Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

[7,052,770]

No. 8 years of Hillary means decades of a liberal Supreme Court, even if we don't take back Congress under her.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

No. 8 years of Hillary means decades of a liberal Supreme Court, even if we don't take back Congress under her.

But a GOP controlled senate could just filibuster any potential nominees that she puts up.

[bobloblaw]

two terms of Hillary will means the GOP controls probably 40 state governorships, 70/99 state houses, 250+ House seats and pushing 60 senators. The SCOTUS wont matter with that type of massive majority. The liberals SCOTUS can then say that the 2nd amendment isnt a personal right but a collective one, but it wont matter. No gun control would be passed with such a massive GOP majority nationwide. And when the GOP finally did win the WH, they could enact sweeping conservative reforms

[bobloblaw]

It is also very likely the entire Dem coalition could rip itself apart with a Hillary Presidency. How much longer can the Netroots and progressive take from the corporate cronys in the Dem party? Want Larry Summers and Robert Rubin running the show?

[IceSpear]

No.

Setting themselves up for an even more GOP senate and congress!

This doesn't even make sense. Do you think it makes more sense for Democrats to throw the presidential election and potentially risk a right-wing majority on SCOTUS, repeal of most legislation passed during the Obama presidency, forfeiting all executive power, etc. for the sake of MAYBE winning Congress in 2018?

How much is hillary going to pass when the GOP supermajority going to come around?

First of all, I highly doubt there will be a GOP "supermajority" (either 66% or 60%) in the House or Senate even after 2018. Secondly, even if there was, it still makes no sense whatsoever to throw a presidential election and hand the GOP a trifecta on a silver platter for a MINIMUM of 2 years. Dems gain nothing in this scenario. There's only two possible Senate pickups for Dems in 2018, even in a massive wave. Assuming they win the presidential election, the GOP probably has 52 seats or more after 2016. So taking back the Senate is likely a nonstarter. The House is gerrymandered to hell, but in a wave Dems could take it back. But it's no sure thing that 2018 would be a Democratic wave even if the incumbent Republican is unpopular, particularly because of turnout issues which plague Democrats in midterms. So the stategery here is apparently to throw a presidential election, hand the GOP all the executive power, let them possibly replace Ginsburg and some of their own justices on the SCOTUS, let them repeal countless pieces of legislation passed since 2009, all for...an outside shot at taking the House? Uh, no thanks on that deal.

[Mr. Illini]

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker

I jumped.

[Türkisblau]

The best argument is definitely the Supreme Court.

Say goodbye to the Supreme Court majority for decades and thus laws than can actually help people and achieve things even if Warren or some other hardcore progressive gets into office eventually. With Ginsburg and possibly Kennedy gone and replaced by Walker appointees we will have Alito, Thomas, and Scalia deciding things as if you add in the two hardcore cons even Roberts  (who ruled in favor of ACA) would be in the minority on some decisions that could be disastrous.

[Mister Mets]

This is a tough question as there are arguments on both sides.

Arguments For the Motion...
Demographic trends may be slowly favoring Democrats, but it hasn't reached near one-party rule yet. So it might be better for Republicans to win now, so that future voters don't get tired of the Democratic party at a time when it would otherwise be expected to win handily.
The 2018 election might be a bloodbath with a Democrat in the White House.
Hillary Clinton might not be a good President.
Republicans might be more likely to insitute unpopular policies now than at other points, thus driving more voters away.

Arguments Against the Motion...
Hillary Clinton might be a good President. That will always help the party.
Hillary Clinton would be better able to protect Obama's policies.
The Republicans might nominate someone effective. That would hurt the Democratic party.
The Republicans have majorities in state legislatures, governors mansions, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court. They can get a lot done in four years, and Democrats will have a tough time gaining seats in 2018.
Demogtaphics haven't completely shifted against Republicans, due to their gains with middle class voters. A Hillary loss now doesn't necessarily guarantee a De Blasio win in a future election.

[morgieb]

50/50 kinda thing I guess. Could lead to a Reagan-ite figure leading the Democrats and push the country towards proper leftism, but on the other hand the Supreme Court could be looking nuts after a while, and there's also the risk that massive reforms to the right could actually be popular. Is it really worth taking that chance?

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

As much as I dislike Clinton, I have to agree with this:

The best argument is definitely the Supreme Court.

Say goodbye to the Supreme Court majority for decades and thus laws than can actually help people and achieve things even if Warren or some other hardcore progressive gets into office eventually. With Ginsburg and possibly Kennedy gone and replaced by Walker appointees we will have Alito, Thomas, and Scalia deciding things as if you add in the two hardcore cons even Roberts  (who ruled in favor of ACA) would be in the minority on some decisions that could be disastrous.

