Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The SCOTUS rarely reverses itself in short order, so barring an outright repeal of the 2nd, the court will try to make its ruling work for the next decade or two. If its a disaster, like Citizens United is rapidly becoming, it may be revisited sooner. Otherwise, I don't expect to see it reversed until well into the 1T. I don't see it making it through the next 2T.

While it didn't make the Bill of Rights, there seems to be an individual right to daydream. You're allowed. I daydream about a Supreme Court that respects the wording of the law and intent of the authors. Your daydream may be less crazy than mine.

The current generation of jurists was brought up on the Jim Crow interpretation, which really is garbage if you take the time to look at it. That Court was a rabid enemy of the Rights of the People. Will another generation be more familiar with the history and the academic papers? We'll see.

Christie is dropping out according to MSNBC.

Originally Posted by Odin

Christie is dropping out according to MSNBC.

Fiorina also quit today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Kasich needs some money to flow to him and more campaign organization to do well after his second place NH finish. Overall, I see him as too moderate for the GOP crazies; he can do well only in states where independents can vote. I don't see him winning South Carolina. Trump, Cruz and Bush are probably bunched up fairly close. Trump probably takes it with his NH momentum. SC is Bush's hope to break into the top tier. Don't ever count him out. Rubio will still give it a try and may recover some support, but I don't see him doing better than 4th. So Kasich probably takes 5th, if he and Rubio can beat Carson. That's not a sure thing. Christie is dropping out; Carson will continue, and get about 10% or more in conservatives states. This campaign is a career move for Fiorina, so I don't see her dropping out just yet. She'll have a chance to get back on to the debate stage, where she shines.

Trump will cruise in Nevada; it's a wheel of fortune for him. Rubio may have some room for recovery, but Cruz takes second. Kasich may do OK if he gets that money and organization thing going. As you know I'm not predicting he will last past April or so. I don't sense that Nevada is Bush's ticket.

Cruz has a lot of strength in the Bible belt, and Bush has a lot of money, so Trump has not won this thing yet. Any losses this month will punch holes in Trump's triumphal balloon. Kasich still has potential in the northern and upper mid-western states.

Sanders has a good shot in Nevada, but Clinton may take it. Clinton will recover in South Carolina and likely win it. Sanders is trying to burnish his support among blacks by meeting with Rev. Al Sharpton. Not a good plan, although remember he was actually a presidential candidate some time ago. But if Sanders does somehow make his case that he is the best candidate for African-Americans, an upset could be in the making. If so, Sanders has a good path to the nomination.

I view the Trump result in NH as a fluke. Swamp Yankees are just the types to go for Trump (I know, I know, the real Swamp Yankees are down in RH and CT, but there are some working class folks in NH who might as well be Swamp Yankees). The type of voter in NV and SC who Trump is after is also found in the Carson, Cruz and even a bit, the Rubio camps. The winner in all this will be Cruz, after getting 3rd in NH with nearly zero effort.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I view the Trump result in NH as a fluke. Swamp Yankees are just the types to go for Trump (I know, I know, the real Swamp Yankees are down in RH and CT, but there are some working class folks in NH who might as well be Swamp Yankees). The type of voter in NV and SC who Trump is after is also found in the Carson, Cruz and even a bit, the Rubio camps. The winner in all this will be Cruz, after getting 3rd in NH with nearly zero effort.

It may come down to a horse race between Trump and Cruz. Trump will do well in the later Midwest states with winner take all primaries. California, the last major state to vote will likely tell the tale. The Establishment types are hanging in as long as their money lasts and hoping for a brokered convention where any one of them might win. Trump after all, has only about 35% of the vote, it would appear.

Originally Posted by playwrite

In the primary scheme of things, Nevada is not Iowa or New Hampshire - almost an afterthought by most campaigns. Relative to NH in particular, there's been little time there for the 'Bern' to have much impact. HC is pretty far out in front of Sanders; the polling is old, from December, but again not much going on in NV, until now, to turn that around. If it does, it would likely be more about the casino workers than college students - big difference between NV and NH cultures on the place of academics in the states. Interesting that the worker union hasn't endorsed Clinton.

A Sanders' upset in NV would be somewhat telling but not lethal to Clinton. On the other hand, a Clinton win, as projected, would tell us nothing.

