2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

And again, none of these are the core problems that actually matter - they are just re-arranging the deck chairs.

While you can certainly convince me that the US could use some fairly fundamental and systemic reforms, I don't think the things that are up for grabs are deck chairs. I think a bunch of those things are incremental changes that set the direction of the ship for decades, and some of it is allowing some people to get on to the deck at all.

The battles are often for seemingly small stakes and for local things, but they add up over time.

Well put.

[Razgovory]

It seems to me that there are plenty of real, concrete differences that comes out of which party wins. Maybe none of them affect Berkut directly, because he's part of a demographic that neither side wants to upset, but it's my impression that there are lots people who see very concrete results.

Say Obama didn't win last time around? No health care coverage for CdM, right now; or he'd have it at ruinously high prices or low efficiency.

I think the gay marriage thing could easily have unfolded differently, or at different times, with different politicians (and judges) at the helm.

Gun stuff and immigration are other issues where plenty of people could have had different experiences, and whose lives can still be affected in the future, depending on who were and are elected.

None of those things are what is really wrong with our country though, and most of them won't change materially at all based on who is in charge.

Gun control? Won't fundamentally change.

Immigration? What has Obama done materially that is different from anything Bush did?

Health care? OK. Some people now have some form of it who didn't before, and that is good. But again, I think that reform is happening regardless, and how BAD that reform has been even with the Democrats in charge of the Presidency and Congress goes to show just how limited their actually ability is even when they are running the show. The reality is that we get the reform that the powers that run Congress decide they want or can live with, not the reform that the people actually desire.

And again, none of these are the core problems that actually matter - they are just re-arranging the deck chairs.

Meh, a lot of the "big issues" really aren't that important.  The important things are if the streets are maintained or the courts are working or the military can kill people or that our citizens rights are respected both domestically and abroad.  This is the meat and potatoes of government and what affects the most people.

[jimmy olsen]

Does seem like an issue that could drive a lot of turnout, and since Republican turnout is consistently high, while the Democratic turnout varies, that would seem to be good news for the Democrats.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/reaping-the-whirlwind--5

Today we're busily asking when President Obama will drop the immigration executive action hammer and whether Republicans will reply with screeching, government shutdowning or just getting it over with and finally impeaching President Obama. Indeed, this piece in Slate argues that the whole thing isn't as big a deal as it's cracked up to be since whatever President Obama does it's just as easy to undo when he leaves office in January 2017.

But this, I think, misses the point. That's exactly why this is such a big deal. Because if you think this is an explosive issue now, just wait until 2016.

Let's start with a few assumptions and see where they lead.

1) Let's assume, as numerous reports now suggest, that President Obama will issue one or more executive orders that effectively legalize roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States.

2) Republicans have already put a huge amount of energy behind the notion that this is not only bad policy but likely also an unconstitutional action and impeachable offense.

3) Given that President Obama almost certainly will do this and the red lines Republicans have put down, it is virtually certain that any 2016 Republican nominee will have to run on undoing this executive order when he or she gets to the White House.

Now, this doesn't mean a notional Republican president in 2017 is going to round up all 5 million people and deport them or force march them over the Mexican border. Indeed, I strongly suspect, after whatever outrage can be reaped is reaped, GOP elites will want the whole issue to go away.

But I don't think the internal dynamics of GOP primaries or post-primaries will allow that to happen.

Now let's work this through.

If there are 5 million people who are affected by this order, the number of people who either have family ties to these individuals or affective relationships with them is much larger. I don't know if it's 15 million or 20 million or 40 million. But it's a lot more than 5 million people who will feel acutely the fate of these people hanging in the balance with the 2016 election. And advocates on both sides of the immigration divide, deporters and pro-immigrant activists will press the issue throughout the 2016 cycle. The 5 million affected can't vote and won't be able to for years. But many family members, friends, community members and employers can.

Yes, these people have been waiting for years to be able to come out of the shadows. But it's one thing to wait and another to come out of the shadows and then be forced to retreat into the darkness, with a perhaps heightened risk of deportation and family separation.

