How are the Republicans going to frame the debate in 2016?

[NobleSavage]

The Democrats have settled on income inequality. Will the Republicans accept this frame and offer a different solution or will they come up with their own line of division?

 

[braces_for_impact]

A negro in every home and a Mexican in every yard?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They will continue to double down on race. They do not understand the problem of income equality.

 

[boneyard bill]

The Democrats have settled on income inequality. Will the Republicans accept this frame and offer a different solution or will they come up with their own line of division?

Considering how much income inequality has increased under Obama, I don't see why the Republicans wouldn't want to take up that debate with alacrity. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. David Brat used the corporate cronyism with great effect in his campaign, but I fear that most Republicans will avoid that issue because they are as much in league with corporate America as the Democrats are. I could see Rand Paul taking it up very cautiously but not anyone else. Ted Cruz is in a good position to use it, but his wife works for Goldman Sachs, and he's been cozying up to Wall Street as much as he can so I don't see anything like that coming from his direction.

Republicans will probably focus on repealing Obamacare. I expect a fight between the hard-liners who want to push for repeal and the pragmatists who want to deal. I think plenty of Democrats would be willing to accept significant reforms, and they could push the issue to the point where Obama would have to embrace the idea or risk getting his veto over-ridden. Republican pragmatists will understand that if you repeal Obamacare, you will lose the votes of all of those who are now getting subsidized care. So the solution would be reform in which the subsidies were retained. This is doable but the hard-liners on the Republican side would have to get on board.

However, I don't think that will be front and center in the debate. We are headed for another big economic downturn. I expect that to happen before the end of Obama's term and probably before the next election. So the real issue will be jobs and recovery and especially the budget and how to maintain entitlement spending as much as possible as the downturn will collapse government revenue at both the federal and state levels. More borrowing will not be an option as foreign nations are no longer buying US debt and the domestic savings is virtually zero. So it will come down to a combination of budgetary restraints and money printing. There are no good answers to situations like these so it will be interesting to see how creative the politicians can be in suggesting changes that are even plausible.

The debate cannot help but spill over into foreign policy as well. Can we really afford 10,000 troops in Afghanistan? Do we really need 150 military bases overseas? Look for at least a significant number of hawks to turn into doves.

 

[Jayjay]

The debate cannot help but spill over into foreign policy as well. Can we really afford 10,000 troops in Afghanistan? Do we really need 150 military bases overseas? Look for at least a significant number of hawks to turn into doves.

I wouldn't bet on that. In two years, ISIS is still very likely to be an issue, and I think Ukraine will still be in recent memory.

 

[Derec]

They will continue to double down on race. They do not understand the problem of income equality.

It is Democrats like Hagen (comparing possible impeachment of a half-black president to lynchings) that play the race card much more than Republicans.

 

[doubtingt]

The Republican message for 2014 is...

"ISIS ....scary"

"Ebola ....scary"

That has been the depth of their dialogue for about 40 years, so I expect the same depth of dialogue from them in 2016.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They will continue to double down on race. They do not understand the problem of income equality.

It is Democrats like Hagen (comparing possible impeachment of a half-black president to lynchings) that play the race card much more than Republicans.

They can play it as the Republicans are actively trying to disenfranchise minorities. Which may backfire into more minorities voting.

 

[Sarpedon]

I think that with no clear republican favorite, they will once again have trouble arriving at any sort of coherent message, and will probably rely on their old standbys of misogyny, anti-socialism, race and gay baiting.

 

[doubtingt]

They do not understand the problem of income equality.

To clarify, Republicans understand income inequality, which is why they are so good at intentionally increasing it. They just don't feel that any of the problems that it causes are problems they should care about. Their rhetoric that makes it appear as though the don't understand is just a red herring to distract from the fact that they do not care. It is much like climate change and many other areas of science where they make arguments that suggest lack of understanding of cause-effect relations, but its really about a lack of caring about the negative outcomes that their policies cause.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How are the Republicans going to frame the debate in 2016?

As a fight for truth, justice and the Obama is the source of all evil way.

 

[Ford]

Let's not forget the GOP's penchant for turning logic on it's head. After all, these are the people who act like being a white, Christian male confers upon one a persecuted minority status.

Assuming they take back the Senate, they'll nevertheless run on a platform of "the government is broken" (even though they control 2 branches).

They'll frame the race as one between "Washington insiders" and themselves, despite the fact that they're running the show as far as money and lobbying influence goes.

They'll promise to fix the terrible economy - even though despite their best efforts it has been slowly improving ever since Obama took office.

They'll argue against Obama's interventionist foreign policy, despite the fact that he wrapped up two of the longest wars in American history and brought most of the troops who were fighting them back home.

And of course, they'll promise to lower our already low taxes, arguing that the burden on our stricken economy (the Dow should be near 20 thousand by then) is simply too great to bear.


Oh, and at the risk of "playing the race card" here, I predict that upon the GOP debate dais will be the likes of Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Ben Carson, giving the Republicans the chance to claim that they're the stalwart defenders of diversity.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The Democrats have settled on income inequality. Will the Republicans accept this frame and offer a different solution or will they come up with their own line of division?