SC is where there is the opportunity for a fatal blow against either candidate. If Sanders upsets Clinton there, its over. If Sanders loses but it is close, ala Iowa, then Super Tuesday will be red hot. If Clinton wins by something over 10%, its pretty much over for the 'Bern.'

On the GOP side, NV has much of the same attributes of not being much about anything - although it may show some of the hatred towards Trump by segments of the lower economic income folks. SC has some of the same asymmetrical outcomes for candidates. Assuming Christie drops out before SC and endorses Kaisch, then a SC win or even a strong second place behind Trump by Kaisch will end the bids of both Cruz and the Florida tag team of Bush and Rubio - one or more of them might stay in to save face but it will be over. Kaisch is not likely to win, this is the South - something the BernieBots are going to be educated upon. So a Trump win and a muddle for everyone else turns SC into a nothing burger and its on to Super Tuesday.

The only other potential killer here is if Cruz comes in first and it is not close; then it is over for Trump.

Pretty much as I've been calling it, including buying into the possibility of Mike's scenario of Trump's collapse as a 'Loser!' - indicating that scenario is still in play until SC. Also, HC could still lose the whole thing in SC depending on how it plays out (see above). On the other hand, if it plays out with what I see as the most likely scenario (i.e., significant HC and Trump win and muddled 2nd for GOP), then the big question for 2020 will be why both Iowa and NH go first and/or given such importance - White supremacy is so passe in so many ways.

The last RCP poll for South Carolina was on 1/17. In this race, that is ancient history. SC is a much sooner factor for the Republicans, who vote a week earlier than the Dems while the Dems are having the Nevada Caucuses. I would expect Bernie to start talking about Hillary's record as a cheerleader for the "tough on crime" legislation that gave so much of the African-American population a criminal record. Even if Bernie initially voted for it too, in 1994. (And I would like to hear Bernie's explanation as to why and how he did).
I think that the real wild card for this race may turn out to be a black swan nobody has yet seen coming. Lead posioning. Hillary is on top of Flint MI. But similar lead poisoning rates are starting to be reported in Chicagohttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-chicago-lead-water-risk-met-20160207-story.html http://wisconsinwatch.org/2016/02/le...water-quality/, all over Wisconsinhttp://wisconsinwatch.org/2016/02/lead-pipes-antiquated-law-threaten-wisconsins-drinking-water-quality/, Minnesota, http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/0...ng-lead-pipes/ Cincinnati, Philadelphia--all states that have had Republican governors and legislatures who have supported deferred maintainance. And in the South in places like Alabama too. If lead poisoning happens in one place, it's an emergency. If lead poisoning is all over the country, it's a scandal, particularly if it follows a pattern of conservative governors skimping on funds for replacing lead pipes along with everything else and fudging fixes (water supply additives that are supposed to coat pipes and prevent leaching of lead salts) and testing (letting the water run before taking a sample, something residents usually don't do). John Kasich in particular may be sunk by the lead scandal, since he has done the same things as Michigan's Rich Snyder. And since lead poisoning affects working class whites as well as African Americans, the issue will play well to Bernie's narrative--if Bernie is nimble enough to get out in front of it.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It may come down to a horse race between Trump and Cruz. Trump will do well in the later Midwest states with winner take all primaries. California, the last major state to vote will likely tell the tale. The Establishment types are hanging in as long as their money lasts and hoping for a brokered convention where any one of them might win. Trump after all, has only about 35% of the vote, it would appear.

I'm waiting for Trump to get to the convention with more delegates than anyone else, not enough to claim the nomination outright, with enough anyone-but-Trump delegates to make it interesting. In such a case, how subtly does one hint at a third party run? How outraged will Trump pretend to be if he goes in with the strongest mandate but is locked out by the 'Party Establishment'? How outraged will the party rank and file really be?

Will Trump bring in camera crews and attempt a live reality TV show? How will it do in the Nielsens as compared with the Establishment networks?

How dare they vote him off the island?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I view the Trump result in NH as a fluke. Swamp Yankees are just the types to go for Trump (I know, I know, the real Swamp Yankees are down in RH and CT, but there are some working class folks in NH who might as well be Swamp Yankees). The type of voter in NV and SC who Trump is after is also found in the Carson, Cruz and even a bit, the Rubio camps. The winner in all this will be Cruz, after getting 3rd in NH with nearly zero effort.

