What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

From that same poll:

Medicare for all that want it, that is allow all Americans to
choose between a national health insurance program or their
own private health insurance

Good Idea 70%
Bad Idea 25%
Unsure 5%

Medicare for all, that is a national health insurance program
for all Americans that replaces private health insurance
Good Idea 41%
Bad Idea 54%
Unsure 5%

Jesus, this is so fucking simple.

If you think getting rid of private insurance is a good idea, great. I probably agree with you.

But that isn't that interesting. What is interesting is that right now, option 1 would certainly be a lot better than Option 0: Keep Doing What we are doing now

Right? Everyone to the left of Reagan probably agrees with that at this point. However, we know that we will not get anything but Option 0 if we don't get rid of the Republicans.

SO WHY RUN ON OPTION 2, right now????

What is the point of coming out and going on about getting rid of private primary health insurance? Why run on something that is just going to alienate a bunch of the people you want to vote for you, when those very same people WILL support a position that is demonstrably much better than the status quo, and is likely a necessary step towards the latter condition anyway?

Why?

We know why - because the left will crucify you if you don't pander to the most extreme part of the party.

The right went through this same thing, and ended up turning into a complete shitshow. Pandering to their most extreme members and calling anyone NOT pandering a fake Republican, just like I am now being called a fake Democrat.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

As a former prosecutor, you know that budgets and resources are not unlimited.  If the Province forced your office to prosecute thousands cases of vagrancy per year that normally would be handled outside the criminal system, that means less attention and resources can be focused on more serious matters.

Federal prosecutors and law enforcement have lots of very serious cross-border criminal matters to attend to, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons trafficking, customs fraud, money laundering and oh yeah terrorism, to name a few.  Dump 100,000 extraneous cases in the system of Jose crossing the border to work on an El Paso construction site and there is less resources available to address far more serious crimes. 

Criminalization of illegal entry gives the illusion of toughness of crime but the reality of facilitating and weakening our response to real crime. 

Someone needs to run on it.

[Sophie Scholl]

"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.

Except I don't consider myself a Democrat other than by convenience.  I know Democrats will never put their platform to line up with my beliefs.  I'm fine with that.  However, given the current two party system, they line up closer to my views than the Republicans by a long shot.  The Democrats went with a fairly Moderate candidate in Hillary Clinton.  How'd that go?  That is the choice that gave us Trump.  The desire to go more and more to the center and eventually to claim discarded Republican viewpoints is what has been going on since the Republicans started shifting more and more to the Right.  How has that worked out?  State and local level governments are packed with Republicans.  Three of the five presidential terms have been Republican this century.  The Democrats seem to be cutting off their base and their Progressive messaging when it comes to non-Primary debates by being the party of "Not Trump" instead of any type of legitimate party with vaguely unified policy.  The Right has a very solid base and platform currently.  Even though I find them morally repugnant, they at least have goals and a purpose.  That unity gives them strength and focus that the Democrats are lacking as well as a very dedicated core.  The Democrats seem to be lacking all of those elements and determined to prevent them from forming.

[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.

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.

I support comprenensive immigration reform to include amnesty for people already here illegally.
I am in favor of single payer healthcare and taking the profit motive largely out of health care to a significant degree.
I am pro-choice.
I am in favor of government intervention into higher education in order to reduce, radically, the cost of post secondary education, whether that means federal funding for tuition, or some other structure to basically make public universities free for most students.
I think the number 1 priority for government today ought to be battling climate change, and we should be spending literally hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars to do so, and I think one of the best places to get some of that money would be radically de-funding US military spending.
I think we should significantly increase taxes on the wealthy, and increase taxes slightly on the middle class, and decrease taxes on the poor.
I think we should be seriously thinking about how the current system promotes wealth inequality, and how we can make systemic changes to address that.

Yeah, I am totally a "Right and middle-Right" voter, for sure.

[Oexmelin]

We know why - because the left will crucify you if you don't pander to the most extreme part of the party. 

Which left? The real left, or the bugbear left?

