What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Sounds like a broken system when one branch of government appoints another, but the appointments are controlled by the third.

James Madison clearly felt differently.

[Solmyr]

So it's WAD that the President cannot get anything done if his party doesn't control everything?

[Syt]

So it's WAD that the President cannot get anything done if his party doesn't control everything?

IIRC the system is not built around the idea of parties. The system expects sensible politicians to make sensible compromises.

[Syt]

Trumpers in Philly dancing to RATM's Killing in the Name of ....

https://twitter.com/Manny_Alicandro/status/1324873177416273921?s=20

[FunkMonk]

Sounds like a broken system when one branch of government appoints another, but the appointments are controlled by the third.

Party politics as we know it didn't exist at the time the Constitution was initially hammered out. Things get mucked up when, because of partisan politics, one party effectively controls one branch and acts completely in bad faith.

[Sheilbh]

Party politics as we know it didn't exist at the time the Constitution was initially hammered out. Things get mucked up when, because of partisan politics, one party effectively controls one branch and acts completely in bad faith.

Yeah and I think the nationalisation of party politics is a huge driver in this. Partisan politics existed for a long time in America but they were often more geographical coalitions (with a soupcon of ideology chucked in), they're now ideological divisions. Generally I think that's a good thing.

But the other point is I wonder if Democrats, possibly more than Republicans, have an internet problem. One side of that is the diffuse donations/waste of money we were talking about earlier, but I think the other is possibly around messaging because the Democrats still seem more of a coalition party than me.

[Razgovory]

So it's WAD that the President cannot get anything done if his party doesn't control everything?

Kinda.  In the past it was possible to comprise.  You vote for my bill and you'll get plenty of cash to a new highway in your state.  We reformed most of that away and there is now very little incentive to compromise.  If you do compromise you risk purists primarying you out of your seat.

Honestly we need to bring back a lot the old "pork barrel" stuff. Like ear-marks.  Greasing a few palms also greases the wheels.  I'd also forbid the use of cameras in the chambers of congress.  Neither of those ideas would be popular.  Killing Cable news would help things immensely, but there is no legal way I know to do that.  Maybe bring back the old fairness doctrine?

We really need for Cable News, and talk radio and independent "news" sites to act for the public good.  That won't happen.

Things are going to get worse before they get better.

[Solmyr]

Sounds like a broken system when one branch of government appoints another, but the appointments are controlled by the third.

Party politics as we know it didn't exist at the time the Constitution was initially hammered out. Things get mucked up when, because of partisan politics, one party effectively controls one branch and acts completely in bad faith.

Seems like just by controlling the Senate, you control everything else because everyone must go to the Senate for final approval. Does control of the House even matter? Can the House do something independently of the Senate? I'm honestly asking.

[FunkMonk]

They're supposed to work together of course, but the Constitution specifically states that the House of Representatives is the only house of congress allowed to initiate impeachment proceedings, and all bills raising revenue for the federal government must originate in the House of Representatives.


For those interested in MURICA  : https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/

[FunkMonk]

Party politics as we know it didn't exist at the time the Constitution was initially hammered out. Things get mucked up when, because of partisan politics, one party effectively controls one branch and acts completely in bad faith.

Yeah and I think the nationalisation of party politics is a huge driver in this. Partisan politics existed for a long time in America but they were often more geographical coalitions (with a soupcon of ideology chucked in), they're now ideological divisions. Generally I think that's a good thing.

I think perhaps geography is still important to modern american party politics. Rather than being based on state/regional differences and coalitions among classes, though, it is more based on urban/rural differences. So states that are predominantly rural/semi-rural are trending Republican and states that are predominantly urban/suburban are trending Democrat. I think this was happening before Trump but he accelerated it greatly when he came along.

[Sheilbh]

I think perhaps geography is still important to modern american party politics. Rather than being based on state/regional differences and coalitions among classes, though, it is more based on urban/rural differences. So states that are predominantly rural/semi-rural are trending Republican and states that are predominantly urban/suburban are trending Democrat. I think this was happening before Trump but he accelerated it greatly when he came along.

That's true - but I think that's more of a general global trend that we see in the UK, in France and in other countries. Where the old sort of geographic interest coalitions was distinctively American. It's also why I'm not sure the decline of pork barrel matters - I'm inherently suspicious of any "solution" to political that is basically more corruption. But also as voters are now breaking on rural/towns v urban/suburban, doesn't that divide also happen just as much within states, so would it work?

[grumbler]

Am I really seeing that we have a Languishite who is just now discovering that the US government contains checks and balances and that checks on a branch's power are WAD? 

[crazy canuck]

Am I really seeing that we have a Languishite who is just now discovering that the US government contains checks and balances and that checks on a branch's power are WAD? 

The introduction of a two party system into that structure creates circumstances that are not exactly WAD.

[FunkMonk]

I think perhaps geography is still important to modern american party politics. Rather than being based on state/regional differences and coalitions among classes, though, it is more based on urban/rural differences. So states that are predominantly rural/semi-rural are trending Republican and states that are predominantly urban/suburban are trending Democrat. I think this was happening before Trump but he accelerated it greatly when he came along.

That's true - but I think that's more of a general global trend that we see in the UK, in France and in other countries. Where the old sort of geographic interest coalitions was distinctively American. It's also why I'm not sure the decline of pork barrel matters - I'm inherently suspicious of any "solution" to political that is basically more corruption. But also as voters are now breaking on rural/towns v urban/suburban, doesn't that divide also happen just as much within states, so would it work?

That's true. I'd add that in the US geography introduces further issues when it comes to districting and the modern Democratic party's concentration of its supporters into urban areas. It's a structural problem for them that I'm not sure how else can be solved except by either restructuring the redistricting process or the Democratic party making itself more palatable to rural voters and voters without a college education.

[Sheilbh]

What do you think the impact of Democrats' continued improvement in the suburbs would be on that? For example I believe they've doubled their vote in the suburbs round Atlanta since 2012 while the GOP have declined significantly.

Nate Silver postedthe NYT map (obviously not all counting is finished). But I don't think anyone can work out a pattern here:



It feels like there's a lot going on and a lot of weirdness. As I say (assuming Biden wins the states he's currently leading) that looks like a transitional map - I'm just not sure who's transitioning or where they're going or what it means

If nothing else it's interesting.