|
So let's assume for a moment that the election from here on plays out exactly the way that a boring wonk like Nate Silver thinks that it will. The polls aren't radically off, there's no October surprise, no major terrorism incident, no dramatic economic collapse. Trump gets no traction outside his base and whites don't turn out in significantly larger numbers than last time. The Democratic base shows up on election day and finally fulfills the dark pact Hilary struck with the Old Ones strange aeons ago. What do the next four years look like? I'm less interested in Hilary's specific policies, which I think we can reliably assume will be some mix of incremental progressivism plus a lot of corporate handouts, wars and lovely trade deals. I'm more interested in what happens to all the angry restive Bernouts and Trumpstaffel. The establishment faced a huge challenge this year: if it all comes to naught then what happens next? This is your thread to speculate wildly about just how much more insane the pressure cooker of American politics gets if both Trump and Bernie are shut out of power. Everyone's pissed, the economy is probably gonna fall off a cliff again, and Hilldawg is in the White House. What kind of bizare domestic political fallout can you imagine? Put another way, if Trump doesn't win (we'll just safely write off Col. Sanders at this point, I think his chicken is cooked) then what lasting impact might he and Bernie leave on the system, if any? Does the Establishment switch up its playbook, do either of the parties try to tap this new found energy, do new political movements appear on the scene? A few years ago do we look back on this election as a turning point, or just a really weird and brief interruption to our regularly scheduled programming?
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Imagine an american leftist (take a pick out of the 20 or so). They made a bunch of Trump = Hitler, and Trump = monkey signs. Those signs are now in the trash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
It's not like she has "start a war" on a notepad somewhere and she's just waiting to put a check mark next to it on day 1, she's just more willing to use military force to solve problems that don't have a diplomatic solution than some of the other contenders for El Presidente. You're never gonna talk the Norks down off that ledge, it's ignore them, hope sanctions magically start working and hope they're just bullshitting about that nuke or bomb the poo poo out of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
*farts* This is too hard, darn Republicans! *farts*
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYKupOsaJmk
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Her time in office would closely resemble the elder Bush years, or maybe Ronald Reagan's terms with different pandering techniques.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
its the obama presidency + a new war in the middle east
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
You also have to remember that Trump would still have a large, angry mob of supporters at his command if he loses
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
In terms of what the left will look like , I think it'll come down to what kind of ground game gets set up. I listened to an episode of Majority Report that had Luke Mayville on, he wrote an article comparing FDR's American-style 'freedom' centered rhetoric versus Bernie's Euro-style 'fairness'. It's a good article. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/bernie-sanders-new-deal-liberal Him and Michael Brooks have a pretty good convo as to what kind of candidate he is, they both agreed he can be seen as a Goldwater-type of candidate who can lay the groundwork for a longer-lasting ground game that is not dependent on electoral cycles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAMBCXKh-2g Also, think there's a good chance 2020 could be bad for the Killer Ds
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
LegoPirateNinja posted:its the obama presidency + a new war in the middle east correct answer
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Honest answer: probably a continuation of the stonewalling we've been seeing the last 8 years with even more flash and fervor. Republicans are willing to pull any shot at this point, as they've shown the party can continue regardless of it's actions through 2020 at least. Very likely the GOP will successfully create the narrative that Hillary is even worse than Obama and the majority of Americans will eat it up, continuing the social shift to the Right as government shifts ever-so-slightly Left. Meanwhile Hillary will be more moderate than Obama, giving further support to corporations and things like legal arbitration will continue. Citizens United may be struck down as a show of solidarity with the middle class, but I would be shocked to see a tax structure that actually works to balance our current '1%' issues. I also doubt we'll see the corrections Obamacare could use, as Hillary's gone counter to the desire for a single-payer system. Hillary will have to force through any real decisions, will be successfully blamed for all of America's current and future problems, and if she wins in 2020 this will continue through to 2024 which will echo 2016 and 2008. Essentially, nothing matters. Atoramos has issued a correction as of 19:15 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:You also have to remember that Trump would still have a large, angry mob of supporters at his command if he loses I actually think this is the way more interesting question. I just kind of assume Clinton will deliver the same mix of plutocracy and milquetoast token liberalism that Obama, Clinton I and Carter have been offering up ever since the 1970s. I'm honestly more interested in what happens to the Tea Party, the Sanderistas, the Trumpers, etc. The last Clinton presidency gave us the militia movement. Obama gave us both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. What kind of strident angry populist monstrosity will Clinton midwife into existence? