4 ms·

Honestly, his plan never made sense. Even if he somehow won the election, he still would not have the power to change congress (or the Citizen's United ruling)

Honestly, his plan never made sense. Even if he somehow won the election, he still would not have the power to change congress (or the Citizen's United ruling) one bit.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
That's true of Sanders, too.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  And also of every other candidate for any office within the executive branch. Those wanting to counteract Citizens United would have to run for legislative office instead. But those races have less media visibility, especially in gerrymandered safe districts or primary races against an entrenched incumbent. People run for President of the U.S. to parlay some of their popularity or notoriety into slight changes to their party's platform, or to implicitly nominate themselves for another executive position, like vice president or cabinet member.
- r00fus 11y ago
  Except that Sanders has street cred. You know, his entire life has been in politics, and Dems don't want a naive semi-outsider this time (for some Obama has been a let-down).
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    He may not be naive, but he's still a semi-outsider, isn't he? I mean, technically, he's not even a Democrat.
aamar 11y ago
Why not? His plan[1] isn't to overturn or defy Citizens United; he wants to modify and enhance public funding of elections so that it doesn't pay (in general) for Congress to spend time fundraising. Also, the plan doesn't have broad support in Congress, but it is plausible; there are many in both parties who support it. Some cities and states[2] have viable parallel legislation enacted or in progress. [1] https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/ https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/ [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/new-york-public-financing https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/new-york-public-financi...
- nostromo 11y ago
  Your comment is exactly right in identifying the key hurdle: congress. Not the executive branch; congress. Obama would have signed any of these bills as well. But there is no bill to sign, because congress doesn't support such a bill. Replace Obama with Lessig, and you have the exact same impasse we have currently. Lessig's old plan -- to change congress -- made more sense. But it failed.
  - aamar 11y ago
    Obama would sign a clean CFR bill, but he almost certainly wouldn't give up the Medicaid expansion or high top-rate taxes to do it. Lessig probably would strike a deal trading away something big; specifying it as his top priority signals this.
alex_young 11y ago
> Even if he somehow won the election, he still would not have the power to change congress (or the Citizen's United ruling) one bit. I've heard similar variations of this theme a lot recently, and I'm not sure I buy it. Wouldn't any victory necessarily include a major sea change in congress? It doesn't seem likely to me that Lessig or Sanders, or <Other Non-Mainstream Candidate> would be voted in without some down ballot support finding the way in too.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > Wouldn't any victory necessarily include a major sea change in congress? No, not really. Barack Obama's 2008 victory only came with very very very slim Democratic majorities in both houses, for instance, and then those got overturned two years later. This myth that a presidential candidate can sweep huge Congressional majorities into office on his coattails is derived from exactly one real-life example: FDR's victory in 1932. Even Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide wasn't able to produce a Republican House of Representatives.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    I agree with you it's probably not necessary. But Obama in an exceedingly bad example in that respect: Obama is firmly in the centre of the current US political landscape. You can be a moderate Republican and be to the left of Obama on many issues. That's presumably a large part of why he won, and why so many "progressives" have been disappointed at the lack of change. The shift from Bush to Obama was a tiny shift compared to what going from Obama to Sanders would be. Now, I'm inclined to think this means Sanders doesn't have a chance rather than think that there'll be a massive shift in Congress, but if Sanders wins without a massive shift in Congress that would be truly bizarre indication of voters voting purely on personality rather than policy.
    - Bud 11y ago
      >The shift from Bush to Obama was a tiny shift compared to what going from Obama to Sanders would be. Nope. The shift from Bush to Obama was immense. It resulted in two Supreme Court nominations by a Democrat instead of a Republican. What would the Obama to Sanders change be? Zero. Nothing. The shift from Bush to Obama resulted in every Cabinet position becoming Democratic too, of course. Obama to Sanders? Basically no shift would result here; possibly a couple nominations that are slightly further leftwards. Legislatively, what would Sanders veto that Obama hasn't? Very little. Would Sanders have more or less luck than Obama at passing major legislation with a hostile Congress? Hard to say for sure, but I'd argue he'd have less luck, simply because he's less moderate. You're right, of course, that Obama is a moderate, but still wrong about your overall point.

