The 2016 US General Election

[gunnut]

Oh to be sure! "The Department of Unintended Consequences" is one of my most favorite expressions.

Although instead of Hillary, I'm wondering how the GOP would deal with a President Joseph R. Biden Jr...

I actually don't mind old uncle Joe.

He's one of the poorest career politicians in DC. That means one of two things: 1. He's too honest to take bribes, or 2. He's too stupid to not ask for more bribes. Either way, he's better than other democrats.

Harry Reid, as much as he is for 2A, is a career bribes taker. His sons all work as lobbyists. They are corrupt.

Pelosi and Feinstein are all rich from lobbyist money.

[Mihais]

Trump as Prez with Biden as VP :D

[gunnut]

Trump as Prez with Biden as VP :D

I believe Trump is simply building his own name brand. He's a businessman first.

Of course what could happen is that he started out this venture as a name-recognition building exercise, and events turn, or even, force him, to be the president.

The good thing about him is that he doesn't care nor need lobbyist money. The bad thing is he's used to getting his own way and may not be a compromiser that good politicians need to be.

Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil and a democrat dominated congress to get his tax cuts through. In the end the US economy grew at an astronomical 7% under Reaganomics vs. less than 3% under Obamacare.

Can Trump work with other people? Does the public want Trump to compromise? Remember, Trump is popular because he's a straight shooter. How will the people react when Trump starts to bend?

[SteveDaPirate]

Trump is popular but polarizing. Among republicans, he is out in front regarding people's "first choice", but his unfavorable ratings are very high as well. Someone like Rubio, on the other hand, has broad appeal and very few unfavorable ratings but may have trouble standing out.

[Mihais]

I have no idea.I'm, not going to vote in your elections,but I can play the devil's advocate.First,you need to see where can be compromises and where there cannot be.In the matter of immigration,his program is simple and to the point:secure the border,expel illegals.If he gets elected,it means the majority wants the government to follow its own laws .He will be however fiercelly opposed by the left.It's a matter where I can't see a possible compromise,but a matter of brute power.
Anything else,he's able to negociate.ACA can be modified,trade relations etc... whatever bothers you.
The issue of illegals,everywhere in the West is one of the most important to the left.It's actually of vital importance to be able to secure as many migrants as possible,to be able to preserve their power.They simply can't compromise on this.

[astralis]

gunnut,

He's one of the poorest career politicians in DC. That means one of two things: 1. He's too honest to take bribes, or 2. He's too stupid to not ask for more bribes. Either way, he's better than other democrats.

bribes? no, no, no...money is free speech. :-)

[gunnut]

gunnut,

bribes? no, no, no...money is free speech. :-)

Well, at least it's better than "restrained speech."

Imagine a world in which we are not allowed to support politicians. Now that's a dream scenario for the "department of unintended consequences."

[DOR]

In the end the US economy grew at an astronomical 7% under Reaganomics vs. less than 3% under Obamacare.

On the assumption that anyone can grow an economy by ramping up the deficits, here’s a crude way of comparing various administrations. Note that the time periods assume one’s policy choices carry over into the first year of the next administration, so Jimmy Carter is 1978-81, rather than 1977-80 (his term).

_ _ _ _ _ _ Real GDP Growth _ _ _Budget Balance _ _ _ Simple
_ _ _ _ _ _ Percent per annum _ _ Percent of GDP _ _ _ _ Sum
1970-77 _ _ _ +2.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (1.9 %) _ _ _ _ _ _ +0.8%
1978-81 _ _ _ +3.2% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (2.3%) _ _ _ _ _ _ +0.9%
1982-90 _ _ _ +3.6% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (4.1%) _ _ _ _ _ _ (0.5%)
1991-94 _ _ _ +2.0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (4.1%) _ _ _ _ _ _ (2.1%)
1995-01 _ _ _ +3.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (0.1%) _ _ _ _ _ _ +3.6%
2002-09 _ _ _ +1.9% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (3.3%) _ _ _ _ _ _ (1.4%)
2010-_ __ _ _ +1.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (5.5%) _ _ _ _ _ _ (-3.8%)

(2010- is to mid-2015)

Note that there is no evidence to support the myth that Reagan grew the economy at 7% p.a.

[DOR]

SteveDaPirate,

Nice graphs.

[Doktor]

Dave,

Why one year only?
Clinton's home loans caused banks crash, or so whats many argue was the main reason. Sure you can argue the next administration could have would have, but the reason stays. You can also argue the derivates and other financial creativity did it, but hardly it's Bush's invention.

[JAD_333]

During his recent visit to Kenya, Obama told an audience, "“I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t. So there’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving, but the law is the law.”

What a remarkable statement. Not that he thinks he was a 'pretty good president", which is probably what they all think, but the insinuation that America needs him to keep moving.

[Doktor]

What? No pen on this one?

[Monash]

During his recent visit to Kenya, Obama told an audience, "“I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t. So there’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving, but the law is the law.”

What a remarkable statement. Not that he thinks he was a 'pretty good president", which is probably what they all think, but the insinuation that America needs him to keep moving.