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:You also have to remember that Trump would still have a large, angry mob of supporters at his command if he loses I don't think they will be a factor. People are always upset when they lose, but nobody pays attention to the losing party's shenanigans because the people have spoken through an election. Trump's shenanigans have weight now because he's winning primaries and people are trying to ratfuck him out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I actually think this is the way more interesting question. I just kind of assume Clinton will deliver the same mix of plutocracy and milquetoast token liberalism that Obama, Clinton I and Carter have been offering up ever since the 1970s. I'm honestly more interested in what happens to the Tea Party, the Sanderistas, the Trumpers, etc. Of course, there's not a single chance in hell that Clinton will beat Trump in the fall. She will lose miserably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Endless outsourcing and foreverwar
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I don't think they will be a factor. People are always upset when they lose, but nobody pays attention to the losing party's shenanigans because the people have spoken through an election. Trump's shenanigans have weight now because he's winning primaries and people are trying to ratfuck him out of it. Nah, McCain/Palin's rise and fall is what really led to the Tea Party. Trump will almost certainly leave a wake in our society, especially if he's the general nominee as seems to be the case. Vitalis Jackson posted:Of course, there's not a single chance in hell that Clinton will beat Trump in the fall. She will lose miserably. I think the general will be a wild, raucous ride that will change social discourse for the foreseeable future, just like McCain/Palin was. I think there's a real chance either candidate can win, and saying Clinton has no chance against Trump is myopic. Atoramos has issued a correction as of 19:19 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:You also have to remember that Trump would still have a large, angry mob of supporters at his command if he loses The Malheur Refuge occupation is a good indicator that (a) that mob is made up of people who won't do poo poo outside of a few die hards (b) the entire mob is dumber than poo poo and law enforcement will be able to run circles around them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I don't think they will be a factor. People are always upset when they lose, but nobody pays attention to the losing party's shenanigans because the people have spoken through an election. Trump's shenanigans have weight now because he's winning primaries and people are trying to ratfuck him out of it. I can see Trump saying to his supporters "go to Hillary's rallies and stand up for America!" and then the violence starts. Not that anyone wants to go to Hillary rallies now to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Endless outsourcing and foreverwar
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Not much different
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
As a leftist, I see a lot of good to look forward to here. Just a few examples: Further federal oversight of police, de-escalation of militarized police, body cameras, an end to the era of mass incarceration, and the lopsided criminal justice system: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...and.single.html Which she has an incentive to act on because it would differentiate her from Bill Clinton: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-criminal-justice-plan-reverse-bills-policies-117488 A plan to lower the cost of prescription drugs: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-prescription-drugs-health-care-213910 A $10 billion plan to stop the abuse of opioids and heroin in America (a rampant epidemic): http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/09/04/3698585/a-deeper-look-inside-hillary-clintons-plan-to-tackle-the-substance-abuse-epidemic/ An enormous and hugely necessary proposal to beef up infrastructure spending/create an infrastructure bank: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/hillary-clintons-modest-infrastructure-proposal/418068/ Automatic voter registration (!!!), restoring parts of the Voting Rights Act, more early voting opportunities: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-calls-for-automatic-voter-registration-1433449800 And a reasonable, more measured approach to raising the minimum wage: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/15/hillary_clinton_was_right_on_minimum_wage_and_her_rivals_were_wrong.html This is far from a worst case scenario. Heck, if she even got just one of these things through I'd be pretty happy. Can't be much worse at politics than B. Obama
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Vitalis Jackson posted:Of course, there's not a single chance in hell that Clinton will beat Drumpf in the fall. She will lose miserably. Drumpfer is at -67 among women. Highest negatives of any candidate ever. Just trot women out there to read quotes by him like that Romney PAC did, just use different actresses. He's done. If that doesn't work, play his Mexican quotes. You want to motivate a demographic, run somebody they hate. He's toast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I can see Trump saying to his supporters "go to Hillary's rallies and stand up for America!" and then the violence starts. Trump may act like he's legally invincible from claims like 'Inciting violence' but if his statements are shown to directly lead to someone's death we could see an actual attempt to arrest him. Mind you, I expect that too would turn into a shitshow. dorkasaurus_rex posted:As a leftist, I see a lot of good to look forward to here. Perhaps I'm jaded from Obama's presidency, but I don't see Hillary ever being further to the Left than Obama, and I doubt her ability or desire to pass meaningful policy decisions like (some of) these. Time may prove me wrong, and I truly hope it does, but my expectations are for Hillary to be to Obama's Right while claiming to be to his Left. Atoramos has issued a correction as of 19:32 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:A plan to lower the cost of prescription drugs: Capping your drug costs at $3000/year isn't going to fix poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
