3 ms·

> 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 variat

> 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.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      I find it absolutely crazy that you write off the change of someone who could have comfortably served in the Reagan administration (Obama) to a socialist as "zero". Yes, if that's all that happens, he'd be severely constrained. But you appear to totally miss my point, unless I've misunderstood you: An electorate that votes for Sanders over issues is an electorate where a majority would be fundamentally out of step with every Republican and pretty much every serving Democrat in Congress with perhaps a handful of exceptions. The only situation where there wouldn't be massive changes in Congress over such a presidency would be if these people elect Sanders almost entirely over personality or party membership rather issues. Which is possible, but, as I said, it would be truly bizarre. (I say this as a European well to the left of Sanders; I really hope he gets elected as it would be fantastic to see the US shift more in line with Europe, but I give him a snowballs chance in hell)

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.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    I find it absolutely crazy that you write off the change of someone who could have comfortably served in the Reagan administration (Obama) to a socialist as "zero". Yes, if that's all that happens, he'd be severely constrained. But you appear to totally miss my point, unless I've misunderstood you: An electorate that votes for Sanders over issues is an electorate where a majority would be fundamentally out of step with every Republican and pretty much every serving Democrat in Congress with perhaps a handful of exceptions. The only situation where there wouldn't be massive changes in Congress over such a presidency would be if these people elect Sanders almost entirely over personality or party membership rather issues. Which is possible, but, as I said, it would be truly bizarre. (I say this as a European well to the left of Sanders; I really hope he gets elected as it would be fantastic to see the US shift more in line with Europe, but I give him a snowballs chance in hell)