If you could change the results of any US Presidential election between 1960 and 2012 which one would you change and why? (2016 is excluded from your options)
There is no truly objective way of answering this question, because it cannot be answered without the repondent weighing how he or she would like things to be different. For me personally, I think it would come down to 1980 or 2000. The 1980 election led to a sharp turn rightward in American politics overall, but especially in the Republican Party. I believe both of these sowed the seeds of overskepticism of government and particularly the polarization in politics we see today. But if this means re-electing Jimmy Carter, I might not take this one over others. Carter dealt poorly with Congress, lacked unity in his own party and was awful at prioritizing. Plus, since Iran wanted to punish him, the hostage drama would have gone on longer. I admire Carter as a person, he was and is scrupulously honest, and I think he is the greatest ex-president ever. But in my opinion, Carter was the weakest Democratic president of the 20th century. I volunteered on John Anderson’s campaign that year, but in retrospect, he may have been to rigid to have dealt with Congress well in his own ways. So, I think I will take 2000. I think George W. Bush is brighter than people have given him credit for, had an ideological core, and could work with people outside of his party. But he was not prepared to be a foreign policy president, and let Dick Cheney and others lead him down a disatrous path in Iraq. Al Gore, by contrast, was superbly qualified to be president, would likely have avoided the Iraq war and its fallout, and would have moved the ball forward on tackling environmental issues. So, I’ll take 2000.
What single person is most to blame for the near total dysfunction of Congress during the Obama Administration?
If you’re willing to count them as one, Charles and David Koch.The Koch Brothers, unlike extremely wealthy donors to Democratic candidates, have built a political machine within the Republican Party which is devoted to breeding and spreading extremist forms of conservative and libertarian ideology. In a certain way, they can be viewed like wealthy Saudis who live a decadent lifestyle while handing out seed money to advocate a radical agenda in other parts of the world.Where a George Soros might, for example, donate huge amounts of money to a liberal candidate they have no real connection to (which is wrong) - the Koch Brothers will not only donate, but actively identify candidates who fail their ideological purity test and target them for defeat in Republican Primaries with huge sums of money donated to their opponents.The net effect is a mad rush within the Republican Party to make shows of fealty to the Koch Brothers. This includes attending secret meetings with the Kochs to demonstrate their unfailing devotion to the cause, and making public statements and actions which while otherwise perverse bordering on idiotic are designed to gain the Kochs’ favor and thus the donations that go along with them.The product is fundamentally incompetent legislators like Michelle Bachmann and Ted Cruz, who between their own baseline disability and a desperate need to please the Kochs are so divorced from the concept of public service that the legislative process grinds to an irrevocable halt. On top of that, you have folks like Jim Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell who might otherwise be amenable to working with those with whom they disagree, but in order to maintain their grip on power they are forced to embrace the same radical ideology the Kochs demand of all their subordinates.
What’s the saddest song you’ve ever heard?
The Ballad of Sam Stone (There's a Hole in Daddy's Arm) by John Prine:Sam StoneCame homeTo his wife and family After serving in the conflict overseas.And the time that he had served Had shattered all his nervesAnd left a little shrapnel in his knee.But the morphine eased the painAnd the grass grew 'round his brainAnd gave him all the confidence he lackedWith a Purple Heart and a monkey on his back.(chorus)There's a hole in daddy's armWhere all the money goesJesus Christ died for nothingI suppose.Little pitchers have big earsNever stop to count the years.Sweet songs never last too long on Broken radios.Sam Stone's welcome home Didn't last very longHe went to work when he'd spentHis last dime.And Sammy took to stealin'When he got that empty feelin'For a hundred dollar habitWithout overtime.But the gold rushed through his veinsLike a thousand railroad trainsAnd eased his mind in the moments that he chose,While the kids ran 'round wearing other people's clothes.(chorus)Sam Stone was alone When he popped his last balloon.Climbing walls while sitting in his chair.And he played his last request In a room smelled just like deathAnd an overdose hoverin' in the air.But life had lost its fun,And nothing could be done,'Cept to trade his house he got on the GI BillFor a flag-draped casket on a local heroes' hill.(chorus)
Would it be possible for Democrats to filibuster the Senate to prevent Trump from appointing another justice to the Supreme Court if Ruth Bader Ginsburg does have to step down due to health issues?
