|
I can't accept your assumption of no major economic slowdown without comment: The US economy is still way over-financialized, and there are still some real troubles in China brewing, plus there's still a lot of fundamental problems with the tech boom that's starting to unravel. I doubt Hillary is going to do anything to change that course, to prevent that kind of thing, because she represent those financial interests more than the country as a whole. If this happens under a Hillary presidency, it'll hit the democrats favorability hard, now and into the future. Somewhat unfairly as well, since the GOP may still have both houses. Assuming that doesn't burst, I think the establishment in both parties have been really scared by this populist surge. Literally the only thing that saved Clinton was the black vote, and the only thing that saved the GOPe from Trump was Hillary. Thing is, I see the democrats establishment as much more likely to put their foot down than the republican establishment. Psychologically, and you can see this in the debates, right-wingers by and large people follow the loudest voice, regardless of its intelligence or ethics. Trump and people like him have the ability to literally intimidate the establishment into doing what they want, because the establishment don't have a backbone. Look at what people like Chris Christie did, and you see exactly what I mean. He was one of the GOP's biggest loudmouths, but he doesn't have any conviction behind that. Dem establishment won't do that to the Sanderistas, they'll form ranks and kick them out. Both because Bernie wasn't nearly aggressive enough, and the Sanderistas aren't (but should) be be a lot more aggressive then they are, but that there's that moneyed opposition to motivate them that ultimately isn't there with Trump. They're likely to remain in power. This means that the populist wave will go right, combine that with a dem president under a financial crisis, and we have a real serious problem in the US. Literally the only people that can stop it are the Sanderistas, and only if they really mobilize.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
rudatron posted:I can't accept your assumption of no major economic slowdown without comment: The US economy is still way over-financialized, and there are still some real troubles in China brewing, plus there's still a lot of fundamental problems with the tech boom that's starting to unravel. I doubt Hillary is going to do anything to change that course, to prevent that kind of thing, because she represent those financial interests more than the country as a whole. If this happens under a Hillary presidency, it'll hit the democrats favorability hard, now and into the future. Somewhat unfairly as well, since the GOP may still have both houses. lolwut
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I can't accept your assumption of no major economic slowdown without comment: The US economy is still way over-financialized, and there are still some real troubles in China brewing, plus there's still a lot of fundamental problems with the tech boom that's starting to unravel. I doubt Hillary is going to do anything to change that course, to prevent that kind of thing, because she represent those financial interests more than the country as a whole. If this happens under a Hillary presidency, it'll hit the democrats favorability hard, now and into the future. Somewhat unfairly as well, since the GOP may still have both houses. The only assumption I'm making is that the next financial crisis, recession or what have you doesn't happen before November 2016, not that we somehow get through the next 8 years without any kind of downturn. I'm also not sure I entirely agree with your analysis that Trump won over a large swath of the GOP by simply being the loudest voice in the room. I think he genuinely speaks to opinions that pollsters have been registering for decades. While I think that Trump's style certainly helped him distinguish himself and get him a lot of earned media, I would mostly explain his rise through the primary by referencing objective economic conditions rather than some propensity for authoritarianism within the conservative psychology (which isn't to say that such a propensity doesn't exist). I do agree, though, that in some ways the Democratic establishment is more directly threatened by the Sanderistas than the GOP is threatened by the Trumpstaffel. Trump has some unorthodox opinions but ultimately he's just one man. He isn't building any kind of durable movement, his followers aren't developing institutions that will survive beyond his campaign. He has identified some contradictions between the opinions of the GOP base and the GOP elites on trade, and he's probably made it harder for the GOP to pivot on immigration, but once he's gone it's really not clear that anyone would be able to recreate his campaign in the future. Sanders, by contrast, may have actually built some kind of permanent progressive infrastructure. Perhaps his followers will fold back into the amorphous mass of the Democratic party, but there's at least a chance that they remain and try to steer the party further to the left. An interesting test will be this primary challenge against Debbie Wasserman Schultz. If she actually gets successfully primaried then maybe there's some hope for the Sanderista's to leave their mark. But if that movement losses steam as soon as Sanders campaign ends -- if the Sanderistas just fold back into the Democratic party and become loyal footsoldiers for Clinton and the establishment, then it will be hard not to conclude that the Sanders movement was just another flash in the pan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Immortan posted:lolwut About the economic stuff, oh okay, but it's of course not a sure thing to happen in the next 8 years either, but I get it, so long as we're on the same page here. But when you say that Trump hasn't built a movement while Sanders has, I'm not so sure. Neither of them have directly involved themselves in that process, in both cases the respective movements have been spontaneous formations, that are often more extreme than