This is what confuses me. The Republicans are doing a good enough job at caricaturing the left, and the Democrats, without people on the center piling on. People complain a lot about virtue signaling, but this is the equivalent of the centrist version, aimed at reassuring oneself about one's own moderation, to the detriment of the political objective itself. The gist of BA's point is not that centrism ought not to be an option: it's that currently, the "messaging" of the center is actually harming the Democrats, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy by constantly agreeing with the right about how crazy the radical left is. It's a good electoral strategy in a multi-party set-up, where the socio-democrats can scare people into voting for them rather than the communists. It's a terrible strategy in the US where people will rather vote with the Original Anti-Left, rather than Left-Lite.

The other problem is the one pointed out by Minsky: as Republicans further, and further to the right, the "center" has moved with them, and by constantly aiming for that center, we actually legitimize it as moderate, rather than illustrate why a policy is terrible. The rhetoric is then increasingly about "we are not Trump". Which I believe was Clinton's strategy. The result is a Democratic party that gets bogged down on discussing finer points of budget allocation, which will always win applause from pundits, and convince a minuscule handful of voters. EDIT: Basically what BA said above.

[Sophie Scholl]

I support comprenensive immigration reform to include amnesty for people already here illegally.
I am in favor of single payer healthcare and taking the profit motive largely out of health care to a significant degree.
I am pro-choice.
I am in favor of government intervention into higher education in order to reduce, radically, the cost of post secondary education, whether that means federal funding for tuition, or some other structure to basically make public universities free for most students.
I think the number 1 priority for government today ought to be battling climate change, and we should be spending literally hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars to do so, and I think one of the best places to get some of that money would be radically de-funding US military spending.
I think we should significantly increase taxes on the wealthy, and increase taxes slightly on the middle class, and decrease taxes on the poor.
I think we should be seriously thinking about how the current system promotes wealth inequality, and how we can make systemic changes to address that.

Yeah, I am totally a "Right and middle-Right" voter, for sure.

That's good to hear.  We share some common ground.  Alas, I rarely see you mention any of those during your crusades against things like the current discussion or say identity politics.  All of the things I agree with you on fully or partially get drowned in multitude of posts which eventually all blend together on your pet issues.  From my perspective it seems like you and others have significantly more objections to anything Democrats stand for than support for those stances.  When 90% of what I see you post seems to be attacking Democrats and the Left, it paints my view of what you think.  The fact that I disagree with your assessment of what Far Left positions are and who holds them taints the picture as well.  I'm sorry, but that is just what happens for me.

[Berkut]

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.

As a former prosecutor, you know that budgets and resources are not unlimited.  If the Province forced your office to prosecute thousands cases of vagrancy per year that normally would be handled outside the criminal system, that means less attention and resources can be focused on more serious matters.

Federal prosecutors and law enforcement have lots of very serious cross-border criminal matters to attend to, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons trafficking, customs fraud, money laundering and oh yeah terrorism, to name a few.  Dump 100,000 extraneous cases in the system of Jose crossing the border to work on an El Paso construction site and there is less resources available to address far more serious crimes. 

Criminalization of illegal entry gives the illusion of toughness of crime but the reality of facilitating and weakening our response to real crime. 

Someone needs to run on it.

No, actually nobody needs to run on it at all.

If you actually care about getting something done, then the obvious way to go about that, right now, is:

1. Beat Trump
2. Take back the Senate
3. Introduce a comprehensive reform package that is desperately needed, and can include decriminalizing the border, while also including provisions to make unauthorized border crossing harder (said provisions having already been proposed and agreed upon by the people responsible for the border before it turned into a political shitshow). You don't even need to call it decriminalizing the border.

Given how unpopular the term "decriminalizing the border" is, running on it now is actually a damn good way to make sure it doesn't happen.

It is not *necessary* at all that someone runs on it.

Run on comprehensive immigration reform. Run on making America the bright shining light. Run on any number of things.

But don't run on incredibly unpopular fringe positions when there is PLENTY of space and tolerance for actual change that is popular and achieves many of the same goals.

[Berkut]

I support comprenensive immigration reform to include amnesty for people already here illegally.
I am in favor of single payer healthcare and taking the profit motive largely out of health care to a significant degree.
I am pro-choice.
I am in favor of government intervention into higher education in order to reduce, radically, the cost of post secondary education, whether that means federal funding for tuition, or some other structure to basically make public universities free for most students.
I think the number 1 priority for government today ought to be battling climate change, and we should be spending literally hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars to do so, and I think one of the best places to get some of that money would be radically de-funding US military spending.
I think we should significantly increase taxes on the wealthy, and increase taxes slightly on the middle class, and decrease taxes on the poor.
I think we should be seriously thinking about how the current system promotes wealth inequality, and how we can make systemic changes to address that.

