Left from having a political party that represents any of their views or policy concerns solely for the reason of beating Trump.  He has already caused enough damage, permanent and otherwise, why add the two party system to the casualty list?  Either people accept the messages of the Democratic Party as it exists or they don't, but the cut off large parts of your base in an effort to grab a few crumbs from the Right and middle-Right seems like an absolutely terrible strategy.

[grumbler]

Sigh. Never mind, I am wrong. The Dems are fine, and should just go about running as far to the left as possible, and it will all work out.

I know, this isn't an example of that. Nothing is an example of that. There are no examples of that. All the Dems are all moderates already, and the Dem message is perfectly aligned to have maximum effect. It's fine. It's all fine.

If Dems ever lose elections, it is always because human beings are just too fucking stupid to understand what's best for them, and there should be no attempt to reach anyone so stupid.

For fuck's sake, dude.  Stop the drama queen bullshit.  It is possible for you to be wrong without it meaning the end of all hope.

"Sigh," indeed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sigh. Never mind, I am wrong. The Dems are fine, and should just go about running as far to the left as possible, and it will all work out.

I know, this isn't an example of that. Nothing is an example of that. There are no examples of that. All the Dems are all moderates already, and the Dem message is perfectly aligned to have maximum effect. It's fine. It's all fine.

If Dems ever lose elections, it is always because human beings are just too fucking stupid to understand what's best for them, and there should be no attempt to reach anyone so stupid.

I would distinguish between:
1) Policy proposals that are sound common sense and not particularly leftist or radical but can be easily painted as radical or unpopular by the other side using misleading rhetoric.
2) Policy proposals that are justifiable but that are unquestionably to the left of the center of US opinion and thus risk losing middle-ground votes.  Some of the more aggressive spending proposals under the Green New Deal rubric fall into this category or the Sanders health care plan.
3) Policy proposals that are just outright nutty.  "Opening borders" would qualify if any candidate actually supported that.  The recent Georgia abortion law qualifies here albeit on the right.  Some of Marianne Williamson's proposals probably would here if I had the faintest idea what she was talking about.

IMO cutting down illegal entry prosecutions falls squarely under 1.  I can't think of any rational justification for bringing 100,000 federal prosecutions for illegal entry per year. It's a terrible idea.  It needs to stop.  I agree the messaging could be better.  But the idea that we have to keep prosecuting 100K people a year just for entering the US without a proper visa because otherwise people might get the wrong idea is just bonkers to me.

[Barrister]

Your obsession with turning the Democrats into the Berkut Party is getting tired.  They aren't your party.  Your party is dead.  The same with many here.  You can either fight to rebuild and retake it, accept the opposition for the time being, or bow out.  Having the parties be Right and Righter isn't a legitimate outcome to the Republican Party and Trump drag their political stances further and further to the Right.  Your goal seems to be, from what I can see, to remove anyone on the Left from having a political party that represents any of their views or policy concerns solely for the reason of beating Trump.  He has already caused enough damage, permanent and otherwise, why add the two party system to the casualty list?  Either people accept the messages of the Democratic Party as it exists or they don't, but the cut off large parts of your base in an effort to grab a few crumbs from the Right and middle-Right seems like an absolutely terrible strategy.

No one is saying the Democrats need to be the GOP-lite.  They can still be in favour of abortion, gun control, expanding health care coverage, immigration reform and amnesty, and the like.  None of these are from the GOP playbook.

It's just the Dems should avoid shooting themselves in the foot by pushing ideas that no one except a fringe minority is pushing for - like decriminalizing illegal border crossings.  Maybe Minsky is right and it's the right policy to do: but it's not what you run on.

[Berkut]

Sigh. Never mind, I am wrong. The Dems are fine, and should just go about running as far to the left as possible, and it will all work out.

I know, this isn't an example of that. Nothing is an example of that. There are no examples of that. All the Dems are all moderates already, and the Dem message is perfectly aligned to have maximum effect. It's fine. It's all fine.

