I heard today that during the Clinton years, he lost the House by 60 seats, and Obama by nearly 70?
And Trump only lost it by what, 25, 30?
Maybe I have those numbers wrong, but I think that liberal propaganda is really minimizing the position that the lack of coherent Democratic vision that is killing the DNC. . .
Just an observation. . .
Perhaps. What the Dems don’t realize is this though….
When there was a conflict between the Congress and the President, the President usually came out smelling like a rose after it was over. I wonder how it will go between Trump and the Dem controlled House. I’m completely unsure who carries public opinion if there is a stalemate.
True. If the Dems can come up with something other than identity politics and how the white male patriarchy is bad, they might have a chance.
But the politics of hate don't seem to work well for Trump, so I doubt they will work well for the DNC.
Only a positive message of hope ever really resonates with the independents. It worked well for Obama, and that is the core of MAGA. This is what will draw them like honey. . . or jobs, growth, and a positive economy.
These parties need a plan and a way to implement it.
Platform? Yes
Plan? It would be nice but not necessary. I think the only way you’d signal to the other side that you are serious about bi partisanship on day 1 is to put a moderate from the other party on your ticket as VP and give her or him a real role in policy implementation. More on this later.
I listened to a podcast the other day called "The Hidden Duopoly". It was done by Freakonomics and it's founder Stephen J. Dubner. Google Freakonomics Radio if you want to hear it.
Part of me is like "duh"...it's not that hidden. But one of the conclusions they came up with was that the two major parties do not even try for the middle; they find easier vote-mining on the far ends of the spectrum. The middle--soft Dems and soft Repubs and true independents do not matter. If that is true, there is an opportunity for a true change agent.
Okay. Lets go back in time (harp music playing in the back) to June 7, 2008. It is the date Obama won the Democratic Nomination. McCain won on 9/4/2008. But unlike Obama, McCain had the thing sewn up long before that in March. Dubner contends that the parties don't care about them because there is no viable alternative..."Where are they going to go?" is how they put it. Now, lets say for the sake of argument that the running mate Joe Biden isn't picked at the time the nomination is sealed and McCain doesn't nominate Palin at the convention or toys with Lieberman prior to the convention. Once the nominations are in, they really cannot be changed so there is theoretically time between the nomination and election when someone who is a change agent can upset the system and nominate a prominent equal partner as running mate. It will take planning of course and a clear division of labor between the two people on the ticket on what they are going to try to accomplish.
There are two major things they can do to make it work.
Divide up appointments and national policy. Let the VP submit the names of Federal/SCOTUS judges and they and the top of the ticket hash out who will be picked for which judgships ahead of time. This is a big thing you can give to the other side in return for an easier go of it and the VP (who will be the presumptive nominee of their party when they are no longer are or going to be VPOTUS and will be in the position to cash in favors) helps you push through an agreeable agenda. Lets say minimum wage for example. Few conservatives continue to push the notion that a rise in the minimum wage is not necessary. Fewer still hold out the long debunked notion that it kills the economy. This is something that could be agreed upon if politics were not at play.
Divide by international/national priorities. And during times of international dischord (like we had in 08), let the VPOTUS essentially take the lead in military operations in return for the help on the domestic agenda.
----------------
Pipe dream? Maybe. But I think it will take a major shift at the top of the ticket before any serious bipartisanship will be possible.
"nominate a prominent equal partner as running mate"
That did not work very well for Lincoln, McKinley or Kennedy!
Not so sure about that. LBJ likely got more accomplished than JFK ever would have. I am sure that you don’t nominate your VP based on the fact that you may get shot and killed. Would JFK have done the same things LBJ did? Not sure.
Its a scenario that is born out of the very correct assessment of the Freakonomics editors and Stephen J. Dubner’s analysis. The voters are sort of locked into a devil’s bargain of sorts. It is this. If you’re a blue or a red, you’re locked in. You won’t vote for the other party so the parties count on you. If you’re an independent, you are not even courted because if you’re a soft blue or soft red, you have nowhere else to go except to the other party and in the unlikely event you do that in massive numbers; the parties hope to stymie your vote by mining the “more easily” pluck-able extreme left or extreme right people who have historically not voted. They do this by appealing to them and they don’t have to give away the store to get them.
The take away point is this. If you have a figure who is capable of winning her/his party’s nomination, there is a period of somewhere between 4 and 6 months where they could do something to signal to the opposition party that she/he is serious about getting stuff done and not just having to give speeches decrying the sad state of affairs in DC.
The details (if you care to read them) are as follows.
It would take someone who has some gravitas on the other side of the aisle as the VPOTUS
It would take someone who has enough political upside to where they would be a viable future POTUS
It would take someone who is willing to “play ball” as VPOTUS
It would take someone who is also willing to put the gameplay in place, and stick to it. The moment the plan is deviated from; the coalition falls apart on both sides.
Finding someone with gravitas who is willing to do the rest is the major hurdle. Because you’e asking them to take a subordinate role instead of a leadership one. If it fails; they are history. At the same time, this person would have to be someone who has enough upside to not just be a person who could be president some day but would figure to be a no-brainer. Sort of how Obama was viewed in 2004 after giving he speech at the DNC. I would say the most obvious person who could fill that role today is Marco Rubio. He lost badly in 2016 but looks like he still has some political legs. Nikki Haley comes to mind as well.
The “upside argument” is enhanced by being on the ticket. Few would have looked at Pence and said..”that is presidential timber”. Now as VPOTUS? He has a bit more gravitas. So, in keeping with the scenario, Rubio or Haley take the VPOTUS slot in 2020 (again—this is all theoretical) with a Democrat on top of the ticket.
Likewise with someone who is willing to play ball. In the scenario I laid out, the POTUS and VPOTUS would essentially use the playground rule to divide the agenda. They could limit it to four items; 2 each. It doesn’t have to be “one for you, one for me”, it could have endless configurations based on what each member of the ticket want. I think the sophisticated view is to limit it to two pieces of signature legislation and 2 to 4 pieces of “sweetener” to get the legislation passed. Lets say the democrat on the top of the ticket wants to get the
minimum wage raised, and
campaign finance reform. The republican VPOTUS wants to be the point person on
nominating judges, legislation that would enhance
deportations and border security, a promise for
no new income tax hikes during their tenure, and support for a pet project; lets say it is a new
nationwide pipeline or seriously
funding NASA or a new
class of battle cruiser. Essentially the two figures agree on the plan for the minimum wage—what it will be and the increments to get there. They agree on campaign finance reform nomenclature and how much money can be raised. They work out the list of judges and what potential/open judgeships they will be nominated for. Etc… All of this is hashed out over a series of meetings that take place in late Spring, early Summer. The POTUS agrees to nominate the judges, lobby for the legislation (promising to deliver 10 democrat YEA votes in the House for example), and the VPOTUS agrees to deliver X numbers of votes for the minimum wage and CFR; knowing that as VPOTUS and a potential POTUS nominee later on, they have some things to offer their party’s leadership and members.
Would it work? Who knows? I doubt it would even get out of the polite discussion phase over drinks. But it sure seems like it would be worth a try if you are going to run for President, why not try to be one who actually got some stuff done instead of the current status of “I suck less”?