Conventional wisdom today is Biden wins with a Democratic House, but narrowly Republican Senate, due to Senate map. Maybe wrong, but let's consider that scenario.This alignment (Prez+House vs. Senate) hasn't occurred since the days of Grover Cleveland! What would it produce? 🧵
Unlike today's R House, a GOP senate could block all Biden's exec branch &, importantly, judicial appointments. OTOH, Senate Rs are more moderate than House ones. Biden's bipartisan wins in 2021-2022 came via some of them. Maybe less debt limit drama? 2)
Would a narrow GOP Senate majority really blockade ALL judicial nominations for FOUR years? Unprecedented things have happened lately! But still seems extreme. If not, what would compromise look like? On legislation, 2nd terms are seldom great successes anyway. 3)
2nd term Bush failed on SocSec & immigration. Obama failed on guns & immigration. Obama's big 2nd term initiative was Iran deal, which didn't require Congressional majority,& which Trump undid. Biden cares about foreign policy. He retains some GOP support on Ukraine. 4)
President can do some things on the domestic side via unilateral action too, but question is what Biden could/would do that way that he hasn't already done, perhaps freed up in a 2nd term? Alternatively, what options for bipartisan deals with McConnell would be available? END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Very well-intended, but misguided piece. 1968 Humphrey nomination reflected strength not of "national parties", but was last hurrah of state/local bosses e.g. Daley. National committees NEVER picked Presidential or Congressional nominees & are stronger now than they were then.🧵
In 1968 Humphrey did not "exert control over party stalwarts" "as the sitting Vice-President" (!!!) State/local party elites nominated him because they preferred him. He was the last presidential nominee who didn't run in primaries, but there had been many before him. 2)
The parties' Congressional campaign committees (and similar Super PACs tied to party leaders) are FAR MORE influential in recruiting and funding candidates than they were in the low polarization mid 20th century 3)
Even if gerrymandering ISN'T driving polarization, it's still very bad! It skews representation, so reforms like independent redistricting commissions & proportional representation have merit. Then why push back on claims that it is behind polarization? 🧵
The claim that polarization stems from political chicanery like gerrymandering or some other "fixable" political rule, rather than being deeply rooted in society and the party system, is misleading and unhelpful. 2)
The unpolarized parties old folks recall fondly WERE anomalous. People think what they grew up with is "normal", but here history shows otherwise. Our current quasi-parliamentary parties ARE normal; our political institutions which don't fit them aren't.3) researchgate.net/publication/27…
It's wrong to discuss "The GOP" as if it's a thing so distinct from its base, as @RadioFreeTom does. Politicians represent voters. Often they share their views. They have SOME leeway, but Trump was nominated b/c he played to nativism/racism among R voters more than others did.1)
Exit polls showed Trump's primary victories were NOT driven by independents or new voters. He was giving traditional Republican voters what they wanted. This IS the base GOP pols have attracted under Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan & the Bushes, awkward as it may now be for some. 2)
It's also off-base to suggest the GOP was a solid, stable majority before Trump or that Democrats' 2010&2014 losses under Obama were so unusual. Obama did neglect the DNC, but the President's party almost always loses in midterm years. 3)