Ginsburg is over 80 and Breyer isn't much younger. Kennedy isn't reliably liberal, but he's far more liberal than Scalia (who is also getting up there); Kennedy would no doubt be replaced by a more reliable conservative.

[Türkisblau]

As much as I dislike Clinton, I have to agree with this:

The best argument is definitely the Supreme Court.

Say goodbye to the Supreme Court majority for decades and thus laws than can actually help people and achieve things even if Warren or some other hardcore progressive gets into office eventually. With Ginsburg and possibly Kennedy gone and replaced by Walker appointees we will have Alito, Thomas, and Scalia deciding things as if you add in the two hardcore cons even Roberts  (who ruled in favor of ACA) would be in the minority on some decisions that could be disastrous.

Ginsburg is over 80 and Breyer isn't much younger. Kennedy isn't reliably liberal, but he's far more liberal than Scalia (who is also getting up there); Kennedy would no doubt be replaced by a more reliable conservative.

Yes. This is my overriding thought. Even FDR was stopped by a conservative SC.

[pbrower2a]

Scott Walker governs Wisconsin like a dictator, completely excluding Democrats from the political debate unless they sell out. He would effectively be a regent for the Koch dynasty, and with majorities in both Houses of Congress he would support legislation that would gut civil liberties and voting rights -- and Congress would approve them and he would sign them. With the GOP majority expanded in the Supreme Court, America could become for all practical purposes an Apartheid state in which minorities and the poor are effectively shut out. Elections could become a farce even if people can participate in them. As Democrats become irrelevant, the Republican supermajorities in both Congresses and in control of 3/4 of state legislatures could amend the Constitution almost at will.

ALEC would collaborate with Republican majorities in one state after another to fully entrench the Republican party forever in most states whenever they get Republican majorities with 'model' legislation.

I see no reason to believe that Scott Walker would change his ways as President of the United States from how he behaves as Governor of Wisconsin. 

Scott Walker would be the last freely-elected president of the United States, and even his second term would be the result of a rigged election.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Scott Walker governs Wisconsin like a dictator, completely excluding Democrats from the political debate unless they sell out. He would effectively be a regent for the Koch dynasty, and with majorities in both Houses of Congress he would support legislation that would gut civil liberties and voting rights -- and Congress would approve them and he would sign them. With the GOP majority expanded in the Supreme Court, America could become for all practical purposes an Apartheid state in which minorities and the poor are effectively shut out. Elections could become a farce even if people can participate in them. As Democrats become irrelevant, the Republican supermajorities in both Congresses and in control of 3/4 of state legislatures could amend the Constitution almost at will.

ALEC would collaborate with Republican majorities in one state after another to fully entrench the Republican party forever in most states whenever they get Republican majorities with 'model' legislation.

I see no reason to believe that Scott Walker would change his ways as President of the United States from how he behaves as Governor of Wisconsin. 

Scott Walker would be the last freely-elected president of the United States, and even his second term would be the result of a rigged election.

That would make for a interesting near-future dystopian timeline.

[Türkisblau]

Scott Walker governs Wisconsin like a dictator, completely excluding Democrats from the political debate unless they sell out. He would effectively be a regent for the Koch dynasty, and with majorities in both Houses of Congress he would support legislation that would gut civil liberties and voting rights -- and Congress would approve them and he would sign them. With the GOP majority expanded in the Supreme Court, America could become for all practical purposes an Apartheid state in which minorities and the poor are effectively shut out. Elections could become a farce even if people can participate in them. As Democrats become irrelevant, the Republican supermajorities in both Congresses and in control of 3/4 of state legislatures could amend the Constitution almost at will.

ALEC would collaborate with Republican majorities in one state after another to fully entrench the Republican party forever in most states whenever they get Republican majorities with 'model' legislation.

I see no reason to believe that Scott Walker would change his ways as President of the United States from how he behaves as Governor of Wisconsin.  

Scott Walker would be the last freely-elected president of the United States, and even his second term would be the result of a rigged election.

This was a bit too dystopic to be in anyway realistic.

[Cory]

Scott Walker governs Wisconsin like a dictator, completely excluding Democrats from the political debate unless they sell out. He would effectively be a regent for the Koch dynasty, and with majorities in both Houses of Congress he would support legislation that would gut civil liberties and voting rights -- and Congress would approve them and he would sign them. With the GOP majority expanded in the Supreme Court, America could become for all practical purposes an Apartheid state in which minorities and the poor are effectively shut out. Elections could become a farce even if people can participate in them. As Democrats become irrelevant, the Republican supermajorities in both Congresses and in control of 3/4 of state legislatures could amend the Constitution almost at will.