Yeah, I am totally a "Right and middle-Right" voter, for sure.

That's good to hear.  We share some common ground.  Alas, I rarely see you mention any of those during your crusades against things like the current discussion or say identity politics.  All of the things I agree with you on fully or partially get drowned in multitude of posts which eventually all blend together on your pet issues.  From my perspective it seems like you and others have significantly more objections to anything Democrats stand for than support for those stances.  When 90% of what I see you post seems to be attacking Democrats and the Left, it paints my view of what you think.  The fact that I disagree with your assessment of what Far Left positions are and who holds them taints the picture as well.  I'm sorry, but that is just what happens for me.

I can't do much about that - I've stated time and again that I talk about this because yet another post pointing out how fucked up the Right is doesn't help anything. I don't care to fix them, and don't think they are fixable.

Honestly, I would love to see the end result be the complete destruction of the modern Republican Party, and the current Democratic Party breaking into a new primary two party system divide. I think the real argument we should be having is between modern centrists and the more radical wing of the current Left, with the remnants of the right finding homes in one of those two groups.

[Berkut]

We know why - because the left will crucify you if you don't pander to the most extreme part of the party. 

Which left? The real left, or the bugbear left?

This is what confuses me. The Republicans are doing a good enough job at caricaturing the left, and the Democrats, without people on the center piling on. People complain a lot about virtue signaling, but this is the equivalent of the centrist version, aimed at reassuring oneself about one's own moderation, to the detriment of the political objective itself. The gist of BA's point is not that centrism ought not to be an option: it's that currently, the "messaging" of the center is actually harming the Democrats, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy by constantly agreeing with the right about how crazy the radical left is. It's a good electoral strategy in a multi-party set-up, where the socio-democrats can scare people into voting for them rather than the communists. It's a terrible strategy in the US where people will rather vote with the Original Anti-Left, rather than Left-Lite.

The other problem is the one pointed out by Minsky: as Republicans further, and further to the right, the "center" has moved with them, and by constantly aiming for that center, we actually legitimize it as moderate, rather than illustrate why a policy is terrible. The rhetoric is then increasingly about "we are not Trump". Which I believe was Clinton's strategy. The result is a Democratic party that gets bogged down on discussing finer points of budget allocation, which will always win applause from pundits, and convince a minuscule handful of voters. EDIT: Basically what BA said above.

I actually don't think that the modern center has really moved to the right.

Look at that latest poll I posted.

Good Idea / Bad Idea / Unsure
Background checks for gun purchases at gun shows or other
private sales
89% 9% 2%
Medicare for all that want it, that is allow all Americans to
choose between a national health insurance program or their
own private health insurance
70% 25% 5%
Government regulation of prescription drug prices
67% 28% 5%
A pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are in the US
illegally
64% 32% 4%
Legalizing marijuana nationally
63% 32% 5%
A Green New Deal to address climate change by investing
government money in green jobs and energy efficient
infrastructure
63% 32% 5%
A Wealth Tax, that is a higher tax rate on income above one
million dollars
62% 34% 4%
A ban on the sale of semi-automatic assault guns such as
the AK-47 or the AR-15
57% 41% 2%

Most Americans support positions that are pretty demonstrably NOT "right" in any way. I think the actual window of what most Americans support has moved to the left.

I think the rhetoric of the right has moved far to the right, but I think most actual Americans are moderate progressives who are quite tolerant of moderate progressive ideas.

Which is why I do not understand the utility of running on less moderate progressive ideas in a world where the right has managed to make the status quo considerably less progressive than what most Americans actually want.

I mean, if we had those things already, then ok - it makes sense to run on the next step. But we don't. Why run on the radical solution, when the *betterthanwhatwehavenow* solution is much more acceptable to the people you need to get to vote for you?

The one exception to this, IMO, is probably climate change. Where we actually truly need truly radical changes. But even there....I would support some healthy political deceit in the interests of getting something done in the hopes that it might open up the way towards the more radical solutions, or at least make the damage a little less for when we are forced into truly radical responses.