It all adds up to an intense and likely toxic campaign fracas in which a lot of people will have a unique and intense motivation to vote. That will apply to people on both sides of course. But the anti-immigration voters vote consistently almost every cycle. And as intense as your animus is toward undocumented immigrants, it's hard for it to compare to the motivation of voters who directly know someone who will be affected. And that latter group has far more 'drop-off' or occasional voters.

This isn't getting mentioned a lot right now. But behind the headlines I suspect it's one of the key reasons Republican elites are upset that this might happen: because it's an electoral grenade dropped right into the heart of the 2016 campaign.

[derspiess]

STAND WITH HILLARY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30

[Eddie Teach]

I like this one better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8

[CountDeMoney]

McClatchy-Marist poll shows Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush leading GOP pack
By Jennifer Shutt
POLITICO

12/15/14 8:18 PM EST

A new poll shows former presidential candidate Mitt Romney leading the field of likely 2016 Republican candidates.

The McClatchy-Marist poll, released Monday, shows Romney has the support from about 19 percent of Republican voters, with Jeb Bush receiving 14 percent.

The former governors were followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Gov. Mike Huckabee, both with 9 percent. Ben Carson received 8 percent.

If Romney doesn't enter the 2016 Republican primary, the poll showed Bush with 16 percent, Huckabee with 12 percent, Christie with 10 percent and Carson with 8 percent.

On the Democratic side, 58 percent of those polled said they hope the party will nominate a candidate who will break from President Barack Obama's policies. That's a 10 percentage point increase over last year.

As expected, Hillary Clinton leads over any other potential Democratic challenger by large margins, the poll finds.

[Jacob]

So it looks like Jeb Bush is throwing his hat in the ring: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/politics/bush-explore-presidential-bid/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Jacob]

Nate Silver has an interesting infographic on how Conservative various Republicans are, comparing their public issue statements, voting records, and fundraising base.



From here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-president-republican-primary-2016/

Rand Paul's spread is quite something (though the writeup pretty much says that's down to the data model having difficulties with handling a libertarian position within the given parameters).

[derspiess]

Saw that the other day.  They don't stand with Rand

[Admiral Yi]

I don't understand the relevance of the fundraising portion.

[Jacob]

I don't understand the relevance of the fundraising portion.

I think the idea is that if all your money comes from "the SPAC against any abortions ever" and "people who donate according to endorsements from this ultra-conservative think tank" versus someone whose funding comes from "the SPAC for all abortions all the time" and people who refuse to donate to people endorsed by this ultra-conservative think tank" then that's relevant in judging how conservative you are as it, presumably, indicates whose interests you may be more likely to listen to.

[Jacob]

Hey Seedy, do you know this fellow? From John Hopkins - firebrand right winger: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/us/politics/gop-hopes-for-unity-may-be-upset-by-ben-carson.html?_r=1

[The Brain]

John Hopkins?

[Razgovory]

Well I'll be damn, Rand Paul really is to the Right of Attila the Hun.

[CountDeMoney]

Hey Seedy, do you know this fellow?

Oh yeah, he's arguably this town's biggest celebrity after John Waters that doesn't play sports.  Really nice guy on a personal basis, the kind you'd find waiting in line behind you at the pretzel vendor on the street corner, he's one of those accomplished doctors that is comfortable with himself and doesn't have to do the imperious "Don't you know who I am?" thing, mainly because everybody does.   You'd walk into the School of Medicine bookstore, and there's a section--like all schools--of published works by the faculty.  Well, there's that section, and then there's his section.

Although he really rubbed the Hopkins community the wrong way since he came out calling Obamacare the worse thing since slavery, and has shown himself to be one of those "I-benefited-from-civil-rights-now-I-want-to-pull-the-ladder-up-behind-me" Clarence Thomas types the Languish Creepy Ass Crackers love so much.  Pissed off the medical students so much over how much he hates homosexuals they withdrew his invitation to speak at their commencement last year.

When you drive through the monied part of Baltimore County where all the rich people abuse animals, you'll see handmade signs that say "Run Ben Run" near where he lives.

Certainly smarter than Sarah Palin, who would probably separate conjoined Siamese twins with a cake knife.  Keeps saying stuff that's just as dumb, though.

And it's Johns Hopkins.