ALEC would collaborate with Republican majorities in one state after another to fully entrench the Republican party forever in most states whenever they get Republican majorities with 'model' legislation.

I see no reason to believe that Scott Walker would change his ways as President of the United States from how he behaves as Governor of Wisconsin. 

Scott Walker would be the last freely-elected president of the United States, and even his second term would be the result of a rigged election.

It's like Rumsfeldia in real life.

[Vega]

The best argument is definitely the Supreme Court.

Say goodbye to the Supreme Court majority for decades and thus laws than can actually help people and achieve things even if Warren or some other hardcore progressive gets into office eventually. With Ginsburg and possibly Kennedy gone and replaced by Walker appointees we will have Alito, Thomas, and Scalia deciding things as if you add in the two hardcore cons even Roberts  (who ruled in favor of ACA) would be in the minority on some decisions that could be disastrous.

If Ginsburg doesn't retire during Obama's term but then retires under a Republican President, she's just selfish.

It's about more than her. 

[Türkisblau]

The best argument is definitely the Supreme Court.

Say goodbye to the Supreme Court majority for decades and thus laws than can actually help people and achieve things even if Warren or some other hardcore progressive gets into office eventually. With Ginsburg and possibly Kennedy gone and replaced by Walker appointees we will have Alito, Thomas, and Scalia deciding things as if you add in the two hardcore cons even Roberts  (who ruled in favor of ACA) would be in the minority on some decisions that could be disastrous.

If Ginsburg doesn't retire during Obama's term but then retires under a Republican President, she's just selfish.

It's about more than her.  

Of course I don't think she is going to retire. She is over 80 now and not in the best of health, so from 2017-2021, there is a strong possibility that she will most likely die in office or have to retire because of health reasons.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Scott Walker governs Wisconsin like a dictator, completely excluding Democrats from the political debate unless they sell out. He would effectively be a regent for the Koch dynasty, and with majorities in both Houses of Congress he would support legislation that would gut civil liberties and voting rights -- and Congress would approve them and he would sign them. With the GOP majority expanded in the Supreme Court, America could become for all practical purposes an Apartheid state in which minorities and the poor are effectively shut out. Elections could become a farce even if people can participate in them. As Democrats become irrelevant, the Republican supermajorities in both Congresses and in control of 3/4 of state legislatures could amend the Constitution almost at will.

ALEC would collaborate with Republican majorities in one state after another to fully entrench the Republican party forever in most states whenever they get Republican majorities with 'model' legislation.

I see no reason to believe that Scott Walker would change his ways as President of the United States from how he behaves as Governor of Wisconsin. 

Scott Walker would be the last freely-elected president of the United States, and even his second term would be the result of a rigged election.

PBrower, just stop. You've completely lost your mind because of last year's republican wave, and now you're convinced that by screaming whatever falsehoods cross your mind that 2016 will be some sort of democratic bloodbath, and it's not realistic or funny. No matter how much you say otherwise, CA-SEN IS NOT MORE COMPETITIVE than PA-SEN, Approval Ratings aren't some highly reliable statistic (Scott Brown, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Lincoln Chafee, and Mark Begich were all popular in the senate. They still lost. Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, and Richard Burr were all unpopular, they still won.), Murkowski is not a far-right winger, Toomey is not favored to lose, Walker does not enjoy rigging elections like he's some sort of Putin clone (he didn't make democrats irrelevant in WI, why would he do it nationwide???), whatever Walker does is not necessarily in place for all eternity, etc. etc. etc.

Just get a grip on yourself, and stop this act. You're just letting it take over every part of your life on here, and it's not doing you any good.

[bedstuy]

Don't be stupid.  The Presidency is hugely important, especially for changing the balance on the Supreme Court, controlling the Federal administrative state, veto power, appointing judges and making foreign and military policy.  Just look at things like the new EPA rules on carbon emissions, the Federal government matters.  It's also just important to control the Presidency to prevent the Republican's nefarious and idiotic agenda from getting enacted.  The current crop in Congress is insane, radical and bought and sold by corporate interests.  Letting them send legislation to a Republican President would be insanely irresponsible.  Even if you dislike Hillary, you ought to vote for her just for that reason.

Seriously, if we had four years of a President Walker with the GOP potentially in control of both houses of congress maybe you'd actually get a more robust Democratic primary field in 2016 and a more genuine clash of ideas between the DLC and the more progressive wing of the party.

When Bush was president liberals actually gave a sh**t about things like civil liberties. Now I wonder if they would have been okay with waterboarding if it had been done under Obama, given there acquiescence to drone strikes.