the candidates. I don't think there's any real coordination from either of the candidates, they have both engaged their base in fairly unorthodox ways and encouraged them (I get the feeling that Trump only does his strange retweet thing to encourage others, not because he cares what's being said). That has problems, because they're messy & inexperienced - see: 4chan using the s4p phonebank system to harass people. The long-term test depends on what 'falls out' of the respective surges, and is able to reproduce itself. My issue with downplaying the Trumpstaffel is that I feel fairly confident that there are a bunch of rich dudes out there, watching what Trump's doing, taking notes, and preparing for a run in 2020. It's these copy-cats that latch into the Trumpstaffel that's going to sustain them. A GE loss may be put down to Trump not looking 'serious' enough or whatever. Sanderistas have no equivalent, no sugar daddies, they have to do everything themselves. There also aren't many personalities like Sanders to act as a focus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
LegoPirateNinja posted:its the obama presidency + a new war in the middle east
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Relevant to this thread, here's a hilarious example of how out of touch the conservative establishment is, and how they have bought hook-line-and-sinker their own dog whistles about poor communities: they're using the same language about broken white neighborhoods as they have about minority ones. It's stuff like this that gives me hope, more than anything - the synthesis of experience, watching old 'truths' die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:something like this
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:About the economic stuff, oh okay, but it's of course not a sure thing to happen in the next 8 years either, but I get it, so long as we're on the same page here. I would assume there will be a recession in the next 12 to 24 months based just on the fact that it's been almost a decade since the last one started. I feel like the question is whether the next recession resembles what happened to the stock market in 2000 or what happened to the housing market in 2007. quote:But when you say that Trump hasn't built a movement while Sanders has, I'm not so sure. Neither of them have directly involved themselves in that process, in both cases the respective movements have been spontaneous formations, that are often more extreme than the candidates. I don't think there's any real coordination from either of the candidates, they have both engaged their base in fairly unorthodox ways and encouraged them (I get the feeling that Trump only does his strange retweet thing to encourage others, not because he cares what's being said). That has problems, because they're messy & inexperienced - see: 4chan using the s4p phonebank system to harass people. The long-term test depends on what 'falls out' of the respective surges, and is able to reproduce itself. The difference I see here is that I believe Sanders' campaign is less based on personality than Trump's. Obviously Sanders' particular biography has lent him a certain credibility in the minds of his followers, and this was no doubt instrumental to his success, but fundamentally his campaign is driven by small donations and dedicated cadres of volunteers. While Trump's appeal has certain similarities to Sanders' (albeit coming from the right) the actual tactics he's used to get ahead in the GOP primary seem totally different. Trump's secret weapon isn't a dedicated base of volunteers: it's his own skill at gaining earned media. Trump is the anti-Sanders in that he never ever, even when he was considered a long shot, has hungered for media attention. If Trump wants to get people's attention he gets it instantly. He doesn't rely on a movement of dedicated volunteers who are phone banking for him en masse or sending in small donations of 20 or 40 bucks. Instead he just manipulates the ratings hunger of the already existing big media. This is where I get the impression that Trump is essentially a demagogue whereas Sanders may actually be creating a movement that could conceivably outlast him. In addition to this there's the simple demographic reality that they will literally outlive him, whereas much of Trump's electoral support will be dead in twenty years. Trump's supporters are mostly just expected to show up and vote. Much of the ground game and phone banking for Trump seems to be done on his behalf by third parties (this is just my impression, if you have evidence to the contrary let me know). Sanders' supporters seem to actually be part of a campaign organization that could conceivably be re-purposed. As such there just seems to be more cohesiveness there, whereas much of Trump's support seems like a constellation of different groups and individuals united only by their support for Trump's policies, and not bound together by any newly forged organizational ties (again, if you have evidence that I"m wrong here please let me know). It may be that other powerful men will try to recreate Trump's strategy or borrow elements of it for a future presidential bid. But setting an example that someone else may or may not emulate later isn't exactly the same thing as building a grassroots organization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Not much different than how things look right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This means that the populist wave will go right, combine that with a dem president under a financial crisis, and we have a real serious problem in the US. Literally the only people that can stop it are the Sanderistas, and only if they really mobilize. i definitely agree that the next economic recession will cause a surge of right ring populists. the activated authoritarians won't go away when trump loses and the next trump will be far more powerful. unfortunately the sanderistats are too young and too disenfranchised to stand up to them i feel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
LegoPirateNinja posted:its the obama presidency + a new war in the middle east