I don't think the last sentence stands on it's own but rather should be read as part of the entire statement i.e. it's not that America isn't or won't 'keep moving' without him but rather that he would keep it doing so if he was still in office for another term.

The whole thing should be read as "I'm good, I would win, I'd do better in office than the current bunch of contenders " ...etc etc, just like every politician on his way out the door.

[DOR]

Dave,

Why one year only?
Clinton's home loans caused banks crash, or so whats many argue was the main reason. Sure you can argue the next administration could have would have, but the reason stays. You can also argue the derivates and other financial creativity did it, but hardly it's Bush's invention.

One year? No, each line is an entire president's time in office (cf. 1982-90 for Reagan, where he shouldn't be held responsible for 1981, but gets credit/blame for 1990).

ADD: clarity ... the budget balance as a percent of GDP is an average over the same period.

[DOR]

I have to remember to get some popcorn for the GOP debates

Bobby Jindal Cuts Off Medicaid Funding to Planned Parenthoods In Louisiana
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...thood-medicaid
.
Scott Walker Gets Punk'd At New Hampshire Campaign Event
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...r-nh-koch-sign
.
Chris Christie Gets Booed 'Loudly' During Actual Horse Race In New Jersey
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-nj-horse-race
.
Hackers Hit Trump Website To Post Tribute To Jon Stewart
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/do...rs-jon-stewart
.

And, an editorial:

The Declining Marginal Value of Crazy
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...value-of-crazy
Several days ago, perennial presidential candidate Mike Huckabee charged that President Obama was ready to lead Israeli Jews "to the ovens." A few days later, he said he might use not only the FBI but even the US military to prevent abortions. And around the same time, Ted Cruz called Obama the world's biggest funder of Islamic terrorism. There was a day when cracks like these would have stopped the political world in its tracks, spurring transgressive glee from supporters and outrage from liberals and normal people. But this summer, they've struggled to break through. And the reason is obvious: Donald Trump has flooded the market with a new, purer brand of Crazy that has left the other candidates scrambling and basically unable to compete.

Trump is now in the lead in virtually every national poll of the Republican primary race. It's easy to overstate what that means since, in such a populous field, he can do that handily with something like a mere 20% support. But it's worth stepping back to see how we got here. Because Trump is in many ways the logical end result of seven years - really two-plus decades - of Republican cultivation of anger and grievance as a method of conducting politics.This is what brought us the 2010 and 2014 election triumphs on the one hand, but also government shut-downs, debt crises based on nothing, and more.

In a crowded field, for almost everyone but Bush, it’s critical to grab hold of the mantle of anger and grievance. But the Huckabees and Cruzes simply cannot compete with Trump, who is not only willing to say truly anything but also has - whatever else you can say about his nonsense - a talent for drama and garnering press attention honed over decades. With a mix of aggression, boffo self-assertion and nonsense, Trump has managed to boil modern Republicanism down to a hard precipitate form, shorn of the final vestiges of interest in actual governing.

In the economics of Crazy, there is purity and volume. Trump has brought to market a purer and more widely deployable product. He has also radically increased volume. Like a high-flying tech start-up or new drug syndicate, he has radically devalued the product, while dominating the transformed market in a way that allows him to make a killing even against reduced prices and margins. Many of us thought that the string of collapsed business deals and partnerships would hurt Trump. And they may have damaged his bottom line. But in the political realm they have only served to confirm his image as a no-nonsense (all nonsense?) truth-teller who is indifferent to how controversy may affect his personal fortunes. In both purity and volume, his competitors simply cannot compete.

Bush's aides appear to think that Trump may actually be helping them in their fight with Scott Walker, drawing away lots of voters who would never have supported Bush and clustering them around a candidate who will never go all the way. That may be true. But the biggest loser is Ted Cruz. Cruz's angle has been to be the one mainstream presidential contender who will take things just a little further than anyone else in the game. You're for the 2nd Amendment? That's great. But Ted is out there saying you need your guns ready in case you need to kill some federal officials who are endangering liberty. While the argument is well-know, few candidates for high office will quite go there. But Trumps do anything, say anything mode of militant nonsense has frozen Cruz out almost entirely. And his dipping poll numbers show it.

There is one additional point to keep in mind. It's not just Trump's willingness to say anything, or his flair for the dramatic. All of his Republican rivals are residents of the CPAC circuit, the annual archipelago of Republican confabs and conventions where top Republicans go to rail about and outdo each other on what is a fairly narrow range of top concerns: Obamacare, immigration, radical Islam and whatever else. Trump is clearly playing on that terrain, too. His entry into presidential quasi-politics in 2012 after all was with a massive embrace of birtherism. In 2016, Trump has focused his ire on illegal immigration. But in some very significant way he comes from outside the professional right-wing presidential, rubber-chicken circuit, bubble.

That novelty and lack of normal political constraints is what is allowing him to run circles around his competitors who had hoped to play in the Crazy space. Showmanship, lack of touch with reality, and a palpable handle on the grievance and unrestrained self-assertion that is at the center of modern Republican base politics have made Trump, for now, almost impossible to outdo in a crowded field.