The American political system has become even more dysfunctional than Linz and Stepan theorized. They only consider electorally-generated veto players. Although they acknowledge that, they omit key impediments to the legislative process. Veto players can manifest in non-electoral factors. Consider that the Senate, which is already malapportioned, now requires a qualified majority for motions of procedure; the prospects of passing legislation decline significantly. Despite having solid majorities in the 111th Congress, the Democrats struggled to pass major legislation because of Republican obstruction. With a unified government, the number of veto players should effectively decrease. But that failed to happen. Reform is essential for a functional government, but it is highly unlikely.
If it's this close already, our only hope is for the Republicans to idiotically nominate one of the lesser candidates. This could be 1952 all over again for Democrats.
I don't think it was a given but the FCC calling for a hearing seems the nail in the coffin.
No fucks given confirmed
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...aid-to-strike-different-tone-toward-gays.html
Isn't Cruz supposed to introduce a bill to the Senate that would prevent SCOTUS from hearing marriage cases?
I thought that was King in the House.
Cruz said he wanted to introduce King's bill.
If I remember right he's actually got a pretty decent voting record. I think he voted for McCain fiengold too and a bunch of other nominations
I care because he's the only (former) Supreme Court Justice I've ever met, and he's from where I'm from...
They're also more electable. Primaries are a tug of war between purity and electability, and if Romney wasn't ideologically pure enough for Republican primary voters at least he could point to polls showing he'd fare best against Obama; Jeb can't even do that. Nearly every poll is showing Rubio, Paul and even Walker are faring better against Hillary nationally and in key states. And Republicans increasingly think they've lost the last two elections because they chose too moderate a candidate. Add to that Bush's ability to single-handedly take all of Hillary's negatives off the table (Third term Obama? Third term Bush; Figure of the past? Bush III v. 1st Woman President; Out of Touch? Even more so) it's hard to see how he can claim he's the strongest in a general election.
The media will play along too
Bush has been out of office for eight years. He skipped the presidential elections in 2008 and 2012. And unlike previous candidates who consolidated establishment support early in the nomination process, he has not made the effort to establish a national network of support. His familial connections can only carry him so far. Moreover, I don't think he has a general electoral advantage. And I suspect most party insiders would accept Rubio or Walker as the nominee. So there is no reason for party insiders to flock to him this early. Cohen et al. have the best take on the invisible primary. According to their analysis, party insiders occasionally struggle to form a consensus. So when the party struggles to coalesce around a candidate, they wait for someone to differentiate themselves. I suspect most Republican insiders will wait to see how the electorate responds to the candidates before making a decision. If I were a Republican, I'd wait.