The US Presidency 2018

[EpicBeardedMan]

Clinton didn't even campaign in all states unlike Trump,he outworked her.She seems to be gearing uo for 2020.

Do you mean 2024? 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Quick question.

How was this wrong?

Final election results.

Donald Trump 62,984,828

Hillary Clinton 65,853,514

It ended with a 2 point advantage for Clinton, well within the CBS poll margin of error.

Popular vote don't mean squat.  Same thing in our system.

 

[Altair]

This poll accurately measures irrelevant information. Presidential elections are won by Electoral College votes. You might as well ask how many yards the Blue Jays rushed for in their game against the Tigers, or how many icing penalties France accumulated on the way to the World Cup.

the winner of the popular vote has won all but 2 elections since 1916, and only 5 people have been voted in as president without winning the popular vote since 1776.

So its a pretty important thing to monitor, even with the occasional blip.

 

[Altair]

Popular vote don't mean squat.  Same thing in our system.

your right,  the electoral college is more important.

But again,  how was the poll wrong?  The poll measures the popular vote,  and it got it within the margin of error.

 

[Halifax Tar]

your right,  the electoral college is more important.

But again,  how was the poll wrong?  The poll measures the popular vote,  and it got it within the margin of error.

I am ok with any Canadian's critique of this well used point about popular vote so long as they hold the same level of protest and distaste for it when it has happened and continues to here in our own country.  Or is it more ok when it benefits the party we support ? 

My point being, don't criticize the Yanks for an electoral system that gave Trump a victory unless you criticize our own system with the same energy and interest.  Anything less is just partisan and hypocritical.

 

[Altair]

I am ok with any Canadian's critique of this well used point about popular vote so long as they hold the same level of protest and distaste for it when it has happened and continues to here in our own country.  Or is it more ok when it benefits the party we support ? 

My point being, don't criticize the Yanks for an electoral system that gave Trump a victory unless you criticize our own system with the same energy and interest.  Anything less is just partisan and hypocritical.

when did I do that?

I posted a poll by CBS that showed most Americans didn't appreciate how the president handled the Helsinki summit.

Someone posted how the poll was done by CBS, who somehow got the 2016 election wrong,  so they could have gotten the most recent poll wrong.

I showed that the CBS election poll predicted that Clinton would have won by 4 points of the popular vote,  and she ended up winning the popular vote by 2 points,  with a margin of error of 4 points,  so the poll was accurate.

When did I criticize the electoral college?

 

[Halifax Tar]

when did I do that?

I posted a poll by CBS that showed most Americans didn't appreciate how the president handled the Helsinki summit.

Someone posted how the poll was done by CBS, who somehow got the 2016 election wrong,  so they could have gotten the most recent poll wrong.

I showed that the CBS election poll predicted that Clinton would have won by 4 points of the popular vote,  and she ended up winning the popular vote by 2 points,  with a margin of error of 4 points,  so the poll was accurate.

When did I criticize the electoral college?

My apologies.  I must have misunderstood the aim of the discussion.  I stand corrected.

 

[Altair]

My apologies.  I must have misunderstood the aim of the discussion.  I stand corrected.

no worries.

 

[beirnini]

>We've already seen the rabid, scorched-earth practices on parliamentary procedure that the GOP under McConnell went to in order to secure a nomination to the USSC.

McConnell made incremental adjustments to a 35-year deteriorating trend in which most of the incremental adjustments were made by Democrats.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Deteriorating trend to be sure, but to suggest what McConnell did is incremental is like saying pulling a gun and popping a shot off at one's partner is an incremental change in an abusive marriage. It doesn't matter if the shot was lethal, the point is that immediate and irrevocable lethality was introduced and a fundamental assumption about the relationship is forever changed, if not ceased to exist entirely.

Filibustering is internecine conflict, and theoretically defensible if the law or legislative procedure being filibustered is patently unconstitutional/illegal, and the consequences too grave to wait the months or years for a successful Supreme Court challenge. I'm not saying this has typically been (or for that matter ever been) the case, only that it could be the case.