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLKnCeeAW48
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Like House of Cards, but less effectual and less competent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
The Real Paddy posted:Like House of Cards, but less effectual and less competent. It really bothers me that South Carolinians on House of Cards say "iced tea" instead of "sweet tea." Also the Gaffney peach isn't in some idyllic field, it's on a shithole side of the highway next to a Fatz Cafe. Thank you that is all
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Clinton will attempt to get things done for the next four years but the GOP will have a majority in both houses and she'll be tarred as a 'do-nothing' president until John Kasich beats her in 2020
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Venomous posted:Clinton will attempt to get things done for the next four years but the GOP will have a majority in both houses and she'll be tarred as a 'do-nothing' president until John Kasich beats her in 2020 lol if you don't think she'll compromise with the Republicans over at least a few pieces of domestic agenda in order to avoid this happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
LegoPirateNinja posted:its the obama presidency + a new war in the middle east Yeah I think this is very accurate, but also with no more "evolving" on more social issues, just the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
I think we'll retake the senate, but I don't expect a whole lot to come from there. I expect the movement to come on the margins with purely executive actions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
If you liked the ongoing civil unrest, police brutality, and drug wars of the last few years, well, that will probably keep happening no matter what
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I think we'll retake the senate, but I don't expect a whole lot to come from there. I expect the movement to come on the margins with purely executive actions. If the senate is controlled by the democrats, she will at least be able to nominate a bunch of judges to the federal court that should be confirmed. Hopefully she gets as many as possible before the senate is retaken in 2019 by the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
nonrev posted:If the senate is controlled by the democrats, she will at least be able to nominate a bunch of judges to the federal court that should be confirmed. Hopefully she gets as many as possible before the senate is retaken in 2019 by the Republicans. lol its funny how so many people are just waiting and wishing for the deaths of the supreme court justices. lifetime appointments is retarded
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:lol its funny how so many people are just waiting and wishing for the deaths of the supreme court justices. lifetime appointments is retarded it's just a symptom. the real problem is that the supreme court has become an unelected council of elders to whom we scrape and grovel for intervention. the constitution is in desperate need of a serious overhaul.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
quote:What does a Clinton Presidency look like? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I think we'll retake the senate, but I don't expect a whole lot to come from there. I expect the movement to come on the margins with purely executive actions. Are you a member of the democratic establishment? Why the gently caress are you using "We" to refer to other people who couldn't give less of a poo poo about you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
It will look exactly the same as it has the last 8 years. Congress will continue to have a Republican majority because the Democratic candidate abandons downticket candidates, so no meaningful or effective change will occur. We'll continue to be heavily entrenched in the Middle East sending thousands to die while Dubai continues to have billions poured in to it instead of towards fighting ISIS. Every 6 months we'll have to get together and protest Net Neutrality or the TPP in it's latest form. Some form of economic bubble will burst and millions of Americans will lose their retirement savings while criminals who helped create and exacerbate the bubble are never held accountable. Income disparity will continue to worsen and the middle class will disappear. No coordinated political action will be taken to address climate change. Minorities will continue to be imprisoned at higher rates than whites and marijuana will continue to be a main driver of it. It will be Hell.
Reik has issued a correction as of 16:01 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Are you a member of the democratic establishment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
quote:What does a Clinton Presidency look like? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NAP_-Y0uUI&t=114s
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
right click > save image as
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
A Clinton presidency would be some of America's best days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Can kicked further down the road
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
imagine a long wet fart that goes on for 4 years. really rank one too
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
rezatahs posted:imagine a long wet fart that goes on for 4 years. really rank one too You mean 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
I hate Mondays, but I love lasagna
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:You mean 8 years. Who knows. She pretty much has to take Coumadin to not die from blood clots and that stuff is pretty nasty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:You mean 8 years. What makes you think she'd be re-elected? The fresh vagina smell will wear off in the oval office by then and boomers won't care that she is a woman in 2020. Progressives lose 8 years at the Presidency with Clinton because it would be Clinton for 4, GOP for 4. Not because it would be Clinton for 8
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 07:29
|
|