National Elections Thread

[dpareja]

Trump had the advantage of not having any political decisions burdening him. In four years he will have a four year political record and will be seen as a representative of the new "establishment". A different dynamic altogether.

Problem is Trump is good at deflecting the blame and getting people on his side.  Short of an impeachment-level offense, he could still win if he looks good in the debates.

Who do you think could match him face-to-face verbally?

There is at least one who did it in this campaign and who seems the most obvious choice right now.

.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.

Warren has three flaws: age (yes, Sanders is older now than she will be in four years, but men and women are judged differently on this), being a woman (the same sexism that came into play against Clinton will come into play against her), and her vacillation during the primaries, which soured a lot of progressives on her. It's probably better to go with somebody younger, like the people I've mentioned before: Grayson, Gabbard, Turner, or even Merkley, all of whom endorsed Sanders and will in four years be younger than even Clinton, never mind Trump, is now. (Even Brown will be, but he has a similar problem to Warren: he outright endorsed Clinton early on.) Warren would probably be more valuable as a surrogate from the day whichever progressive runs announces his or her campaign.

[SCarpelan]

Warren has three flaws: age (yes, Sanders is older now than she will be in four years, but men and women are judged differently on this), being a woman (the same sexism that came into play against Clinton will come into play against her), and her vacillation during the primaries, which soured a lot of progressives on her. It's probably better to go with somebody younger, like the people I've mentioned before: Grayson, Gabbard, Turner, or even Merkley, all of whom endorsed Sanders and will in four years be younger than even Clinton, never mind Trump, is now. (Even Brown will be, but he has a similar problem to Warren: he outright endorsed Clinton early on.) Warren would probably be more valuable as a surrogate from the day whichever progressive runs announces his or her campaign.

It's way too early to say what will happen during the next four years but I don't think most people will carry their grudge to her for that long. She is going to be one of the leaders of the opposition to Trump and that will gather a lot of goodwill for her among liberals. While age is an issue for women in other fields I don't think it matters in politics.

If she ever campaigns for president it will be interesting to see what her foreign policy line is. She has revealed herself to be pretty hawkish when it comes to Israel and that might reflect to the foreign policy in general. Depending on the situation and atmosphere that might either be a hindrance or a benefit for her.

[SCarpelan]

Aaaand after his discussion with Obama Trump says he might not kill Obamacare after all, just "amend" it. The key word here is "might".

We'll see if anything changes. If Trump forces the Republicans to change their plans it shows he truly is a wild card after all and is not content to play the part of a figurehead. In this case I will gladly eat crow. On the other hand, he avoided promising anything for certain and him being a slippery conman it's not a good sign. There is also the chance that it becomes a pattern that he keeps changing his mind constantly depending on who he has talked with last which would show he truly is just an easily influenced idiot.

[dpareja]

Aaaand after his discussion with Obama Trump says he might not kill Obamacare after all, just "amend" it. The key word here is "might".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmRr0p0K4kQ

On the other hand, McConnell wants to repeal it outright... and do you really think Trump would veto that?

[SCarpelan]

I would be very surprised if he did but I'm not counting the possibility out.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Aaaand after his discussion with Obama Trump says he might not kill Obamacare after all, just "amend" it. The key word here is "might".

We'll see if anything changes. If Trump forces the Republicans to change their plans it shows he truly is a wild card after all and is not content to play the part of a figurehead. In this case I will gladly eat crow. On the other hand, he avoided promising anything for certain and him being a slippery conman it's not a good sign. There is also the chance that it becomes a pattern that he keeps changing his mind constantly depending on who he has talked with last which would show he truly is just an easily influenced idiot.

Well he might be throwing a bone to the 67% of non college educated whites or the 41% of folks with incomes under $30,000 but nah, his concern for them will last...I dunno seconds, minutes. Is it still there?

Was it ever?

