Do you think the Democratic candidates would have noticeably different outcomes in office?

[Recursion]

That is, do you think the actions of the US government would be noticeably different between a Clinton and Sanders administration (or O'Malley)?

If you Rip van Winkle'd and woke up in 2020, and somebody handed you a newspaper with all the names and rhetoric redacted, and you just looked at the actual actions of the US Government, do you think you would be able to tell which candidate won the primary? (Obviously this assumes a Democratic win.)

9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	9 (100%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Fearless]

1. Yes, for instance...

1932 Democratic presidential primaries:[3]

Franklin D. Roosevelt – 1,464,607 (49.44%)
James Hamilton Lewis – 590,130 (19.92%)
Al Smith – 415,795 (14.04%)
John Nance Garner – 249,816 (8.43%)
William H. Murray – 226,392 (7.64%)
Leo J. Chassee – 7,372 (0.25%)


-------------------------------------------

How would the world be different if FDR wasn't elected. Think about the Depression, Social Security, WWII, and so many other programs. Would the others have championed them. Would their voices have been as strong for the American people?

I fundamentally believe that the President CAN actually change things.

[Recursion]

2. What would have happened differently if Smith had won? (nt)

[Fearless]

4. For instance...

Smith felt slighted by Roosevelt during the latter's governorship. They became rivals for the 1932 Democratic presidential nomination. At the convention, Smith's animosity toward Roosevelt was so great, he put aside longstanding rivalries and managed to work with William McAdoo and William Randolph Hearst to try to block FDR's nomination for several ballots. This unlikely coalition fell apart when Smith refused to work on finding a compromise candidate and instead maneuvered to make himself the nominee. After losing the nomination, Smith eventually campaigned for Roosevelt in 1932, giving a particularly important speech on behalf of the Democratic nominee at Boston on October 27 in which he "pulled out all the stops."[28]

Smith became highly critical of Roosevelt's New Deal policies and joined the American Liberty League, an anti-Roosevelt group. Smith believed the New Deal was a betrayal of good-government progressive ideals and ran counter to the goal of close cooperation with business. The Liberty League was an organization that tried to rally public opinion against Roosevelt's New Deal. Conservative Democrats who disapproved of Roosevelt's New Deal measures founded the group. In 1934, Smith joined forces with wealthy business executives, who provided most of the league's funds. The league published pamphlets and sponsored radio programs, arguing that the New Deal was destroying personal liberty. However, the league failed to gain support in the 1934 and 1936 elections and it rapidly declined in influence. The league was officially dissolved in 1940.[29][30]

Smith's antipathy to Roosevelt and his policies was so great that he supported Republican presidential candidates Alfred M. Landon (in the 1936 election) and Wendell Willkie (in the 1940 election).[9] Although personal resentment was one motivating factor in Smith's break with Roosevelt and the New Deal, Smith was consistent in his beliefs and politics. Finan (2003) argues Smith always believed in social mobility, economic opportunity, religious tolerance and individualism. Strangely enough, Smith and Eleanor Roosevelt remained close. In 1936, while Smith was in Washington making a vehement radio attack on the President, she invited him to stay at the White House. To avoid embarrassing the Roosevelts, he declined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Smith#Opposition_to_Roosevelt_and_the_New_Deal

[Recursion]

8. FDR was also critical of taxes and spending before he saw they worked

Hell, he ran in '32 on cutting taxes and spending and "getting government out of businesses' way". Why do you think Smith wouldn't have done something similar?

[Fearless]

10. If you really think this person would have had the same impact

As FDR there's really nothing more I have to say to you.

[stevenleser]

17. I think you are right about Smith vs FDR, but that doesn't apply now

Because the important condition of large Democratic majorities in congress will not exist in 2017 as it did in 1933 for the start of that administration. Quite the opposite, the GOP will have the House of Representatives through 2022 and probably through 2024.

[Fearless]

18. I tend to disagree. We can take back the House by 2018

If we elect a popular and vocal president. We will take back the Senate in 2016.

[stevenleser]

19. No, we can't. Redistricting has made sure of that. We 'won' the House elections in 2012 in terms

of the popular vote. We barely made a dent in the GOP majority.

After the elections of 2020, the state legislatures will redistrict. We need to win back state houses between now and then

[Fearless]

24. We'll see.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[stevenleser]

16. FDR had massive Democratic majorities in congress. Our next Dem POTUS will not

And in fact will have Republicans controlling one branch at least through their entire administration.

