Steve Landsburg and I Disagree About Politics
Steve thinks that Hillary Clinton should pick Jeb Bush as her VP, and that in so doing she would win in a landslide. I said in a comment: “I think if Hillary and Jeb were on the same ticket, Trump would quite plausibly tell people, “See folks? There’s no Dem vs. Rep. It’s the elites versus you. Let’s make America great again, they clearly don’t want me to upset their plans to screw you over.”” (I had first asked him to clarify if he personally wanted Clinton to beat Trump, and if so, why.)
To this Steve responded:
Bob Murphy (#92):
1) Yes, I would *VASTLY* prefer Clinton/Bush to Trump,for a variety of reasons. Key among them is, as you put it “minimizing mean square destruction”. Trump, if elected, is probably Berlusconi but plausibly Mussolini.
2) Another reason: With Trump in the White House, I think the most plausible scenario is that nobody in power opposes him from the right. The Republicans crumble and fall into line; the Democrats are delighted with his anti-trade pro-regulation pro-tax statism. With Hilary in the White House, there will be congressional opposition and, thank God, probable deadlock.
3) Yes, I’m sure that a Clinton/Bush ticket will fire up the Trump voters as you say, but I don’t see where it brings in any *new* Trump voters. At the same time, it gives the vast army of anti-Trump Republicans psychological cover for voting for a Democrat. So I think it locks up the election for Clinton.
In short: I’m saying that this would be both good strategy for Clinton and very good for the country. (Where “very good”, of course, is relative to the realistic alternatives, not to anything I’d design.)
Wow. I think Clinton vs. Trump is like getting the flu versus kicked in the crotch: I know what the flu is like, and it’s awful. I actually don’t know how bad getting kicked in the crotch would be, but it’s different. For sure I would prefer to receive neither.
But if I’m agnostic on who would be worse (largely because Trump is so unpredictable), I am quite sure that if Hillary Clinton picked Jeb Bush as her running mate, that Trump would win. He would pick up some votes, and there would be tons of Clinton voters who would stay home or vote Jill Stein. This would swamp, in my opinion, the number of Republicans that Clinton would gain. Indeed, there might be a rush of people to vote for Trump, once they see just how much we have a one party system right now, were the Clinton and Bush dynasties to formally unite on the same ticket.
Last thing: I hadn’t thought of the gridlock aspect, so Steve has a good point there. But, it’s hard to evaluate that point, when lots of people are complaining about Trump being so divisive that no one will work with him, and he won’t get anything accomplished.
“Key among them is, as you put it “minimizing mean square destruction”. Trump, if elected, is probably Berlusconi but plausibly Mussolini.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?postshare=9961468859608386&tid=ss_tw
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-us-clinton-calls-for-tougher-response-on-ukraine-syria/27235800.html
“I think the most plausible scenario is that nobody in power opposes him from the right. ”
-He’s saying this when all the establishment conservatives are opposing him from the left. And last time I heard, the previous two GOP presidents were wildly unpopular among Yankee elites.
“At the same time, it gives the vast army of anti-Trump Republicans psychological cover for voting for a Democrat.”
-No. #CruzCrew hates Clinton more than Trump, and Clinton/Bush more than Trump. Over 70% of the vote in the recent primaries was for the two so-called (not really) anti-establishment candidates.
I think a Bush pick would win Kasich voters, but would cause deep concern in left-wing circles.
“Key among them is, as you put it “minimizing mean square destruction”. Trump, if elected, is probably Berlusconi but plausibly Mussolini.”
washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?postshare=9961468859608386&tid=ss_tw
rferl.org/content/russia-us-clinton-calls-for-tougher-response-on-ukraine-syria/27235800.html
“I think the most plausible scenario is that nobody in power opposes him from the right. ”
-He’s saying this when all the establishment conservatives are opposing him from the left. And last time I heard, the previous two GOP presidents were wildly unpopular among Yankee elites.