What McConnell did was not internecine but open usurpation upon a constitutionally enumerated power of the executive branch in  the presidency. Whatever the Democrats have wished for or threatened beforehand McConnell actually crossed a definite line. That crossing puts the unquestionable lie to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Democrats are not wholly innocent of shirking their responsibility to honour their oaths, but unlike McConnell neither are they definitively and abjectly guilty of breaking their oath altogether either.

Now that breaking one's oath to protect and defend the Constitution is proven not to be a issue in the "conservative" electorate (quotation marks because one has to wonder what one is conserving if it isn't loyalty to the Constitution) for the legislative branch the big question becomes how much tolerance will there be to breaking one's oath in the executive branch.

We've already seen more than enough hints to say the tolerance is exceedingly high for something that does not conform to the Constitution in any meaningful way.

 

[tomahawk6]

You must have forgot about Harry Reid when he was majority leader.His rule change enabled Gorsuch to be confirmed.

//www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thank-god-for-harry-reid/2017/02/02/b2b58906-e97c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.9da2867238d5

 

[tomahawk6]

Guess who is coming to grovel at the White House on Wed. ? Jean Claude Juncker the anti-American head of the EU.  Should be fun.The EU has a 10% tariff vs the US of 2.5%on auto imports.

 

[FJAG]

Sorry, but that's just not true. Deteriorating trend to be sure, but to suggest what McConnell did is incremental is like saying pulling a gun and popping a shot off at one's partner is an incremental change in an abusive marriage. It doesn't matter if the shot was lethal, the point is that immediate and irrevocable lethality was introduced and a fundamental assumption about the relationship is forever changed, if not ceased to exist entirely.

Filibustering is internecine conflict, and theoretically defensible if the law or legislative procedure being filibustered is patently unconstitutional/illegal, and the consequences too grave to wait the months or years for a successful Supreme Court challenge. I'm not saying this has typically been (or for that matter ever been) the case, only that it could be the case.

What McConnell did was not internecine but open usurpation upon a constitutionally enumerated power of the executive branch in  the presidency. Whatever the Democrats have wished for or threatened beforehand McConnell actually crossed a definite line. That crossing puts the unquestionable lie to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Democrats are not wholly innocent of shirking their responsibility to honour their oaths, but unlike McConnell neither are they definitively and abjectly guilty of breaking their oath altogether either.

Now that breaking one's oath to protect and defend the Constitution is proven not to be a issue in the "conservative" electorate (quotation marks because one has to wonder what one is conserving if it isn't loyalty to the Constitution) for the legislative branch the big question becomes how much tolerance will there be to breaking one's oath in the executive branch.

We've already seen more than enough hints to say the tolerance is exceedingly high for something that does not conform to the Constitution in any meaningful way.

Totally agree with this and do wonder about how this tactic impacted the 2016 elections.

While Trump did win the presidency, the Republicans did lose seats in both the House and the Senate. Haven't seen any analysis on this particular issue.

:cheers:

 

[tomahawk6]

More on the Juncker meeting,

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/‘tariffs-are-the-greatest’-trump-tweets-before-juncker-meeting/ar-AAAlo2T?ocid=spartanntp

 

[beirnini]

You must have forgot about Harry Reid when he was majority leader.His rule change enabled Gorsuch to be confirmed.

//www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thank-god-for-harry-reid/2017/02/02/b2b58906-e97c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.9da2867238d5

One does not break one's oath to protect the Constitution just because a rule allows it, one does so because the oath no longer means anything to oneself. If the oath mattered to McConnell the minimum he would've done is simply ignore what it "enabled". If he were serious about his oath he would've revoked the rule as soon as he became Senate majority leader (assuming it is in his power in the same way it was in Reid's). That he did neither says everything we really need to know.

 

[kkwd]

One does not break one's oath to protect the Constitution just because a rule allows it, one does so because the oath no longer means anything to oneself. If the oath mattered to McConnell the minimum he would've done is simply ignore what it "enabled". If he were serious about his oath he would've revoked the rule as soon as he became Senate majority leader (assuming it is in his power in the same way it was in Reid's). That he did neither says everything we really need to know.

