Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIV: Just Dropped in (To See What Condition My Convention Was
The one thing Rover wrote that is correct is that's in the past now. So what have we got and what are our chances of getting decent policy changes?
Hillary is likely to be effective to the extent that her type of leverage is appropriate to the Congress she gets. The sine qua non is the Senate, but if the election is "normal" (as extrapolated from prior recent elections, as opposed to something bat sh-t crazy and new) she should have a slender Senate majority. The House only goes our way if it's a blow out.
Hillary's leverage is old school: glad handing of friends and strong arming of opponents. Like Obama she will be a consummate seeker of compromise; unlike him she does not start from principles. Think of her like LBJ or Kissinger: the Realist school. The Clintonistas are all vetted to be blindly loyal to the Clinton machine and in return be rewarded with patronage denominated in whatever their coin is: position, proximity to power, prestige. This is a 19th century political machine worthy of Andrew Jackson. Historically, those regimes get a surprising amount done.
That is also well suited to a Congress that's close, because then the power of individual Members is maximized: they can cut deals and get real goods in return. Combine this with the very real threat of the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party to the GOP establishment, and we have at least a decent chessboard for Hillary's people to play on. If she has a slight material disadvantage but a larger positional advantage... well, who knows?
The one thing Rover wrote that is correct is that's in the past now. So what have we got and what are our chances of getting decent policy changes?
Hillary is likely to be effective to the extent that her type of leverage is appropriate to the Congress she gets. The sine qua non is the Senate, but if the election is "normal" (as extrapolated from prior recent elections, as opposed to something bat sh-t crazy and new) she should have a slender Senate majority. The House only goes our way if it's a blow out.
Hillary's leverage is old school: glad handing of friends and strong arming of opponents. Like Obama she will be a consummate seeker of compromise; unlike him she does not start from principles. Think of her like LBJ or Kissinger: the Realist school. The Clintonistas are all vetted to be blindly loyal to the Clinton machine and in return be rewarded with patronage denominated in whatever their coin is: position, proximity to power, prestige. This is a 19th century political machine worthy of Andrew Jackson. Historically, those regimes get a surprising amount done.
That is also well suited to a Congress that's close, because then the power of individual Members is maximized: they can cut deals and get real goods in return. Combine this with the very real threat of the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party to the GOP establishment, and we have at least a decent chessboard for Hillary's people to play on. If she has a slight material disadvantage but a larger positional advantage... well, who knows?
Last edited:
