Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bagsgroove

(231 posts)
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 10:58 AM Feb 2016

Hillary or Bernie -- how much does it matter?

If a Democrat (either Hillary or Bernie) wins the White House in 2016 by a large margin with Obama-like coattails, there's a slim chance the Senate could switch back to the Democrats. There is virtually no chance, given the 2010 elections and the gerrymandering of House districts that followed, that the GOP will lose control of the House of Representatives.

If the Senate flipped, a Clinton or Sanders presidency would have a chance of getting a relatively progressive Supreme Court replacement for Scalia, and maybe a freer hand in advancing foreign policy goals that require Senate ratification.

But with a Republican House, neither Clinton or Sanders would have much chance to advance any kind of legislative agenda as president. Single payer health care? Gun control? Public funding of higher ed? Not going to happen.

The best a Democrat in the White House will be able to do over the next 4 years is to be a firewall to prevent the total dismantling of the Obama legacy -- the Affordable Care Act, the opening to Cuba, the Iran nuclear agreement, executive actions on immigration.

Maybe I'm wrong about the chances of winning the House back. But if I'm not, then either a President Clinton or a President Sanders is in for a very long, very frustrating next four years. As are we all.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary or Bernie -- how much does it matter? (Original Post) Bagsgroove Feb 2016 OP
You are largely correct firebrand80 Feb 2016 #1
Hillary is likely to find common ground with the GOP for Third Way objectives. djean111 Feb 2016 #2
Considering Hillary is a conservative who wants to work with the repubs, BIG difference. RiverLover Feb 2016 #3
It would matter quite a bit on at least one front frazzled Feb 2016 #4
This calm person you speak of... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #7
So has Obama frazzled Feb 2016 #9
And I disagree with Obama too. TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #11
Gridlock is likely... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #5
Hillary is infinitely better qualified. NurseJackie Feb 2016 #6
"Settle," whispers the MSM. Orsino Feb 2016 #8
Supreme Court nominations. At least three. oasis Feb 2016 #10
I trust Bernie to make wise choices there. RiverLover Feb 2016 #12
Yes, a Wall Street-friendly Supreme Court. Just what we need. senz Feb 2016 #13

firebrand80

(2,760 posts)
1. You are largely correct
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:08 AM
Feb 2016

I do think there is a better than average chance at this point that the Senate flips, but there is no hope for the House.

There appears to be bipartisan support for criminal justice reform, and I'd imagine that something could always get done on infrastructure spending. Other than that, it's mostly about beating back GOP attacks on the Obama legacy and trying to get more Dems elected in the next 2-8 years.

In my opinion the importance of this election comes down to:

1. If the GOP wins the presidency, they'll have what they need to tear down Obamacare and everything else.
2. The Supreme Court
3. Preventing another ground war in the middle east
4. Having a competent person running our executive branch

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. Hillary is likely to find common ground with the GOP for Third Way objectives.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:10 AM
Feb 2016

That is the difference for me.
Also, she is more likely to go to war. Another big difference.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
3. Considering Hillary is a conservative who wants to work with the repubs, BIG difference.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:14 AM
Feb 2016
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/hillary-clintons-warm-purple-space/386288/

Huge.

This is a turning point, or status quo for the next 20 years.

AND think of all the Moneyed Interests she would owe going in. She is bought & paid for & no good will come from THAT.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
4. It would matter quite a bit on at least one front
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:16 AM
Feb 2016

Given that 50% of a president's time is spent on foreign policy issues and international relations, we have a stark contrast here. Someone who has met with and negotiated with scores of foreign leaders and diplomats, and who maintains a cool, professional demeanor. Or an angry guy who yells a lot and constantly wags his finger scoldingly, and is neither really interested in foreign policy nor very schooled in it. Can you imagine him meeting with the G-10 leaders, much less holding a state dinner or sitting in a tense discussion with, say, the Chinese premiere?

Personally, I don't think I could stand 4 years of someone shouting and scolding in the tv set on any level, much less picture them conducting our diplomatic relations with other nations.

It's a personality thing. And frankly, it matters. At least to me. And quite possibly to our country.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
7. This calm person you speak of...
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:22 AM
Feb 2016

...has advocated for regime change repeatedly. And it's not some "old" thing you can sweep under the rug. She advocated for it during her time as Secretary of State and she advocates for it now with Syria.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
9. So has Obama
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:29 AM
Feb 2016

He has repeatedly asked, for example, for Assad to step aside and to hold democratic elections. We don't publicly shrug our shoulders at genocidal dictators. And Clinton has been very clear she does not intend to pull an Iraq by putting American forces on the ground. Stop pretending she's GW Bush in Iraq. She's not.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
11. And I disagree with Obama too.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:31 AM
Feb 2016

The bottom line is that we have only made the Middle East even more of a mess than it would be if we never started meddling in their affairs to begin with.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
5. Gridlock is likely...
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:17 AM
Feb 2016

...the question then is which one of these candidates is more likely to go along with the GOP agenda? This is in the eye of the beholder. From my view, I think one of them is more likely to go along with that disastrous TPP agreement and regime changes in the Middle East.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
8. "Settle," whispers the MSM.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:26 AM
Feb 2016

One lesson for us ought to be, IMO, don't nominate a candidate who pre-negotiates away half of what you want.

The other, more important lesson is that the nation that can nominate a Bernie Sanders will be electing a more progressive Congress as well, on which future success may hinge.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
12. I trust Bernie to make wise choices there.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:33 AM
Feb 2016

100%.

Neoliberal wall street private server Hillary? Not so much.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
13. Yes, a Wall Street-friendly Supreme Court. Just what we need.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:36 AM
Feb 2016

Those six-figure speeches she won't talk about? That was payola. Wall Street tells Hillary what to do.

And that's what you're going to vote for?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary or Bernie -- how ...