“At the same time, it gives the vast army of anti-Trump Republicans psychological cover for voting for a Democrat.”
-No. #CruzCrew hates Clinton more than Trump, and Clinton/Bush more than Trump. Over 70% of the vote in the recent primaries was for the two so-called (not really) anti-establishment candidates.
I think a Bush pick would win Kasich voters, but would cause deep concern in left-wing circles.
“Establishment conservatives”
Delete your account
I’m a big fan of Congressional gridlock and I believe that, practically speaking, it is the most libertarian position one can hold.
Trump will inevitably face it because he.does not have the muscle to move the Republicans to act against their own principles (as opposed to Bush who strong-armed his party into passing Medicare drug coverage).
Clinton will not be able to move the Republicans because they don’t like or agree with her while the Democrats have ceased to be a real party.
The biggest problem with getting good legislation in the past has been the sitting president trying to build bridges. That is not going to happen with the current two candidates (regardless of running mates).
LOL “their principles”
Gridlock, my eye. Get ready for the flu and a barrage of kicks to the pills.
I’d like to propose a unique reason for voting for Hillary. This is based on my theory that libertarians should always vote for the candidate that is going to make the federal government look as bad as possible. The system is always going to produce a candidate that more or less follows the status quo. The question is, what will the perception be in the aftermath? So why not a black president, followed by a female, and then… wait for it … an LGBT (or two)? Throw Sanders in there as Clintons VP just to get that over and done with. We are going to suffer no matter what. Might as well let them play their game and then see how they deal with the backlash.The US federal government is a joke. The goal should be to expose that.
And following that same reasoning, Trump would be bad in the long run. Yes, the left and it’s PC world have run amok recently and yes, Trump will balance that out again (or appear to). Is that a good thing? I’m doubt it. The system is auto-correcting itself (or appearing to), giving us the impression that democracy is working.
What really confuses me are libertarians who try to reason out who the most effective candidate would be. If you were a slave electing your master, would you vote for the guy holding all the guns and whips? That can only be explained by stockholm syndrome.
warning: I don’t think you can predict anything and the above plan is as likely to fail as any other. That’s why I’ll never vote in a federal election and will continue to write and say these kinds of things until the day I die.
That ship has long since passed. Democrats have learned how to use their disasters as a tool to bludgeon their opponents. How much worse, for example, can you make Democrat-run cities? And, yet, poverty stricken inner cities are the lifeblood of Democratic voter turnout.
” This is based on my theory that libertarians should always vote for the candidate that is going to make the federal government look as bad as possible…The question is, what will the perception be in the aftermath? So why not a black president, followed by a female, and then… wait for it … an LGBT (or two)?”
Are you suggesting that a black president will necessarily be percieved as worse in the aftermath? And a woman? Are you suggesting that a gay president must necessarily expose the Government as a joke simply becasue they are gay?
If I have represented you thesis correctly, and it is correct, then it suggests a very deep and problematic malaise within the USA population.
Come on Harold try a little harder than that.
Take a wild guess what party and what ideology those Presidents will be of.
There’s a certain class of people Harold, that truly believes the government will finally work, if only a woman were in charge, or a black guy, or a homosexual, and so on. They’ll be quite shocked to learn they’re wrong.
I suspect Steve is a big believer in the median voter theorem and you’re not?
So we have had a Bush or Clinton as either president or vice president for 28 out of the last 36 years. Why would anyone be suspicious of a Clinton/Bush ticket? I think Steve greatly underestimates how loosely Dems are holdloosely Dems support Clinton. Ive seen Bernie supporters posting interest in Gary Johnson on FB feed. I think its a big leap to say Hillary would win if she chose Bush.
I am not opposing Hillary because I think she’ll be a one term president. I am not supporting her because she doesn’t need my help to win. Adding Jeb Bush wouldn’t either help nor hurt my desire to not help, even though I think they’re both awful. The only question is whether adding Jeb Bush helps with the support she’s hemorrhaging to Gary Johnson.