Year: 2016

So, the media, and the American people, got played. All this talk of softening, of a pivot, was pure grade A horseshit, from only the best and most beautiful horses. Trump did three things yesterday. He wilted like a coward in front of an adversary who told him in no uncertain terms that he can stick his demand that Mexico pay for his wall up where the sun don't shine. And then he lied about being coward to the American people, because, bullies who are revealed as cowards don't like to admit it. And then he doubled down on mass deportation gestapo force in a crazed racist speech in Phoenix last night. Donald Trump “made his immigration policies clear: Mexico will fund an impenetrable, beautiful border wall, and the Republican presidential nominee’s administration will begin its construction on the first day of his presidency,” Politico reports. Said Trump: “On Day One, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall. We will use the best technology, including above and below ground sensors. That’s the tunnels. Remember that. Above and below. Above and below ground sensors. Towers. Aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall. Find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels and Mexico will work with us. I really believe it. Mexico will work with us. I absolutely believe it.” “Trump outlined other planks of his policy position, including a promise to return all detained undocumented people to their home countries and zero tolerance for immigrants who commit crimes. It amounted to a massive deportation program.” He noted: “You can call it deported if you want. The press doesn’t like that term. You can call it whatever the hell you want. They’re gone.”

Josh Marshall didn't think Trump could be this stupid, regarding making the trip to Mexico:

This is such an outlandish idea it is not easy to make sense of it or predict its outcome. But a few key points are worth bearing in mind. It's a general rule of politics not to enter into unpredictable situations or cede control of an event or happening to someone who wants to hurt you. President Nieto definitely does not want Donald Trump to become President. He probably assumes he won't become president, simply by reading the polls. President Nieto is himself quite unpopular at the moment. But no one is more unpopular than Donald Trump. Trump is reviled. Toadying to Trump would be extremely bad politics; standing up to him, good politics. Put those factors together and Peña Nieto has massive and overlapping reasons to want to embarrass Trump. At a minimum since he's probably not eager to create a true international incident, he has zero interest in appearing in any way accommodating or helpful. The calculus might be different if Trump seemed likely to be the next US President. Mexico is a minor power with the world colossus on its doorstep. But a Trump presidency seems unlikely. Far likelier, Peña Nieto will need to build a relationship with Hillary Clinton. These factors combined make for an inherently dangerous political situation for Donald Trump, especially since the atmospherics of this meeting will be the backdrop for Trump's evening speech which is itself an incredibly important moment and one in which he has set for himself what is likely an impossible challenge.

There was news that the Republicans are already plotting their schemes to obstruct President Hillary Clinton's plans for her first 100 days, and they plan to deny she has any mandate to govern. Jonathan Chait goes LOL, and says mandates are meaningless.

A mandate is an archaic holdover from the bygone age of weak, ideologically heterogeneous parties. Crossing the aisle was common, so if Washington believed that a president had run on a clear agenda, Congress might feel some added moral pressure to pass it. (This happened in 1981, when the Democratic-controlled House enacted Ronald Reagan’s economic program.) In other words, the mandate is a political norm, a broadly if not perfectly shared sense of how politics ought to be conducted. Like most 20th-century American political norms — “filibusters should only be used rarely,” “the president has a right to fill Supreme Court vacancies with somebody qualified and not too extreme” — it is disappearing. The negative mandate of George W. Bush’s 2000 popular-vote defeat did not discourage him or his party from passing the largest tax cut they could; neither of Barack Obama’s clear victories gave Republicans any pause in opposing the policies he ran on. The obsession with a mandate, in which the style and scope of a Clinton victory has crucial ramifications, complicates what is actually a simple series of binary questions. If Democrats control only the presidency next year, Clinton will direct foreign policy and implement federal regulations. If her party adds the Senate, she will also have the ability to nominate judges to open seats. If Democrats win the above plus the House of Representatives, they will be able to pass major legislation for two years (after which Republicans would almost certainly regain their House majority during the midterms). Clinton’s “mandate” is irrelevant. All that matters is the levers of power she commands.

Take over Congress. Go nuclear on the filibuster rule, eliminating all holds and requiring the Senator to stand there until they die in order to filibuster a bill. And then pass your agenda with your majority. That is how you govern in this new order. Fuck mandates. Hillary could win all 50 states and the GOP will declare her an illegitimate President because 1) she is a woman and 2) she only beat Trump.