Obama has been terrific on civil liberties.  He's been the best President on civil liberties in recent memory, no doubt.  Drone strikes, on the other hand, have nothing whatsoever to do with civil liberties.  Liberals support drone strikes because they're good defense policy and we want to defend our country from terrorists who operate in failed states.  It's that simple.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Absolutely. Her policies will continue the Clinton and Obama tradition of screwing over the non-rich, and having epic disasters in midterms. Aside from the backlash about impeachment in 1998, every Democratic midterm since 1978 has been an epic disaster. Meanwhile, without Hillary dragging things down, 2018 and 2020 will go much better, allowing for the House to be less gerrymandered next decade.

[Türkisblau]

Absolutely. Her policies will continue the Clinton and Obama tradition of screwing over the non-rich, and having epic disasters in midterms. Aside from the backlash about impeachment in 1998, every Democratic midterm since 1978 has been an epic disaster. Meanwhile, without Hillary dragging things down, 2018 and 2020 will go much better, allowing for the House to be less gerrymandered next decade.

You do realize that the "rich" are getting even more political power due to the relaxation of campaign finance legislation that has been incurred from an activist conservative SC? If Hillary is defeated things will be changing even more in that direction, and will stay that way even if a True Liberal (TM) is elected.

[pbrower2a]

Scott Walker governs Wisconsin like a dictator, completely excluding Democrats from the political debate unless they sell out. He would effectively be a regent for the Koch dynasty, and with majorities in both Houses of Congress he would support legislation that would gut civil liberties and voting rights -- and Congress would approve them and he would sign them. With the GOP majority expanded in the Supreme Court, America could become for all practical purposes an Apartheid state in which minorities and the poor are effectively shut out. Elections could become a farce even if people can participate in them. As Democrats become irrelevant, the Republican supermajorities in both Congresses and in control of 3/4 of state legislatures could amend the Constitution almost at will.

ALEC would collaborate with Republican majorities in one state after another to fully entrench the Republican party forever in most states whenever they get Republican majorities with 'model' legislation.

I see no reason to believe that Scott Walker would change his ways as President of the United States from how he behaves as Governor of Wisconsin. 

Scott Walker would be the last freely-elected president of the United States, and even his second term would be the result of a rigged election.

PBrower, just stop. You've completely lost your mind because of last year's republican wave, and now you're convinced that by screaming whatever falsehoods cross your mind that 2016 will be some sort of democratic bloodbath, and it's not realistic or funny. No matter how much you say otherwise, CA-SEN IS NOT MORE COMPETITIVE than PA-SEN, Approval Ratings aren't some highly reliable statistic (Scott Brown, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Lincoln Chafee, and Mark Begich were all popular in the senate. They still lost. Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, and Richard Burr were all unpopular, they still won.), Murkowski is not a far-right winger, Toomey is not favored to lose, Walker does not enjoy rigging elections like he's some sort of Putin clone (he didn't make democrats irrelevant in WI, why would he do it nationwide???), whatever Walker does is not necessarily in place for all eternity, etc. etc. etc.

Just get a grip on yourself, and stop this act. You're just letting it take over every part of your life on here, and it's not doing you any good.

What I did not see coming in 2014 looks like the Wave of the Future. It has huge funds behind it, and with excellent organization behind it and utter ruthlessness it would gladly destroy democracy. No human suffering is in excess so long as it turns or protects an elite profit -- so believes just about every plantation owner, Gilded-era robber baron, executive elitist, and gangster. That is the heritage of the economic component of the American Right.

Whatever shatters faith creates fear. I fear the Koch family as I never feared the Rockefeller family. (Maybe the Rockefeller family was more effective in playing both sides of the political spectrum, which kept them from being so fearsome). I see Koch front groups as sources of political rhetoric out of 1984.   

Citizens United may have begun the transformation of America into a pure and absolute plutocracy.  Democracy can die quickly in a coup (Czechoslovakia in 1948, Chile in 1973) or slowly through the degradation of necessary process.

Now for some of the points:

1.The US Senate seat from California going Republican is a possibility based upon something strange happening -- that two Republicans place #1 and #2 in the jungle primary with the Democrats splintered. If a Democrat places among the top 2... well, it's California. It just isn't set yet.

I'd give something like 500-1 odds against the Republicans placing #1 and #2 in the jungle primary of California. That's less the chance that the Minnesota Twins will win the 2015 World Series. 

2. Pat Toomey is in a state that should be difficult to get re-elected in. Pennsylvania leans Democratic in most statewide races, and a right-wing Republican getting re-elected in the year of a Presidential election will be difficult. No, he is not the new Arlen Specter, a moderate who could get re-elected in a Presidential year in which the Republican nominee for President (George W. Bush) lost the state.