Looks like I was wrong about Fiorina. So, Christie and Fiorina are out; good riddance.

I'll stick with Trump to win the next two, in SC narrowly, but Cruz will no doubt win a number of states on March 1 super tuesday. If the race comes down to Trump vs. Cruz, Trump will prevail.

Bush is pretty stale, but he does have a solid record and thought-out policies, and he still appeals to some in the "business lane" or "establishment lane." For Bush, Rubio or Kasich to have a chance, it appears, only one of them can ride in that lane much longer.

Astrologically, Jupiter is boosting Kasich. I'm not sure how reliable that indicator is, though, now that Christie and Fiorina have failed to also benefit from it. They got a boost for a while, but now it's over. The candidates benefiting from Jupiter were just too many; they couldn't all win. Carson is supposed to be benefiting too. But Sanders still is. He has less competition. But that benefit is over in the Fall.

Among the three business-lane candidates left, the horoscope score of Bush is the strongest, followed by Rubio. But Bush was already damaged goods, and now Rubio is too.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It may come down to a horse race between Trump and Cruz. Trump will do well in the later Midwest states with winner take all primaries. California, the last major state to vote will likely tell the tale. The Establishment types are hanging in as long as their money lasts and hoping for a brokered convention where any one of them might win. Trump after all, has only about 35% of the vote, it would appear.

With Rubio out, you may be right. If this goes to brokered convention , I would not count Bush out. Think I would prefer Trump over Bush.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The last RCP poll for South Carolina was on 1/17. In this race, that is ancient history. SC is a much sooner factor for the Republicans, who vote a week earlier than the Dems while the Dems are having the Nevada Caucuses. I would expect Bernie to start talking about Hillary's record as a cheerleader for the "tough on crime" legislation that gave so much of the African-American population a criminal record. Even if Bernie initially voted for it too, in 1994. (And I would like to hear Bernie's explanation as to why and how he did).

It's increasingly clear that the Clinton campaign is in desperation mode and is resorting to scaring black voters by insinuating that Bernie's populism is for poor whites only. She doesn't give a shit that this risks blowing the party to bits as long as she wins.

Originally Posted by Odin

It's increasingly clear that the Clinton campaign is in desperation mode and is resorting to scaring black voters by insinuating that Bernie's populism is for poor whites only. She doesn't give a shit that this risks blowing the party to bits as long as she wins.

That is absolute madness. That would destroy the center-left.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

That is absolute madness. That would destroy the center-left.

Hillary's whole campaign is a trainwreck.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

That is absolute madness. That would destroy the center-left.

Methinks the super delegates need to get a clue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...elegates,_2016

If they steal the results, I bet Milies and Xers will both make 1968 look like a pick-nick.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm waiting for Trump to get to the convention with more delegates than anyone else, not enough to claim the nomination outright, with enough anyone-but-Trump delegates to make it interesting. In such a case, how subtly does one hint at a third party run? How outraged will Trump pretend to be if he goes in with the strongest mandate but is locked out by the 'Party Establishment'? How outraged will the party rank and file really be?

Will Trump bring in camera crews and attempt a live reality TV show? How will it do in the Nielsens as compared with the Establishment networks?

How dare they vote him off the island?

This could cause a revolt by people with a new party emerging from the ashes of the GOP.
I still remember this 1986 election in Alabama.

… "In 1986, a bitter struggle began for the Democratic nomination for governor. In a runoff contest, Attorney General Charles Graddick defeated Lieutenant Governor Bill Baxley. But Graddick was denied the nomination because a federal court found that he had violated the provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires prior approval of the U.S. Justice Department or the federal courts in Washington, D.C., before changing election regulations. In his place, a party committee named Baxley as its nominee, rather than calling for a new primary election. Public anger over this seemingly undemocratic decision led to the election of Guy Hunt, the first Republican governor of Alabama since Reconstruction.
- See more at: http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org...EWaocRp.dpuf”…

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Methinks the super delegates need to get a clue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...elegates,_2016

If they steal the results, I bet Millies and Xers will both make 1968 look like a pick-nick.

She had a similar advantage in 2008, and the superdelegates migrated to Obama when it was clear he was winning the most other delegates.