[Sophie Scholl]

No, actually nobody needs to run on it at all.

If you actually care about getting something done, then the obvious way to go about that, right now, is:

1. Beat Trump
2. Take back the Senate
3. Introduce a comprehensive reform package that is desperately needed, and can include decriminalizing the border, while also including provisions to make unauthorized border crossing harder (said provisions having already been proposed and agreed upon by the people responsible for the border before it turned into a political shitshow). You don't even need to call it decriminalizing the border.

Given how unpopular the term "decriminalizing the border" is, running on it now is actually a damn good way to make sure it doesn't happen.

It is not *necessary* at all that someone runs on it.

Run on comprehensive immigration reform. Run on making America the bright shining light. Run on any number of things.

But don't run on incredibly unpopular fringe positions when there is PLENTY of space and tolerance for actual change that is popular and achieves many of the same goals.

My biggest fear with this is that in my opinion we're headed for an economic downturn soon.  The growth we've had seems hollow, wage stagnation is getting worse by the day, the safeguards installed after the last collapse are being torn down, and all manner of other giant to small flashing red warning lights are going on.  If that's the case, then even if the Democrats take the House, Senate, and Presidency, then they'll have to be on damage control a la Obama's first term with those conditions.  Pursuit of policy will be limited to one or two items as most efforts will have to be put toward salvaging the country.  Again.  Then Republicans will obstruct as per usual the entire way and run on a platform of how Democrats are incompetent and broke things a la 2010 and we'll end up with the dysfunction continuing.

I can't do much about that - I've stated time and again that I talk about this because yet another post pointing out how fucked up the Right is doesn't help anything. I don't care to fix them, and don't think they are fixable.

Honestly, I would love to see the end result be the complete destruction of the modern Republican Party, and the current Democratic Party breaking into a new primary two party system divide. I think the real argument we should be having is between modern centrists and the more radical wing of the current Left, with the remnants of the right finding homes in one of those two groups.

Unfortunately, I think the modern Republican Party is more stable than the modern Democratic Party in my opinion.  We'll see how things go if and hopefully when Trump is gone, but he has the whole party working in lockstep and afraid to voice any dissent for fear of having their political careers murdered almost instantly.  While I'd love to see the US develop into a multi party system, I don't think that the founding documents and established history will ever allow it.  The fact that we have had just the same two parties for this long is rather unprecedented though.

[Sophie Scholl]

I actually don't think that the modern center has really moved to the right.

I don't think the people have moved more to the right but I think the parties have when factoring in the general trend to slowly become more progressive over time is considered.  That is a typical American trend which, hopefully, continues going forward in time.  I agree that the best chances of getting anything accomplished are by pitching things as half measures.  Outside of things being forced by war or national crisis, Americans have historically been loathe to make dramatic changes in short order.  I think that is more of a human nature type thing.  I do agree that fairly dramatic policies regarding Climate Change need to be forced through though.  I just fear that it won't be possible till it is too late.

[Berkut]

Unfortunately, I think the modern Republican Party is more stable than the modern Democratic Party in my opinion.  We'll see how things go if and hopefully when Trump is gone, but he has the whole party working in lockstep and afraid to voice any dissent for fear of having their political careers murdered almost instantly.  While I'd love to see the US develop into a multi party system, I don't think that the founding documents and established history will ever allow it.  The fact that we have had just the same two parties for this long is rather unprecedented though.

I think it is more stable, but also radically more fragile.

It is largely out of step with what Americans actually want, and only manages to keep power by appealing more and more to more and more fringe elements, and getting them to turn out to vote. And taking advantage of the screwed up aprts of the system that work against reflecting the will of actual voters.


And working actively to subvert the system as well.

I would love to see a non-two party system as well. But given that that would take some radical systemic adjustments, I would be fine with seeing the two parties simply re-defined.

In a two party system, you should have two parties that divide, roughly, on the middle of the electorate, and ideally, each party should be fighting to secure the votes of the middle. If enough people move, then obviously the parties, in a properly functioning two party system, would adjust accordingly.