Honestly, his plan never made sense. Even if he somehow won the election, he still would not have the power to change congress (or the Citizen's United ruling) one bit.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

That's true of Sanders, too.

logfromblammo 11y ago
And also of every other candidate for any office within the executive branch. Those wanting to counteract Citizens United would have to run for legislative office instead. But those races have less media visibility, especially in gerrymandered safe districts or primary races against an entrenched incumbent. People run for President of the U.S. to parlay some of their popularity or notoriety into slight changes to their party's platform, or to implicitly nominate themselves for another executive position, like vice president or cabinet member.
r00fus 11y ago
Except that Sanders has street cred. You know, his entire life has been in politics, and Dems don't want a naive semi-outsider this time (for some Obama has been a let-down).
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  He may not be naive, but he's still a semi-outsider, isn't he? I mean, technically, he's not even a Democrat.

aamar 11y ago

Why not? His plan[1] isn't to overturn or defy Citizens United; he wants to modify and enhance public funding of elections so that it doesn't pay (in general) for Congress to spend time fundraising. Also, the plan doesn't have broad support in Congress, but it is plausible; there are many in both parties who support it. Some cities and states[2] have viable parallel legislation enacted or in progress. [1] https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/ https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/ [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/new-york-public-financing https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/new-york-public-financi...

nostromo 11y ago
Your comment is exactly right in identifying the key hurdle: congress. Not the executive branch; congress. Obama would have signed any of these bills as well. But there is no bill to sign, because congress doesn't support such a bill. Replace Obama with Lessig, and you have the exact same impasse we have currently. Lessig's old plan -- to change congress -- made more sense. But it failed.
- aamar 11y ago
  Obama would sign a clean CFR bill, but he almost certainly wouldn't give up the Medicaid expansion or high top-rate taxes to do it. Lessig probably would strike a deal trading away something big; specifying it as his top priority signals this.

alex_young 11y ago

> Even if he somehow won the election, he still would not have the power to change congress (or the Citizen's United ruling) one bit. I've heard similar variations of this theme a lot recently, and I'm not sure I buy it. Wouldn't any victory necessarily include a major sea change in congress? It doesn't seem likely to me that Lessig or Sanders, or <Other Non-Mainstream Candidate> would be voted in without some down ballot support finding the way in too.

smacktoward 11y ago
> Wouldn't any victory necessarily include a major sea change in congress? No, not really. Barack Obama's 2008 victory only came with very very very slim Democratic majorities in both houses, for instance, and then those got overturned two years later. This myth that a presidential candidate can sweep huge Congressional majorities into office on his coattails is derived from exactly one real-life example: FDR's victory in 1932. Even Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide wasn't able to produce a Republican House of Representatives.
- vidarh 11y ago
  I agree with you it's probably not necessary. But Obama in an exceedingly bad example in that respect: Obama is firmly in the centre of the current US political landscape. You can be a moderate Republican and be to the left of Obama on many issues. That's presumably a large part of why he won, and why so many "progressives" have been disappointed at the lack of change. The shift from Bush to Obama was a tiny shift compared to what going from Obama to Sanders would be. Now, I'm inclined to think this means Sanders doesn't have a chance rather than think that there'll be a massive shift in Congress, but if Sanders wins without a massive shift in Congress that would be truly bizarre indication of voters voting purely on personality rather than policy.
  - Bud 11y ago
    >The shift from Bush to Obama was a tiny shift compared to what going from Obama to Sanders would be. Nope. The shift from Bush to Obama was immense. It resulted in two Supreme Court nominations by a Democrat instead of a Republican. What would the Obama to Sanders change be? Zero. Nothing. The shift from Bush to Obama resulted in every Cabinet position becoming Democratic too, of course. Obama to Sanders? Basically no shift would result here; possibly a couple nominations that are slightly further leftwards. Legislatively, what would Sanders veto that Obama hasn't? Very little. Would Sanders have more or less luck than Obama at passing major legislation with a hostile Congress? Hard to say for sure, but I'd argue he'd have less luck, simply because he's less moderate. You're right, of course, that Obama is a moderate, but still wrong about your overall point.