Originally Posted by radind

With Rubio out, you may be right. If this goes to brokered convention , I would not count Bush out. Think I would prefer Trump over Bush.

The one I would prefer, is the one most-likely to lose. Cruz and Trump compete for that honor now. But Trump has amazing celebrity and personal appeal. And then there's that horoscope score. He does scare me.

The only one with a higher horoscope score than Trump now running (or who has been running in 2015-16) is Bernie Sanders. Both Trump and Sanders were counted out by the pundits, for good reason. But they are the two candidates with the highest scores on my system. And they're going places, as I said they would. I have already predicted Trump's nomination here. I haven't dared yet to say that Sanders will win the nomination. I'd say it's an even bet, at least.

Hillary is still considered the favorite. But if she doesn't connect with people well, and people don't like her, then it's pretty scary to contemplate her as Trump's opponent. We can all envision Trump taking the oath, and then leaning over and saying loudly to Barack Obama, "you're fired!" And then smiling to the laughter and applause, shaking his hand, and going on to give some kind of bombastic, but more polished, inaugural address about how he's going to make America great again.

It may be that only a revolution (Sanders) can "trump" this Republican "coup" by the semi-fascist "demagogue." And what kind of "climate" will we face then, if the "spring revolution" fails and we get an American Sisi? Pretty stormy, and for many generations to come. The sea will be "right to rise" instead of Jeb Bush.

The people don't understand the real source of our problems: the Republican congress that the people themselves so stupidly put in. Electing a demagogue along with a crazy congress that protects the status quo will not work. But anger does not necessarily impel clear thinking. That's the problem with Americans. It's our damn amygdala, I guess.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Looks like I was wrong about Fiorina. So, Christie and Fiorina are out; good riddance.

I'll stick with Trump to win the next two, in SC narrowly, but Cruz will no doubt win a number of states on March 1 super tuesday. If the race comes down to Trump vs. Cruz, Trump will prevail.
Kasich could get done in by the lead contamination of drinking water issue.http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...ting/79401304/ http://www.cleveland19.com/story/301...pipe-corrosion http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index...hreaten_a.html http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index...hreaten_a.html Kasich has engaged in the same kind of penny-pinching politics Snyder and Walker have engaged in.

Bush is pretty stale, but he does have a solid record and thought-out policies, and he still appeals to some in the "business lane" or "establishment lane." For Bush, Rubio or Kasich to have a chance, it appears, only one of them can ride in that lane much longer.

Astrologically, Jupiter is boosting Kasich. I'm not sure how reliable that indicator is, though, now that Christie and Fiorina have failed to also benefit from it. They got a boost for a while, but now it's over. The candidates benefiting from Jupiter were just too many; they couldn't all win. Carson is supposed to be benefiting too. But Sanders still is. He has less competition. But that benefit is over in the Fall.

Among the three business-lane candidates left, the horoscope score of Bush is the strongest, followed by Rubio. But Bush was already damaged goods, and now Rubio is too.

Kasich may be horribly damaged as the lead rinking water pollution issue spreads from Flint. Toledo http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e1913...-across-nation Cleveland http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e1913...-across-nation http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index...hreaten_a.html Youngstown http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index..._found_in.html and Cincinnati ead corrosion pipes cincinnati. Youngstown (Sebring) is particularly acute. Kasich has been a penny-pinching low taxation Republican governor, the same as Snyder and Walker and this issue may make him unelectable as it discredits the idea of low taxation and privatisation in the minds of millions of Americans.
Ironically, the alchemical symbol for lead is almost that of Jupiter, upside down.

Originally Posted by radind

This could cause a revolt by people with a new party emerging from the ashes of the GOP.
I still remember this 1986 election in Alabama.

Both parties face schism if they attempt to subvert the public will. A split in the Democratic Party and a split in the Republican party would give each other permission, since someone voting for a third party might not necessarily be throwing their vote to the other major party. Something very similar to this happened in the 1850s when the Whigs broke up and in 1860 when the Dems split north and South with a third Constitutional Union Party forming (and taking border states) while the new Republican Party won the White House with 40% of the vote the second time they ran a Presidential Candidate (and didn't give up the White House for 24 years thereafter).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The one I would prefer, is the one most-likely to lose. Cruz and Trump compete for that honor now. But Trump has amazing celebrity and personal appeal. And then there's that horoscope score. He does scare me.