Right now, we have two parties where (IMO, but I don't think it is very controversial) the right gets vastly more than their share of power given their relationship to the electorate as an entirety. This is very, very bad, and not just because it means that they get to call shots they should not get to call, but because it actually ends up radicalizing the other party as well. Both parties start pandering to their fringes, and that is what we are seeing.

I think that if the Dems could somehow control their message better (and I don't know how to do that given the current informational/technological climate) and agree on a coherent, progressive policy largely driven by looking at what most Americans actually want, rather than what their most vocal fringes are bleating about, they would absolutely destroy the Republicans comprehensively. Not just beat Trump, who is just a symptom, but beat Koch/Fox/Hannity and the entire radical right wing ideology.

If we had parties aligned to what most Americans actually think, it would be the current moderate Dems against the current radical Dems, like Sanders. Hell, that would actually probably leave room for some actual Socialists (shudder).

[Berkut]

I actually don't think that the modern center has really moved to the right.

I don't think the people have moved more to the right but I think the parties have when factoring in the general trend to slowly become more progressive over time is considered.  That is a typical American trend which, hopefully, continues going forward in time.  I agree that the best chances of getting anything accomplished are by pitching things as half measures.  Outside of things being forced by war or national crisis, Americans have historically been loathe to make dramatic changes in short order.  I think that is more of a human nature type thing.  I do agree that fairly dramatic policies regarding Climate Change need to be forced through though.  I just fear that it won't be possible till it is too late.

See, we actually agree on nearly everything.

I don't think radical change on climate is possible right now, no matter how desperately it is needed. (But I think some fault for that lies at the feet of the left for being so fucking terrible at winning even when most people agree with them )

But I don't think there is a "too late". Humans are pretty good at adapting when forced, it just means that the damage will be much greater than it needed to be - at least that is what I hope.

And doing something will make that damage a little bit less, and hence is worth doing.

[Sophie Scholl]

The nature of the Electoral College, the Senate, and other elements definitely keep the minority views of the current Republican Party as legitimate and powerful.  Alas, that is the way the government is drawn up.  The Right has been great at galvanizing their base and elements of the Right, a la the NRA, have been able to dominate the national discussion on issues by having crazy levels of solidarity and action from their small portion of the electorate.  Once again, an unfortunate result of how the government is drawn up.  One of the problems with messaging from the Democrats is that there isn't a coherent message right now for them other than, as previously discussed, "We're not Trump".  That makes it hard to push a narrative on friendly or relatively unbiased news outlets and completely impossible on partisan outlets of the opposition.  This in turn leads to a confused mess where the only consistent messaging is that from the opposition which is generally filled with half truths if not outright lies.  Finally, I think you're discounting the number of people who have gone all in on the Republican/Trump dream of America when you break down the potential divide of where the parties should/would be though. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Moderates and centrists are always quick to point out budgetary consequences of bold ideas and to remind ideologues on the both sides of the reality of resource trade offs.  I.e. massive tax cuts don't pay for themselves; big public benefits mean cuts elsewhere or putting heavier tax burdens on a broad base of people.

But why does that careful logic depart the moment we start talking about law enforcement?  Law enforcement, like any other government activity, is resource constrained and involves stark tradeoffs in priorities.  More resources in one domain mean less in another.  Its possible to expand resources and budgets, but not that feasible to do so quickly - courthouses take time to build and trained agents and prosecutors don't just appear at will and agree to take government salaries.

I agree "decriminalization" is terrible rhetorically - it sounds like pot decrim which everyone knows is shorthand for toleration/encouragement.

But the onus should be on those who advocate criminalization of deportation.  People really need to think about what 8000-12,000 federal criminal cases per month means.    How many judges and clerks and bailiffs and how many courtrooms to house them.  How many prosecutors and lawyers and paralegals and secretaries. How many detention facilities, how many guards, how many transports. One federal judge alone requires about 1/2 mil per year in salary and benefits plus three law clerks plus secretarial and support staff plus a few thousand square feet of fancy fed courtroom space. Just for one judge.  That's assuming you can get the SOB appointed in the first place - there is always a big backlog which means cases pile up and the entire system slows to a crawl.  Again, still just talking about one judge.

take this system and dump 100,000 cases on it.  100,000 cases that would otherwise be handled by a dedicated streamlined administrative deport procedure. 

It's complete and utter folly.