[BainsBane]

3. I chose no

in terms of policy, but I do think matters of competence and temperament could conceivably create different outcomes in crisis situations, and even in legislation. For example, the ability to work with congress could make the difference between successful and failed legislative efforts.

[JI7]

5. in terms of working with a republican congress i do think the republicans would be more willing

to work with a non black/minority president. maybe not some major issues where there are real differences but there are some things which i think they would have easily supported if the president had been white regardless of party.

[Scootaloo]

6. A tentative yes

First, yeah, I acknowledge that getting through a do-nothing congress is going to present a severe challenge for any of hte candidates.

So the question is...

Sanders: Pushes for "hard" progressive legislation. Runs agound on do-nothing congress more often than not, but does get some successes. Will nominate solidly liberal justices, no matter how much time it takes to get them confirmed.

Clinton: Will strive for bipartisanship with a reactionary, mostly-insane congress. Predictable results. Will most likely seek for approvability over quality in SCOTUS picks.

O'Malley: I honestly have no clue.

Chaffee: Pushes for a new national holiday - Pocket Protector Appreciation day. Garners initial success. Republican congress cuts original text, fills it with anti-Russia saber rattling and paranoia about government takeover of Utah. Chaffee doesn't reed, signs it anyway. Spends rest of term converting White House architecture to metric. capital moved back to Philadelphia until dadaism becomes fashionable again. World peace achieved due to the move. Seated president hailed, Chaffee forgotten. poor Chaffee.

I know there was another guy running...: But I don't care.

[Recursion]

7. Chaffee has a certain nerdish charm, I admit

Sort of like the class wonk trying to run for prom king.

[Kalidurga]

31. Pocket Protector Appreciation day.

You totally nailed the Chaffee presidency. I think he is the nerdiest candidate I have ever seen. I like that about him he is quirky. I don't think it will make him a good president though.

[bettyellen]

36. I mostly agree with you- but like O Malley so far and think I trust Hillary

To pick better Supreme Court justices and hold out for them. (Over anyone else) And I know nothing about Chaffee, but my primary date is soo
late as to be inconsequential. I won't decide till I see them debate.
Ive seen much worse fields in my day.

[DanTex]

9. Not much in terms of legislation, because the limiting factor there will be the GOP.

But there are some areas, notably foreign policy, that depend more heavily on the executive branch. Bernie would probably be less aggressive militarily, although I think the "Hillary is a hawk" think is overblown. Neither one of them is going to start another big war.

[gollygee]

11. Not on some issues, but yes on others

Clinton is likely to keep going with the whole free-trade thing. She at least won't completely upset the current system the way Sanders would.

[kenn3d]

12. For consideration in this question

Excerpt from an opinion piece from this morning's Register~Guard:

"Sanders is not for sale; Clinton hired a former Monsanto lobbyist to run her campaign. Sanders is passionately anti-TPP; Clinton is an advocate of the secretly negotiated trade deal.

The progressives who are paying the most attention to the TPP and climate change are already on board with Sanders; #feelthebern is popular on Twitter.

Progressives who are busy working two jobs to make ends meet will recognize soon enough this one slim opportunity that Sanders offers. There is still a chance to save our species in the sixth extinction that accompanies the climate chaos and biosphere destruction of our present moment, as well as to avoid the slavery that is inevitable when transnational corporations complete their objective of creating a global court system with the power to overrule national and local governmental decisions."

Whole article here:
http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/33301396-78/sanders-the-only-chance-to-reverse-tpp-mess.html.csp

[stevenleser]

21. Even allowing for the meaningless rhetoric, none of that matters to the GOP members of congress. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Four years of hearings if Clinton gets elected. n/t

[djean111]

14. Exactly. I find it bizarre that some here evidently think Darrel Issa & Co. will just stop what

they are doing - Benghazi and emailgate - and play nice. They likely have a list of more things to "investigate" if Hillary does get elected. The only things they would work with her on would be stuff THEY want to do.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Eggzactly n/t

[mythology]

23. Do you think think they would act differently for

A different President?

Unfortunately republicans, particularly in the House, have no incentive to act like they are part of a functional government. Their constituents seem to prefer bat shit crazy.

[djean111]

26. I think they hate Hillary as much as they hate Obama. And they have a head start on hating Hillary,

what with the committees on Benghazi and emailgate. also I think Hillary's economic and social aims, IMO, of course, are more to the right than either Bernie or O'Malley, and I am uncomfortable with the thought that she would be "working" with the GOP; I want someone who at least starts out a lot further to the left.

I see absolutely no reason to stop supporting Bernie and start supporting another candidate. I don't feel that many here at DU will be doing that during the primaries. No matter how many lengthy OPs are telling us all to be "reasonable".