The only one with a higher horoscope score than Trump now running (or who has been running in 2015-16) is Bernie Sanders. Both Trump and Sanders were counted out by the pundits, for good reason. But they are the two candidates with the highest scores on my system. And they're going places, as I said they would. I have already predicted Trump's nomination here. I haven't dared yet to say that Sanders will win the nomination. I'd say it's an even bet, at least.

Hillary is still considered the favorite. But if she doesn't connect with people well, and people don't like her, then it's pretty scary to contemplate her as Trump's opponent. We can all envision Trump taking the oath, and then leaning over and saying loudly to Barack Obama, "you're fired!" And then smiling to the laughter and applause, shaking his hand, and going on to give some kind of bombastic, but more polished, inaugural address about how he's going to make America great again.

It may be that only a revolution (Sanders) can "trump" this Republican "coup" by the semi-fascist "demagogue." And what kind of "climate" will we face then, if the "spring revolution" fails and we get an American Sisi? Pretty stormy, and for many generations to come. The sea will be "right to rise" instead of Jeb Bush.

The people don't understand the real source of our problems: the Republican congress that the people themselves so stupidly put in. Electing a demagogue along with a crazy congress that protects the status quo will not work. But anger does not necessarily impel clear thinking. That's the problem with Americans. It's our damn amygdala, I guess.

You have (or can find) natal dates for both major parties, Democrat (1828 or 1832) and Republican (1856). Cast horoscopes for the parties themselves. Results might be interesting.
We almost had a "spring revolution fails" in 1933 with the Business Coup against FDR in 1933 that was supposed to lead to Roosevelt's resignation "for health reasons" and the installation of General Smedley Butler as figurehead coup leader See http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm The plot failed because Smedley Butler was not interested in being a part of it and went to FDR with the details. Sisi, let's face it, was an army general.
Yes, if Hillary wins then Trump can beat her. Trump's support zooms if a Revolution on the Left becomes impossible.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Kasich may be horribly damaged as the lead rinking water pollution issue spreads from Flint. Toledo http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e1913...-across-nation Cleveland http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e1913...-across-nation http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index...hreaten_a.html Youngstown http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index..._found_in.html and Cincinnati ead corrosion pipes cincinnati. Youngstown (Sebring) is particularly acute. Kasich has been a penny-pinching low taxation Republican governor, the same as Snyder and Walker and this issue may make him unelectable as it discredits the idea of low taxation and privatisation in the minds of millions of Americans.
Ironically, the alchemical symbol for lead is almost that of Jupiter, upside down.

That's because it's also the symbol for Saturn, which represents/corresponds to lead. Jupiter is tin. The same symbols used to be used for both anciently-known metals and the anciently-known planets, back when alchemy was accepted. As above, so below. Astrologically, Jupiter and Saturn are opposites in their meanings, but both represent "the establishment" that has ruled for thousands of years: Church (Jupiter) and State (Saturn).

I think the lead crisis may hinge on whether the governors delay action on it. Whether they are blamed for current conditions may depend on whose decision it was to maintain or replace the pipes. The problem for Snyder is that he had been running Flint for about a year already, and did nothing about the problem.

Originally Posted by B Butler

While it didn't make the Bill of Rights, there seems to be an individual right to daydream. You're allowed. I daydream about a Supreme Court that respects the wording of the law and intent of the authors. Your daydream may be less crazy than mine.

The current generation of jurists was brought up on the Jim Crow interpretation, which really is garbage if you take the time to look at it. That Court was a rabid enemy of the Rights of the People. Will another generation be more familiar with the history and the academic papers? We'll see.

I know your opinion, and you have a right to one of those, as flawed as it may be. Each of the Nine also have that right, but they don't have a right to immortality. When they leave, they take their views with them. The idea that a modern nation benefits from an armed populace, especially one that has no eligibility or capability burdens placed on it, is one disaster away from being repudiated. Judging by the amount of violence in society, that's almost a given.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I know your opinion, and you have a right to one of those, as flawed as it may be. Each of the Nine also have that right, but they don't have a right to immortality. When they leave, they take their views with them. The idea that a modern nation benefits from an armed populace, especially one that has no eligibility or capability burdens placed on it, is one disaster away from being repudiated. Judging by the amount of violence in society, that's almost a given.