If Dems ever lose elections, it is always because human beings are just too fucking stupid to understand what's best for them, and there should be no attempt to reach anyone so stupid.

For fuck's sake, dude.  Stop the drama queen bullshit.  It is possible for you to be wrong without it meaning the end of all hope.

"Sigh," indeed.

It is an example of something I see as an overall problem that must be addressed.

And yet, every single example given, is dismissed with a bunch of justifications that amount to "Yeah, but if you think about it, it is fine".

Which isn't the point. Voters have to be convinced, and many of them are not convinced by thoughtful analysis.

It is a battle of perception, and the Dems consistently suck at that fight such that the Republicans, with objectively stupid ideas, win at least half the time.

In 100% of the cases I bring this up - the response is the same. You are wrong, we are right, and we should keep on doing the exact same thing we have always done, and are currently doing.

OK, fine. If you want the exact same outcome, they should in fact keep doing the exact same thing. Keep making positions that are easily turned into slogans that are unpopular with non-left wing voters and get them to vote for the other guy, all the while we sit around and wonder why.

I am not *wrong*. Decriminalizing the border is a deeply unpopular policy position, with the latest polls showing less than 30% support for the position, and 2/3rds think it is a bad idea.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3?campaign_id=39&instance_id=11361&segment_id=15808&user_id=06baa539c5b72c10e4933d54afbbbb8b&regi_id=91918385&nl=david-leonhardt&emc=edit_ty_20190802

Do you think decriminalizing illegal border crossings is a good idea or
a bad idea?

All Nationally registered voters:
Good: 27%
Bad: 67%
Unsure: 7%

My argument is not about whether it is or is not a good idea, it is about whether or not it is a good or bad idea to run on in a campaign right now, if your goal is to beat Republicans.

This is the same point I made about the proposal to make private primary health insurance illegal. It's not about whether or not it is a good idea, it is about whether it is good politics. And that got the exact same response. As has every other example of positions the Dems are taking that are deeply unpopular because plenty of voters are not going to sit there and soberly think about the issue - most voters and not languishites who think about this stuff beyond the headlines.

[grumbler]

Sigh. Never mind, I am wrong. The Dems are fine, and should just go about running as far to the left as possible, and it will all work out.

I know, this isn't an example of that. Nothing is an example of that. There are no examples of that. All the Dems are all moderates already, and the Dem message is perfectly aligned to have maximum effect. It's fine. It's all fine.

If Dems ever lose elections, it is always because human beings are just too fucking stupid to understand what's best for them, and there should be no attempt to reach anyone so stupid.

Your obsession with turning the Democrats into the Berkut Party is getting tired.  They aren't your party.  Your party is dead.  The same with many here.  You can either fight to rebuild and retake it, accept the opposition for the time being, or bow out.  Having the parties be Right and Righter isn't a legitimate outcome to the Republican Party and Trump drag their political stances further and further to the Right.  Your goal seems to be, from what I can see, to remove anyone on the Left from having a political party that represents any of their views or policy concerns solely for the reason of beating Trump.  He has already caused enough damage, permanent and otherwise, why add the two party system to the casualty list?  Either people accept the messages of the Democratic Party as it exists or they don't, but the cut off large parts of your base in an effort to grab a few crumbs from the Right and middle-Right seems like an absolutely terrible strategy.

"Your obsession with turning the Democrats into the Berkut Party is getting tired" says the guy obsessed with insisting that the Democrats are the Benedict Arnold Party.  Every position not as extreme as your position isn't necessarily Right or Righter.  Moderate positions do exist, and so do moderate voters.  Your choice, to have  far-left Democratic Party so that you can have "a political party that represents any of [your] views or policy concerns" is the choice to elect Trump and his ilk, because you'd rather have ideological purity than actually pursue broader policy concerns that might win enough voter support to win elections.

Luckily, the Democratic leadership doesn't share your focus on purity at the cos of effectiveness.