He barely got elected in a wave year for Republicans, and if he gets re-elected in what should not be a wave year for Republicans, then either

(1) Pennsylvania has lurched to the Right
(2) Senator Toomey has done an excellent job of constituent service
(3) the Koch front groups are extremely effective in getting its political allies re-elected, or
(4) we have a permanent Republican majority in practice that cannot be dislodged through electoral processes.

In the fourth case, thanks to the (Citizens United) ruling we live in a plutocratic oligarchy with the trappings of a Constitutional government.

I see Senator Toomey vulnerable because he has yet to establish a reputation as a moderate in a state in which extremists go down after one term. The Republican Party can hold the Senate without him. He can't yet break 45% against imaginable opponents in a state in which the ceiling for a Republican is about 51%.

He could be a remarkable campaigner -- and lose.

3. I see Senator Lisa Murkowski vulnerable in the event that she gets primaried again. She won a write-in election with much Democratic support (she would not be as bad as the Tea Party Republican) that would vote for Mark Begich in 2016 instead. Of course such implies contingencies unlikely to return in 2016.

4. Moderate Republicans are practically extinct. As voters? Maybe not. Many of them voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and will vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. As elected officials? Practically gone.

5. The $889 million commitment of the Koch family to secure the Republican hold of the Senate and the House. That sort of money shouts.

So -- what if 2016 is a Democratic wave? The first indication on Election Night is that Democrats pick up some House seats in the earliest states to close their polls, and that the only state that anyone calls  for either Presidential nominee is Vermont. Senator Burr, R-NC, is in trouble. But we all see it coming.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It will be better for the liberal base if she lost a primary, not a general election to a Jeb Bush, because 8 years, especially of another Bush, is heart wrenching.

I still believe that there is a populist candidate out there, that can win a primary battle out there besides Hillary and Martin O'Malley is one of them, because he had a huge black following as mayor of Baltimore and can cut into her base of support.

Until Hillary gets to SC, where Christian Blacks, and more conservative whites votes, Liberals, just like in 2008, can upset her in Iowa and NV caucuses.

[Mechaman]

Scott Walker governs Wisconsin like a dictator, completely excluding Democrats from the political debate unless they sell out. He would effectively be a regent for the Koch dynasty, and with majorities in both Houses of Congress he would support legislation that would gut civil liberties and voting rights -- and Congress would approve them and he would sign them. With the GOP majority expanded in the Supreme Court, America could become for all practical purposes an Apartheid state in which minorities and the poor are effectively shut out. Elections could become a farce even if people can participate in them. As Democrats become irrelevant, the Republican supermajorities in both Congresses and in control of 3/4 of state legislatures could amend the Constitution almost at will.

ALEC would collaborate with Republican majorities in one state after another to fully entrench the Republican party forever in most states whenever they get Republican majorities with 'model' legislation.

I see no reason to believe that Scott Walker would change his ways as President of the United States from how he behaves as Governor of Wisconsin.  

Scott Walker would be the last freely-elected president of the United States, and even his second term would be the result of a rigged election.

PBrower, just stop. You've completely lost your mind because of last year's republican wave, and now you're convinced that by screaming whatever falsehoods cross your mind that 2016 will be some sort of democratic bloodbath, and it's not realistic or funny. No matter how much you say otherwise, CA-SEN IS NOT MORE COMPETITIVE than PA-SEN, Approval Ratings aren't some highly reliable statistic (Scott Brown, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Lincoln Chafee, and Mark Begich were all popular in the senate. They still lost. Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, and Richard Burr were all unpopular, they still won.), Murkowski is not a far-right winger, Toomey is not favored to lose, Walker does not enjoy rigging elections like he's some sort of Putin clone (he didn't make democrats irrelevant in WI, why would he do it nationwide???), whatever Walker does is not necessarily in place for all eternity, etc. etc. etc.

Just get a grip on yourself, and stop this act. You're just letting it take over every part of your life on here, and it's not doing you any good.

Pbrower spent YEARS arguing that the Obama Democratic majority is here to stay and that Jon Huntsman would be the 2020 Democratic nominee as the Second Era of Good Feelings commences. Now that two large midterm losses in a row have shattered his flawed reception of reality it is understandable if he has gone completely bonkers.

Some people do not genuinely understand that in politics you win some and you lose some (not that much different from sports really).  Though the realistic of us (though many would call us "cynics") realize that if there is a "sport" that most resembles US Politics it's not professional baseball, but professional wrestling.  For obvious reasons.