Hillary sucks.

 

[boneyard bill]

The debate cannot help but spill over into foreign policy as well. Can we really afford 10,000 troops in Afghanistan? Do we really need 150 military bases overseas? Look for at least a significant number of hawks to turn into doves.

I wouldn't bet on that. In two years, ISIS is still very likely to be an issue, and I think Ukraine will still be in recent memory.

So will our utter failure to deal with issues intelligibly. If these issues are still unresolved in two years then what, exactly, IS the point of our foreign policy?

 

[boneyard bill]

I think that with no clear republican favorite, they will once again have trouble arriving at any sort of coherent message, and will probably rely on their old standbys of misogyny, anti-socialism, race and gay baiting.

Old standbys? What planet are you living on? Democrats like you are living in denial. The primary issues that Republicans have raised are significant issues. Frankly, I usually disagree with their positions, but nonetheless balancing budget, dealing with entitlements for the long term, national security, and social issues are all quite relevant. Republicans capture the majority of married women. There goes the misogyny issue. When do Democrats ever dare to run on a platform of socialism? They don't even claim to be liberals these days. Democrats raise the race issue far more often than Republicans. Even making absurd claims like "cutting taxes is racism." Opposition to gay marriage is not anti-gay. It is a legitimate issue that deserves to be discussed, but the gay vote is miniscule anyway so it isn't going to affect elections very much.

 

[boneyard bill]

They do not understand the problem of income equality.

To clarify, Republicans understand income inequality, which is why they are so good at intentionally increasing it. They just don't feel that any of the problems that it causes are problems they should care about. Their rhetoric that makes it appear as though the don't understand is just a red herring to distract from the fact that they do not care. It is much like climate change and many other areas of science where they make arguments that suggest lack of understanding of cause-effect relations, but its really about a lack of caring about the negative outcomes that their policies cause.

Is there any president in our history who has income inequality increase more in his term than Obama? I don't think so. Democrats trying to run on this issue is absolutely laughable.

 

[boneyard bill]

Let's not forget the GOP's penchant for turning logic on it's head. After all, these are the people who act like being a white, Christian male confers upon one a persecuted minority status.

Assuming they take back the Senate, they'll nevertheless run on a platform of "the government is broken" (even though they control 2 branches).

They'll frame the race as one between "Washington insiders" and themselves, despite the fact that they're running the show as far as money and lobbying influence goes.

They'll promise to fix the terrible economy - even though despite their best efforts it has been slowly improving ever since Obama took office.

They'll argue against Obama's interventionist foreign policy, despite the fact that he wrapped up two of the longest wars in American history and brought most of the troops who were fighting them back home.

And of course, they'll promise to lower our already low taxes, arguing that the burden on our stricken economy (the Dow should be near 20 thousand by then) is simply too great to bear.


Oh, and at the risk of "playing the race card" here, I predict that upon the GOP debate dais will be the likes of Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Ben Carson, giving the Republicans the chance to claim that they're the stalwart defenders of diversity.

I really have a hard time taking posts like the seriously, and yet most of the stuff posted here is just like this. Do any of you guys get any information from someplace other than MSNBC?

 

[Ford]

Is there any president in our history who has income inequality increase more in his term than Obama? I don't think so. Democrats trying to run on this issue is absolutely laughable.

Is it your position that Obama is actually trying to increase income inequality?


If so, then it would help the rest of us if you could point to those policies which he has enacted to exacerbate this problem.

 

[boneyard bill]

Is there any president in our history who has income inequality increase more in his term than Obama? I don't think so. Democrats trying to run on this issue is absolutely laughable.

Is it your position that Obama is actually trying to increase income inequality?


If so, then it would help the rest of us if you could point to those policies which he has enacted to exacerbate this problem.

What immediately comes to mind is his re-appointment of Ben Bernanke and subsequent appointment of Janet Yellen as Chairs of the Federal Reserve Board since their policies have probably done the most to increase income inequality during his tenure. But even before he took office, he endorsed and lobbied for the ill-advised TARP bail-out, and he has enacted something in the neighborhood of 15,000 new executive orders which have greatly increased regulation beyond all reason. Then there's Dodd/Frank which is another regulatory monstrosity. And there's the bail-out of GM and Chrysler. His support for renewal of Import/Export bank is crony capitalism as is his support for continued increases in defense spending. He has shown far more concern for bankers and big businesses than for ordinary Americans.

 

[Ford]

Is it your position that Obama is actually trying to increase income inequality?


If so, then it would help the rest of us if you could point to those policies which he has enacted to exacerbate this problem.

What immediately comes to mind is his re-appointment of Ben Bernanke and subsequent appointment of Janet Yellen as Chairs of the Federal Reserve Board since their policies have probably done the most to increase income inequality during his tenure.

Okay. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that Bernanke is a student of his libertarian predecessor and Yellen is an apple that hasn't fallen far from that tree, can you point to which fed policies have led to greater income inequality? More to the point, can you explain how this was done deliberately to increase inequality?


I'll wait.

But even before he took office...

Wow. You're seriously suggesting that Obama's views before he took office have exacerbated income inequality?