Ok, I have to hold my breath as I ask this, and I’m really not trying to poke any bears, but I trust this community’s ability to answer objectively more than other places I can ask, including more than my weak weak Google fu, given all the noise:
Is Sanders actually more than let’s say 25% likely to get the nod?
I had written him off early, but I don’t get to vote in that primary so I only just started paying attention. I’m probably voting Libertarian anyway, but Trump scares me almost as much as Clinton, so I’d sleep a little better during the meanwhile if it turns out I was wrong.
Thanks in advance. If this violates the Politics Commandment I accept the thumbs, but I’d love to also hear an answer I can trust.
He’s millions of votes and many many delegates down compared to HRC. I think the only realistic way he gets the Democratic nomination is if HRC abruptly becomes obviously unelectable (e.g., if the business with her email server starts looking like getting her into actual legal trouble, or someone discovers clear evidence of outright bribery from her Wall Street friends), in which case the “superdelegates” might all switch to Sanders. I don’t see any such scenario that actually looks more than a few percent likely.
(I make no claim to be an expert; I offer this only as a fairly typical LWer’s take on the matter.)
Thanks G, I feel more confident I understand. Can’t wait to see the debates; I’m open to the possibility my judgement on the matter might be wrong about one or both.
Is Sanders actually more than let’s say 25% likely to get the nod?
No.
To get the nomination he needs something extraordinary to happen. Something like Hillary developing a major health problem or the FBI indicting her over her private email server.
Trump scares me almost as much as Clinton
Someone pointed out a silver lining: the notion of President Trump might make progressives to be slightly less enthusiastic about imperial presidency. I’m not holding my breath, though.
Are progressives particularly enthusiastic about imperial presidency?
I haven’t noticed any such enthusiasm. I have noticed people being annoyed when “their guy” was in the White House but couldn’t do the things they wanted because Congress was on the other side, but that’s not at all the same thing.
Is it a thing progressives do more than conservatives? I dunno. It may be a thing progressives have done more of in the last decade or so because they’ve spent more of that time with the president on their side and Congress against, but that doesn’t tell us much about actual differences in disposition.
Are progressives particularly enthusiastic about imperial presidency?
I think so, yes. Here is an example, they are not hard to find. Of course, the left elides the word “imperial” :-/
I have noticed people being annoyed
More than annoyed. These people want to expand the presidential powers and use the executive branch to achieve their goals, separation of powers be damned.
Is it a thing progressives do more than conservatives?
Yes, because progressive are much more comfortable with the idea of Big State (not to mention the idea of upending traditional arrangements).
> the consolidation of executive authority has led to a number of dangerous policies [see David Shipler, in this issue], and we strongly oppose the extreme manifestations of this power, such as the “kill lists” that have already defined Obama’s presidency
which doesn’t seem exactly like a ringing endorsement of “imperial presidency”.
So far as I can tell, the article isn’t proposing that the POTUS should have any powers he doesn’t already have; only that he should use some of his already-existing powers in particular ways. If that’s “imperial presidency” then the US already has imperial presidency and the only thing restraining it is the limited ambition of presidents.
These people want to expand the presidential powers and use the executive branch to achieve their goals, separation of powers be damned.
Which people, exactly? Again, the article you pointed to as an example of advocacy for “imperial presidency” claims quite explicitly that the president already has the power to do all the things it says he should do. (Of course that might be wrong. But saying the president should do something that you wrongly believe he’s already entitled to do is not advocating for expanding presidential power.)
Yes, because [...]
Do you have evidence that they actually do, as opposed to a bulveristic explanation of why you would expect them to?
I’m not sure how one would quantify that, but a related question would be which presidents have actually exercised more “imperial” power. A crude proxy for that that happens to be readily available is number of executive orders issued. So here are the last 50 years’ presidents in order by number of EOs, most to least: Reagan (R), Clinton (D), Nixon (R), Johnson (D), Carter (D), Bush Jr (R), Obama (D), Ford (R), Bush Sr (R). Seems fairly evenly matched to me.
I don’t think I understand your bulveristic explanation, anyway. Issuing more executive orders (or exercising more presidential power in other ways) is about the balance between branches of government, not about the size of the government.
Here’s an interesting article from 2006 about pretty much exactly this issue; it deplores the (alleged) expansion of presidential power and says both conservatives and progressives are to blame, and if you look at its source you will see that it’s not likely to be making that claim in the service of a pro-progressive bias.
Betfair says 5%. I’m not saying you shouldn’t second-guess prediction markets, but you should look at them. If you think the right number is 25%, maybe you should put money on it. Actually, I do say that you should second-guess them: low numbers are usually over-estimates because of the structure of the market.
I don’t know the right number; I just used it as a set point rather than saying “Can he win?” and getting “Well TECHNICALLY...” Thanks for the reply; I’ll keep current sleep patterns ;)
I’d estimate Sanders’ chances as less than 10%, maybe a bit more than 5%.He would need a mass defection of superdelegates at this point, and it’s possible they would be directed to jump en masse to someone else (like Biden) even if the DNC decides to dump Clinton.