menino posted:Drumpfer is at -67 among women. Highest negatives of any candidate ever. Just trot women out there to read quotes by him like that Romney PAC did, just use different actresses. He's done. If that doesn't work, play his Mexican quotes. You want to motivate a demographic, run somebody they hate. He's toast. There is no more highly motivated group than Trumpsters. They're not socially adept enough in many cases to do caucuses, but they can sure go vote. On the other hand, good luck to Hillary with all of those older white women voting. She will leave many, many voters painfully behind. The real tragedy will be how Hillary's poor voter turnout will translate into congressional races. She's more damaging to Democrats than Trump is to Republicans, but the media (General Electric, Disney, etc.) isn't discussing that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Capping your drug costs at $3000/year isn't going to fix poo poo Letting the government negotiate the cost of prescription drugs absolutely will, which ironically both Hillary and Trump agree on, and has been a liberal pipe dream for years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Vitalis Jackson posted:
 They're probably the demographic with highest turnout. Is this a joke?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
She'll be basically Obama 2.0 and the situation will gradually get better because the right wing can't keep crying wolf about the liberals ending America and setting up death camps forever. Demographics will continue to swing against them, what the GOP do about it is up to them. GOP will probably introduce new rules to remove WTA from their primary process. Edit: you don't win points for motivation in the election. Fervour like trumpers show is actually alienating. Hillary will pick up the quiet majority of status quo voters. It'll be 2012 all over again. Fangz has issued a correction as of 19:37 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
if Hillary literally only gets automatic voter registration to secure her own re-election and defends the Obama status quo 100% after that she will still be one of America's greatest presidents in my book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:As a leftist, I see a lot of good to look forward to here. actually none of these
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Letting the government negotiate the cost of prescription drugs absolutely will, which ironically both Hillary and Trump agree on, and has been a liberal pipe dream for years. Oh hey, guess who takes more money from Pharma companies than any other candidate? http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/257234-clinton-brings-in-most-big-pharma-money-of-2016-field quote:Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has received more campaign cash from drug companies than any candidate in either party, even as she proudly declares the industry is one of her biggest enemies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
menino posted:
I don't think Vitalis actually has a reasonable view of things. Trump may have an energetic base, but his struggle to put the threat of contested convention behind him shows how meager the base really is. He has a chance, but I think the likeliest result is a blowout in favor of Clinton. Fangz posted:She'll be basically Obama 2.0 and the situation will gradually get better because the right wing can't keep crying wolf about the liberals ending America and setting up death camps forever. Why not? It's worked for 8 years straight and with a Clinton administration will work just fine for another 8. Demographics may shift, but that didn't prevent a conservative 2012 and might not prevent the same in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
something like this 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
An executive action rescinding the 2nd amendment followed by a civil war that ends with working class whites being enslaved to wall street as "reparations" for slavery. Illegal immigrants who fought for the plutocrats will win their citizenship. Upper class liberals will applaud this progressive victory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:An executive action rescinding the 2nd amendment followed by a civil war that ends with working class whites being enslaved to wall street as "reparations" for slavery. So everyone's going to get a 401k?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Atoramos posted:Why not? It's worked for 8 years straight and with a Clinton administration will work just fine for another 8. Demographics may shift, but that didn't prevent a conservative 2012 and might not prevent the same in 2016. Define worked. GOP favourability's fallen like a stone while Democratic favourability isn't shifting. http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/republican-party-favorability/ http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/republican-party-favorability/ While Democratic affiliation is pretty much static, former GOP voters are rebranding themselves as 'independent'. The net result of all that rhetoric is that there's not much shift in the democratic vote while republican voters don't trust anyone any more. This is a losing strategy. http://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-voters-are-changing-politics Fangz has issued a correction as of 19:49 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:44
|
|