Well, no. The Nine took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. They are in a unique place which makes them the primary preservers, protectors and defenders of the Constitution. The Constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper to the extent it is degraded by folks who are concerned more by the political implications of their decisions rather than the words of the text and the intent of the authors. While you and I have a right to our opinions, they have a Duty to the Constitution, a Duty that has been blatantly disregarded throughout US history. That the modern Court is making decisions on a political basis is blatant and infamous, but not unusual. The trend was even stronger in the Gilded Age. When Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote many of his famous precedent setting dissents, the public response was often outrage that he had 'voted' against the interests of the president that put him on the bench, Teddy Roosevelt.

The Jim Crow court was far worse.

The gun policy studies and statistics are highly ambiguous. In this forum everyone quoting a study and set of statistics will be answered by someone supporting the opposite policy. Your values suggest that a restored right to own and carry firearms will be a disaster. Rural values suggest that continued increases in concealed carry coupled with a clear individual right will cause a continued decrease in crime. Both sides are ever so sure the statistics are with them. How could they not be? Their values are obviously correct, the other side is obviously evil and deluded, so time will prove them right. I'm noting that the debate has been going on for some time, and seems to be in no danger of being resolved. Still, you have a right to daydream.

One of the Hiller dissents made mention that the statistical evidence was worthless, that the statistical studies on the merit of the DC gun policies were ambiguous. The core of the dissent was that if the evidence and policy is questionable and ambiguous, it is better to let the legislators decide the issue than the courts. I would agree entirely that legislatures ought to be setting policy, not the courts. However, it is the court's responsibility to make sure the legislatures do not exceed their authority.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Both parties face schism if they attempt to subvert the public will. A split in the Democratic Party and a split in the Republican party would give each other permission, since someone voting for a third party might not necessarily be throwing their vote to the other major party. Something very similar to this happened in the 1850s when the Whigs broke up and in 1860 when the Dems split north and South with a third Constitutional Union Party forming (and taking border states) while the new Republican Party won the White House with 40% of the vote the second time they ran a Presidential Candidate (and didn't give up the White House for 24 years thereafter).

Excellent point in your first sentence! You're the only member that I'm aware of that has raised the prospect that BOTH political parties could crack up, and in any order. (Most left-leaning members here assume that the GOP will wither and die first.)

A recent Salon article adds weight to the prospect that both major parties could fade away: "This Is How a Political Party Dies: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders--and the Collapse of Our Failed Political Elites" (The left and right want a revolution, or an end to business as usual. Parties have died before — and could again.) The article chronicles the rise and fall of the various political parties in American history. The excerpts below are the last four paragraphs of the article:

Obama’s 2008 election represented a real opportunity for the dawn of a new multi-decade party system era of Democratic policy dominance, but Obama, as a creature of the divided government era, did not even aspire to such a goal, seeing “bickering” between the parties as the real obstacle facing the country, and setting out to overcome it by seeking compromise. Obama’s consensus-seeking—rather than consensus-shaping—approach left him wide open for the GOP rejectionist strategy that followed, wrapped up in the false claim that it was he who would not compromise, when they insisted on repeatedly pulling sharply to the right.

Obama was so deeply imbued with the dealigned worldview of the post-1968 era that he never pursued the possibility of initiating an era of Democratic dominance—even when near-absolute GOP opposition made the path of bipartisan policymaking untenable, as his repeated bipartisan overtures were rejected again and again. Despite the fact that Obama typically began his policy negotiating from a position of “consensus” compromise, Republicans responded by portraying it in extremist terms, and the hapless political press duly fell into “he-said/she-said”/“both-sides-do-it” line. Thus, Obama’s attempt to deal with the accumulated backlog of unresolved issues, problems, tensions and unmet expectations in a bipartisan manner, within the imaginative framework of the dealigned era was successfully mis-portrayed as a radical departure, when, in reality, only a radical departure could possibly have dealt with all that accumulated backlog. (A radical departure, I should add, which would first and foremost consist of restoring how our politics has usually functioned.) This is precisely the argument that Bernie Sanders is advancing today.