Ok, I have to hold my breath as I ask this, and I’m really not trying to poke any bears, but I trust this community’s ability to answer objectively more than other places I can ask, including more than my weak weak Google fu, given all the noise:
Is Sanders actually more than let’s say 25% likely to get the nod?
I had written him off early, but I don’t get to vote in that primary so I only just started paying attention. I’m probably voting Libertarian anyway, but Trump scares me almost as much as Clinton, so I’d sleep a little better during the meanwhile if it turns out I was wrong.
Thanks in advance. If this violates the Politics Commandment I accept the thumbs, but I’d love to also hear an answer I can trust.
He’s millions of votes and many many delegates down compared to HRC. I think the only realistic way he gets the Democratic nomination is if HRC abruptly becomes obviously unelectable (e.g., if the business with her email server starts looking like getting her into actual legal trouble, or someone discovers clear evidence of outright bribery from her Wall Street friends), in which case the “superdelegates” might all switch to Sanders. I don’t see any such scenario that actually looks more than a few percent likely.
(I make no claim to be an expert; I offer this only as a fairly typical LWer’s take on the matter.)
Thanks G, I feel more confident I understand. Can’t wait to see the debates; I’m open to the possibility my judgement on the matter might be wrong about one or both.
No.
To get the nomination he needs something extraordinary to happen. Something like Hillary developing a major health problem or the FBI indicting her over her private email server.
Someone pointed out a silver lining: the notion of President Trump might make progressives to be slightly less enthusiastic about imperial presidency. I’m not holding my breath, though.
Are progressives particularly enthusiastic about imperial presidency?
I haven’t noticed any such enthusiasm. I have noticed people being annoyed when “their guy” was in the White House but couldn’t do the things they wanted because Congress was on the other side, but that’s not at all the same thing.
Is it a thing progressives do more than conservatives? I dunno. It may be a thing progressives have done more of in the last decade or so because they’ve spent more of that time with the president on their side and Congress against, but that doesn’t tell us much about actual differences in disposition.
[EDITED for slightly less clumsy wording.]
I think so, yes. Here is an example, they are not hard to find. Of course, the left elides the word “imperial” :-/
More than annoyed. These people want to expand the presidential powers and use the executive branch to achieve their goals, separation of powers be damned.
Yes, because progressive are much more comfortable with the idea of Big State (not to mention the idea of upending traditional arrangements).
… whose authors say
> the consolidation of executive authority has led to a number of dangerous policies [see David Shipler, in this issue], and we strongly oppose the extreme manifestations of this power, such as the “kill lists” that have already defined Obama’s presidency
which doesn’t seem exactly like a ringing endorsement of “imperial presidency”.
So far as I can tell, the article isn’t proposing that the POTUS should have any powers he doesn’t already have; only that he should use some of his already-existing powers in particular ways. If that’s “imperial presidency” then the US already has imperial presidency and the only thing restraining it is the limited ambition of presidents.
Which people, exactly? Again, the article you pointed to as an example of advocacy for “imperial presidency” claims quite explicitly that the president already has the power to do all the things it says he should do. (Of course that might be wrong. But saying the president should do something that you wrongly believe he’s already entitled to do is not advocating for expanding presidential power.)
Do you have evidence that they actually do, as opposed to a bulveristic explanation of why you would expect them to?
I’m not sure how one would quantify that, but a related question would be which presidents have actually exercised more “imperial” power. A crude proxy for that that happens to be readily available is number of executive orders issued. So here are the last 50 years’ presidents in order by number of EOs, most to least: Reagan (R), Clinton (D), Nixon (R), Johnson (D), Carter (D), Bush Jr (R), Obama (D), Ford (R), Bush Sr (R). Seems fairly evenly matched to me.
I don’t think I understand your bulveristic explanation, anyway. Issuing more executive orders (or exercising more presidential power in other ways) is about the balance between branches of government, not about the size of the government.
Here’s an interesting article from 2006 about pretty much exactly this issue; it deplores the (alleged) expansion of presidential power and says both conservatives and progressives are to blame, and if you look at its source you will see that it’s not likely to be making that claim in the service of a pro-progressive bias.
That’s what I had thought originally. Thank you for the speedy reply!
Betfair says 5%. I’m not saying you shouldn’t second-guess prediction markets, but you should look at them. If you think the right number is 25%, maybe you should put money on it. Actually, I do say that you should second-guess them: low numbers are usually over-estimates because of the structure of the market.
I don’t know the right number; I just used it as a set point rather than saying “Can he win?” and getting “Well TECHNICALLY...” Thanks for the reply; I’ll keep current sleep patterns ;)
I’d estimate Sanders’ chances as less than 10%, maybe a bit more than 5%.He would need a mass defection of superdelegates at this point, and it’s possible they would be directed to jump en masse to someone else (like Biden) even if the DNC decides to dump Clinton.
Thanks K; good to have more supporting evidence. I won’t bother checking out his issues at this time; I’ll wait until I know who I get to choose.