[stevenleser]

20. Would love to hear from folks voting "Yes" how they intend to get GOP congress to pass bills

We will at least have a GOP House through January 2023 because of redistricting. I've yet to hear anything regarding a credible plan to get Boehner or whoever would replace him to get his caucus to vote for bills by any elected Democratic President.

And no "He will use the bully pulpit to make them pass his bills" is not credible. GOP members of the house and senate are not impressed by speeches and they are safely ensconced in GOP dominated districts.

[99Forever]

22. You need a OH Hell YES category.

[moobu2]

25. Yes, Bernie Sanders wouldnt be able to get any policies through and

probably wouldn't even be able to get any nominations approved and a Sanders presidency would set the democratic party back for several election cycles and we'd end up with a much more extreme conservative federal court.

[djean111]

27. You think Hillary would do better? Issa has had his knives out for her for years. She would get

the same treatment as Obama, unless, of course, she wants to do something the GOP wants to do.

[moobu2]

29. I think Hillary could do as well

if not better than president Obama, yes. She's had a lot of experience fighting and winning against the Republicans and Bernie hasn't gotten anything accomplished really. The Republicans would eat Bernie alive.

[djean111]

30. Those Republicans are still trying to pin Benghazi on Hillary.

In any event, we shall see, right? I see no reason to stop supporting Bernie, and start supporting Hillary. None whatsoever.

[moobu2]

33. The Republicans haven't even begun to trash Bernie yet though

Matter of fact, most of them seem to like Bernie from what I've read. They certainly dont seem afraid of him at all.

[djean111]

35. So - you are saying it is not good that they like Bernie, and pointing out that they have not

attacked him. As negatives. The GOP will trash anybody. I believe Bernie has been in Congress long enough to know how things MAY go. No one here can really predict the future. I will stick with Bernie. Among other things, less baggage.

[moobu2]

37. I think they're liking him because he's

dividing the Democratic Party.

[djean111]

38. Ah. Well then, how about all the Hillary supporters throw their support to Bernie, and UNITE

the Democratic Party! Which, of course, is never the intent behind this stuff.
Also, the GOP is hilariously divided.

[Zorra]

28. 32 Years Before Marriage Equality, Bernie Sanders Fought For Gay Rights

But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you don’t have to go far back to find a time when they weren’t. And hey, we’re happy to have their evolved support.
snip----
Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton — an unpopular position then — a look back at Sanders’ political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.
snip----
But Sanders was unfazed. The following year he signed a resolution recommending that all levels of government support gay rights, and the year after that in 1985 (the same year then-president Reagan finally said the word ‘AIDS’ in public), he wrote:

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719

Bernie would go down in history right alongside FDR as the most effective POTUS ever.

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. Republican Control of Congress and control of Legislation means there will be little difference.

between programs. Republicans have shown that they will work to harm the US domestically and abroad rather than give a success to a Democratic President. Executive orders are limited in scope, and can be repealed the day a new President steps into office.

Though we have a chance at retaking the Senate. The House is beyond our reach before 2020, and won't change after that if Democrats do no regain control of governorships and statehouses.

There will be little to no difference in Supreme Court nominees. They pick their candidates from the same pool. I would be happy with anyone like those chosen by both President Clinton and President Obama.

The big difference will be in cabinet positions. Democratic and Republican Presidents tend to bring back people who served in earlier administrations or who worked them in State Office. Sander's would be least likely to do that. Clinton or Biden (if he chooses to run and win the nomination) would probably choose people who have worked for President Obama and President Clinton. O'Malley would bring people who worked for him as Governor.

Many of those choices will be cosmetic. Progressives will like the look of a Sanders Cabinet more than any other candidate. Whether or not they actually make a big difference will depend on how much control the executive branch has of any particular issue.

[Kalidurga]

34. I think what we are looking at here is not the impact a Democrat will have in office.

We need Sanders or O'Malley in office to get real change and it's not actually going to come from them. They both have asked for people to become more involved. We have to make an impact on how our representatives behave in office. We have to make the phone calls and use other pressure tactics and be involved in the process of governing. Bernie has done this very effectively from what I see on the ground. O'Malley has made some inferences to this as well, I don't see his ground game so I don't know what is going on there and I am not going to pretend to, I am just going to assume he is as capable at rallying the people that support him and even if he isn't, if he gets the nomination and he wins the difference between what he wants and what Sanders wants is a hair breadth away, so I am very comfortable in shifting my support if it comes down to that.