Can you point to a article of the Constitution that specifically covers the rules of the Senate? All I can find is article 1 section 5 clause 2.

Clause 2: Rules
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

 

[beirnini]

Can you point to a article of the Constitution that specifically covers the rules of the Senate? All I can find is article 1 section 5 clause 2.

I doubt my Google-fu is any better. If that's all you can find then that's probably all there is.

 

[FJAG]

Can you point to a article of the Constitution that specifically covers the rules of the Senate? All I can find is article 1 section 5 clause 2.

The problem with your question is that the phrase "rules of the Senate" which is (no doubt unintentionally) a bit vague.

"Rules" covers a wide swath.

Article I Section 5 Clause 2 - is enabling legislation which authorizes each of the House of Representatives and the Senate to draft and implement their own individual "rules of procedure".

The Senate's  Rules and Procedures can be found here:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Rules_and_Procedure_vrd.htm

In addition all of Article I relates to "powers", "provisions", "restrictions" etc that apply to the House of Representatives and the Senate. In a general sense those too are "rules". To get a full understanding of the functioning of the Senate you need to read all of Article I, the "Rules and Procedures" referred to above as well as additional legislation dealing with the Senate's powers.

Maybe you could more precisely define what it is you are looking for.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What McConnell did was not internecine but open usurpation upon a constitutionally enumerated power of the executive branch in  the presidency.

Since the Senate can change its procedural rules with a simple majority vote (which means the filibuster rules were and are always subject to the forbearance of the majority party), I can only assume you refer to what the constitution has to say about USSC nominations.

"...he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..."

The President has the power to nominate; the Senate has the power to consent.  It is one of the "checks and balances" features.  The president was not permitted from nominating (Garland).  There is no default if the Senate does nothing - without consent, the nomination dies.  There is no presumption of deference to the president.  There is no requirement for a committee hearing or a vote.  Nothing was usurped.  Nothing unconstitutional was done.  No oaths were violated.  Your high horse is short enough to trip a crocodile.

All Obama had to do was nominate a candidate satisfactory to the Senate majority.

 

[FJAG]

>What McConnell did was not internecine but open usurpation upon a constitutionally enumerated power of the executive branch in  the presidency.

Since the Senate can change its procedural rules with a simple majority vote (which means the filibuster rules were and are always subject to the forbearance of the majority party), I can only assume you refer to what the constitution has to say about USSC nominations.

"...he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..."

The President has the power to nominate; the Senate has the power to consent.  It is one of the "checks and balances" features.  The president was not permitted from nominating (Garland).  There is no default if the Senate does nothing - without consent, the nomination dies.  There is no presumption of deference to the president.  There is no requirement for a committee hearing or a vote.  Nothing was usurped.  Nothing unconstitutional was done.  No oaths were violated.  Your high horse is short enough to trip a crocodile.

All Obama had to do was nominate a candidate satisfactory to the Senate majority.

My problem with what happened with Garland isn't that the Senate did not "consent"; it's that one Senator--McConnell--refused to convene any of the required hearings and votes which would allow the Senate to perform it's proper function to "advise", "consent" or "reject" the nominee. It's not a question of "deference"; it's a question of fulfilling it's own constitutional duties.

:cheers:

 

[beirnini]

My problem with what happened with Garland isn't that the Senate did not "consent"; it's that one Senator--McConnell--refused to convene any of the required hearings and votes which would allow the Senate to perform it's proper function to "advise", "consent" or "reject" the nominee. It's not a question of "deference"; it's a question of fulfilling it's own constitutional duties.

:cheers:

Well put. The senate has the power to consent, but they also have the responsibility to advise. I heard a similar kind of argument often during the Iraq war, where hawks and partisans would talk up the so-called Unitary Executive (remember that? Funny how blind support for that all but dried up once Obama came around) by quoting constitutional war powers but completely downplayed or disregarded constitutional presidential responsibilities.

As the founders intended there are supposed to be checks and balances between the branches. If one branch only uses their power to check another there is no balance.