[dpareja]

Here's another scary thought: what happens in three years if Trump and his cronies think that they're going to get turfed out of office in 2020? (Or even in 2018 if they think they might lose the House or the Senate, though that's unlikely.) Trump has no respect for civil liberties, so does he start jailing his political opponents (like prospective Democratic candidates), jailing the press who cover him negatively, shooting protestors...

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Here's another scary thought: what happens in three years if Trump and his cronies think that they're going to get turfed out of office in 2020? (Or even in 2018 if they think they might lose the House or the Senate, though that's unlikely.) Trump has no respect for civil liberties, so does he start jailing his political opponents (like prospective Democratic candidates), jailing the press who cover him negatively, shooting protestors...

Well he's in office, a lot of people wrote that off as silly.

Not anymore.

[dpareja]

Here's an interesting little analysis I just did. I looked at the numbers as they currently are posted at The Green Papers (which aren't complete, but I doubt much would change), and decided to look at what would have happened if every state allocated its electoral votes proportionately. I looked at two methods: D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë.

Under the D'Hondt method of allocation:

Mr. Trump: 268
Sec. Clinton: 267
Gov. Johnson: 2 (1 each from California and Texas)
Mr. McMullin: 1 (Utah)

Under the Sainte-Laguë method:

Sec. Clinton: 264
Mr. Trump: 262
Gov. Johnson: 10 (2 from California, 1 each from Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Texas)
Mr. McMullin: 1 (Utah)
Dr. Stein: 1 (California)

[niam2023]

Here's another scary thought: what happens in three years if Trump and his cronies think that they're going to get turfed out of office in 2020? (Or even in 2018 if they think they might lose the House or the Senate, though that's unlikely.) Trump has no respect for civil liberties, so does he start jailing his political opponents (like prospective Democratic candidates), jailing the press who cover him negatively, shooting protestors...

Well he's in office, a lot of people wrote that off as silly.

Not anymore.

Do I still sound ridiculous for making the Nazi comparisons?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Here's another scary thought: what happens in three years if Trump and his cronies think that they're going to get turfed out of office in 2020? (Or even in 2018 if they think they might lose the House or the Senate, though that's unlikely.) Trump has no respect for civil liberties, so does he start jailing his political opponents (like prospective Democratic candidates), jailing the press who cover him negatively, shooting protestors...

Well he's in office, a lot of people wrote that off as silly.

Not anymore.

Do I still sound ridiculous for making the Nazi comparisons?

I never said you did, Trump was the candidate endorsed by the KKK and worshiped by /pol. The Nazis declared Trump to be their Fuhrer because they saw the comparison!

Yes race definitely played a part in this campaign, not in isolation from economic and social problems but anybody who wants to hand wave off critics of Trump as silly billies who'll call a lamppost racist if it's painted white are either deluding themselves or sleazily gas-lighting the rest of us!

[niam2023]

I just recall people on here saying I was being hysterical about it.

Just kind of seems to me like, second day of the Presidency, Pence could announce he's reforming the SS and the GOP in the senate and house would nod along and say what a wonderful conservative task force the SS was in World War II.

[SCarpelan]

There was very similar speculation flying around about G.W. Bush ten years ago during his second term.

[Cloud3514]

Every president or presidential candidate, at least in my lifetime, has been accused of being a fascist or the next Hitler. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and probably Bob Dole, Al Gore and John Kerry. The difference is that none of them pretended to not know who David Duke is instead of outright rejecting him, none of them suggested forcing Muslims to carry special identification or ran entirely on fear mongering. None of them were literally seig heiled on stage at their political conventions.

[TheUnknown]

Just came across this:  https://twitter.com/KStreetHipster/status/797250896619077632

"Republicans control:
SCOTUS
Senate
House
President
34/50 Governors
68/99 state legislative chambers
Full control of 33 state legislatures"

"Republicans only need 5 more state legislatures to have 3/4ths of all states. Then they can pass all the constitutional amendments they want"

The midterms are going to be extremely important.