If neither party is prepared for such a radical departure, then one or both of them very well may die, because the American people demand it, even as the established frameworks of American politics fail to deliver for them—both the frameworks of intra-party organization, which evolve over time, and the framework of periodic inter-party/transparty reorganization, which used to occur via realigning elections.

The unexpected storylines of the 2016 election cycle so far are but superficial expressions of far more fundamental untold stories deep within the bowels of our collective public life. Even if the GOP thwarts Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton’s almost unanimous support by the Democratic establishment keeps Sanders at bay, the profound elite failures of the post-1968 era cannot be wished away, including the chimera of elite bipartisan solutions. Sooner or later, something’s got to give. If neither party is equipped to respond to what the people demand, it would be foolish not to expect a return to the more chaotic politics of the pre-1860 era.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/06/this...tical_elites/#

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Excellent point in your first sentence! You're the only member that I'm aware of that has raised the prospect that BOTH political parties could crack up, and in any order. (Most left-leaning members here assume that the GOP will wither and die first.)

A recent Salon article adds weight to the prospect that both major parties could fade away: "This Is How a Political Party Dies: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders--and the Collapse of Our Failed Political Elites" (The left and right want a revolution, or an end to business as usual. Parties have died before — and could again.) The article chronicles the rise and fall of the various political parties in American history. The excerpts below are the last four paragraphs of the article:

Obama’s 2008 election represented a real opportunity for the dawn of a new multi-decade party system era of Democratic policy dominance, but Obama, as a creature of the divided government era, did not even aspire to such a goal, seeing “bickering” between the parties as the real obstacle facing the country, and setting out to overcome it by seeking compromise. Obama’s consensus-seeking—rather than consensus-shaping—approach left him wide open for the GOP rejectionist strategy that followed, wrapped up in the false claim that it was he who would not compromise, when they insisted on repeatedly pulling sharply to the right.

Obama was so deeply imbued with the dealigned worldview of the post-1968 era that he never pursued the possibility of initiating an era of Democratic dominance—even when near-absolute GOP opposition made the path of bipartisan policymaking untenable, as his repeated bipartisan overtures were rejected again and again. Despite the fact that Obama typically began his policy negotiating from a position of “consensus” compromise, Republicans responded by portraying it in extremist terms, and the hapless political press duly fell into “he-said/she-said”/“both-sides-do-it” line. Thus, Obama’s attempt to deal with the accumulated backlog of unresolved issues, problems, tensions and unmet expectations in a bipartisan manner, within the imaginative framework of the dealigned era was successfully mis-portrayed as a radical departure, when, in reality, only a radical departure could possibly have dealt with all that accumulated backlog. (A radical departure, I should add, which would first and foremost consist of restoring how our politics has usually functioned.) This is precisely the argument that Bernie Sanders is advancing today.

If neither party is prepared for such a radical departure, then one or both of them very well may die, because the American people demand it, even as the established frameworks of American politics fail to deliver for them—both the frameworks of intra-party organization, which evolve over time, and the framework of periodic inter-party/transparty reorganization, which used to occur via realigning elections.

The unexpected storylines of the 2016 election cycle so far are but superficial expressions of far more fundamental untold stories deep within the bowels of our collective public life. Even if the GOP thwarts Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton’s almost unanimous support by the Democratic establishment keeps Sanders at bay, the profound elite failures of the post-1968 era cannot be wished away, including the chimera of elite bipartisan solutions. Sooner or later, something’s got to give. If neither party is equipped to respond to what the people demand, it would be foolish not to expect a return to the more chaotic politics of the pre-1860 era.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/06/this...tical_elites/#

Bring on the revolutions. This would make my day, year, decade.

Good article on legalization of cannabis. This would be a small, but needed step. I actually favor legalization of all drugs to put drug cartels out of business.

http://www.economist.com/news/leader...htwaytododrugs


… "Campaigners for and against legalisation need to adjust to the new reality, too. Those who would rather ban the drug should stop flogging the dead horse of prohibition and start campaigning for versions of legalisation that do the least harm (just as the temperance movement these days lobbies for higher taxes on booze, rather than a ban). Legalizes meanwhile, should open their eyes to the fact that the legal marijuana industry, which until now has only had to prove itself more worthy than organized criminals, now needs as much scrutiny as the other “sin” industries that defend their turf jealously. Rather than one day having to take on Big Cannabis, it would be better to get policy on pot right from the start.”…