No. When the Democrats ran the Senate, they changed the cloture rules to take away the filibuster option from the Republicans, and then rubber-stamped everything Obama wanted them to pass, or anyone he wanted confirmed, until they lost control of the chamber.They left the rule in place for SCOTUS justices, but not for any lower court, and proceeded to pack the lower courts with progressives. The Republicans warned them that this would come back to haunt them. When the GOP took over, they changed the cloture rules for SCOTUS confirmation hearings as well, and can now confirm anyone they want to with just 50 votes (and Pence, if needed).They do have one option left, if Trump gets to appoint any new judges. Cory Booker can march into the chamber before the vote screaming “I AM SPARTACUS!” and try to club or spear enough GOP Senators to prevent a quorum before the guards arrest him.Failing that, the Democrats can only hope that RBG outlives Trump’s presidency.
Could Democrats in the Senate filibuster all of the people’s business for the next 913 days to keep the SCOTUS seat unfilled?
No. As a few other answers have explained, there is no longer a filibuster for presidential appointments.But even if they could, they aren't that stupid. See, right now they are able to complain about the job the Trump administration is doing, and it might allow them to retake the Senate this fall (though it's a long shot, due to who is up for reelection). If they start being even more obviously obstructionist than the GOP was during Obama's term, they lose that ability. When something like the immigrant crisis from last week happens, if the Democrats are actively filibustering, Trump can blame the problem on them.Even more importantly is the economy, and how it relates to the 2020 elections. Right now, the economy is doing pretty well. If it continues to do well for the remainder of Trump’s first term, it is likely he will get reelected. If the economy stumbles, he will be much more vulnerable. However, if the economy stumbles after the Democrats have very clearly shown a refusal to do ANYTHING, then they will get the blame for the downturn. The narrative would be “the GOP was in power from 2016-2018 and the economy was good, then the Democrats took the House and filibustered the Senate, and everything went bad". That's a really brutal scenario for the Democrats to run against in 2020. They are better off giving Trump enough rope to hang himself.Even trying to stall until after the 2018 elections will likely hurt them. The GOP took a lot of flack for stalling Garland, and they had a much better reason (though a longer time period). It ended up working because the gamble paid off, and because having an open seat energized their base to help Trump win. The difference between an Obama appointee and a Trump appointee is much bigger than two Trump appointees with a different level of Senate support. The Democrats just don't have as much to gain waiting for 2019. Even if they get a majority, if they use it to refuse reasonable Trump appointments and leave the seat open until 2020, it WILL hurt them in that election. Their best bet is to confirm a relatively moderate conservative.
Is there any hope that Trumps more disastrous policies can be stopped?
I’m not sure what you mean by disastrous.Maybe it’s preventing illegal immigration by persons of unknown backgrounds.Maybe it’s permitting a jobs-creating XL pipeline to be built.Maybe it’s lowering U.S. corporate tax rates to close to levels of today’s (socialized) Western European countries.Maybe it’s showing that Taiwan - the only democratic province in China - is not a pariah but an ally. Anything that reminds the PRC that basically they’re goons running a country by the gun is a good thing.Maybe it’s inspiring a country that can’t seem to build anything on time or under budget that it can indeed live up to the legacy of its ancestors.On the other hand there are some truly possibly disastrous policies he could pursue:Allowing Russian hegemony in its near abroad, threatening the independence of Ukraine and the Baltic states.Reducing our financial and moral commitment to NATO (see above).Believing that personal relationships with foreign leaders (The Art of the Deal) matter more than geopolitical realities. [Although this is a common American president failing. Richard Nixon is the only president I can think of who did not think that personal relationships trumped power.]Not living up to the best of what America stands for while understanding that idealism gets people (often needlessly) killed. [Think Iraq.]Destroying an imperfect but working series of trade agreements that overall have benefited Americans AND their trading partners.