Forum Replies Created
Resigning makes you look like a failure. Nixon did it only because the alternative – being impeached and probably convicted and removed – was a lot worse for his “legacy.” I again can’t really imagine why Trump would resign unless, like Nixon, it was a necessity.
The only other scenario I can imagine Trump resigning would be if there was some perceived moment of triumph – like either of the two Bush’s high moments right after the Iraq wars or something – and he could claim to want to go out on top. But it still seems unlikely to me. If things were bad, why resign? They could get better before you go.
Who knows if he would want to run again? He was already quoted once in the last few weeks talking about “the next eight years” – something first term presidents usually don’t presume to do. (Most at least pretend they “haven’t decided whether to run again” until they need to announce.)
Again – why even make such predictions at all? What’s the point? Have you all been so correct in your previous predictions? I sure haven’t, and I doubt any of you have a much better average than I do.
I don’t know if Trump would resign if not faced with a Nixon-like impeachment. Wouldn’t he just delegate more tasks if he got bored? As president, he can be as disengaged and uninvolved as he wants to be. There’s no more prestigious job in the world than President of the United States. Somehow, resigning makes you look like a quitter.
Yes, the next economic collapse is coming – but when? Before 2020 or after? Or too soon before?
Reagan took office in 1981 with a shaky economy – high interest rates, high unemployment…but it got a lot worse with a bad recession that same year. It happened early enough in his term that it could be blamed on Carter But by 1984, the economy seemed to have recovered, and of course Reagan sailed to re-election.
If the economy collapses in mid-2017, Trump will just blame Obama, and voters may agree with him. But if it collapses in 2019 or 2020…history shows the incumbent president is probably toast in the next election.
One of my 2017 New Years resolutions is to stop making predictions about politics! Because like most of you, I have a pretty poor track record at being right. So why even bother?
I have no idea if Republicans will suffer big losses in 2018 or not. (The president’s party doesn’t always lose seats in Congress- see: 1998 and also 2002 mid-terms.) I have no idea if Trump will flounder or act as a Democrat or as a Republican or neither. Maybe because expectations for him are so incredibly low now, he has nowhere to go but up. And he’s the first president since 1989 not to inherit a recession – so he probably has more freedom to flex his political muscles than other new presidents, with other big worries, have been able to.
So why even speculate? Let’s just see what happens – because there’s not much we can do about it at this point anyway, right? I sure hope he is out of power soon and that Republicans collapse in the next four years, etc., etc., but just because I desire it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
When Trump won the election, I assumed we were in for an awful four years. Some terrible laws will be passed and signed, and some bad people will be appointed to government, etc. The courts are jacked probably for 20-30 years.
Elections have consequences, and we lost.
But I for one refuse to wallow in the misery of Trumpland, because there’s almost zero I can do to change it for at least two if not four or eight years. So why should I worry about it?
I’ve already unfollowed a dozen or more Facebook friends who can’t seem to get enough of, “Ohmygod, can you believe he said THIS?” posts and articles. Sorry, I have zero interest in that stuff. If you want to wallow, feel free.
All I care about is what I can do to change it in 2-4-8 years. Anything else is just a waste of time.December 26, 2016 at 9:18 pm in reply to: How Journalists Covered the Rise of Mussolini and Hitler #25826
Let’s hope Trump is more like Silvio Berlusconi:
Maybe it’s time for Democrats to turn the tables on Republicans and become deficit hawks, given how this issue seems to resonate among the Republican base. Being a deficit hawk doesn’t mean you have to favor reducing the size of government – just spending our tax money more wisely (less on defense, more on other things) and raising more tax revenue, not less.
All Democrats need to do is a clever marketing campaign – repetition is the key! – showing historically how deficits go up under Republicans and down under Democrats. Repeat over and over and over again…
Trump said during the campaign that he wants to build a new, modern navy, too.
I guess all of this stuff will be paid for by the huge tax cuts he has proposed for the wealthy? No chance in hell any Medicare cuts that are politically possible (to today’s recipients) would save enough money even to make a dent.
Unfortunately, don’t expect a peep out of Republicans once $2 Trillion deficits become the norm – at least until the next Democrat is elected.
I think Dems need to figure out how to persuade more people who don’t vote at all to vote for them (especially in mid-term elections) to make “stupid white mid west voters” irrelevant.
Yet, Democrats won the House in 2006 and 2008, right? After losing in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Gerrymandering isn’t new (and Democrats have done it too). Surely it makes the problem even harder for Democrats, but it’s not the only reason they have mostly lost the House since 1994.
And you can’t explain the Dems’ loss of the US Senate or numerous governorships (MI, WI, MA, for example) with gerrymandering, which doesn’t affect those types of races.
I do think the Dems need more “thought” over why they have lost so many seats in the House and in local state houses, not to mention US Senate seats and governorships. I think they need to find ways to win on issues like guns and economic issues.
Yes, that’s my worry too: that Dems take the wrong lessons from 2016 – namely, that there’s something horribly wrong with the party or something. In terms of winning presidential elections, there isn’t. If you want to win a similar election next time, nominate a stronger candidate next time. Simple lesson.
But the loss of Congress (the House, anyway) every year since 1994 except for 2006 and 2008 should have provided Dems much more food-for-thought by now…
Good post, LurkingGrendel – I agree with most of what you said.
However, although I first thought the same about voter turn-out (Hillary not getting the same turnout that Obama got in 2012), if you look at Pennsylvania, you’ll see they had a big increase in turn-out over 2012. Hillary wound up getting almost the same vote total that Obama got in PA in 2012. But Trump got about 300,000 more than Romney. And Gary Johnson and Jill Stein – both on the ballot in 2012 in PA as well – combined polled about 130,000 more votes than they did in 2012.
Hillary actually got more votes than Obama did in 2012 in some PA blue counties – but the rural turnout for Trump overwhelmed those numbers. So, the “her voters just didn’t turn out” argument doesn’t quite hold up at least in PA. Even if she had won Michigan and Wisconsin, she still would have lost without PA.
(Wisconsin did see a fall in turnout thanks in part to successful Republican efforts to suppress the vote there. Michigan was about flat.)
In such a close election, you can always pick a dozen things that were the “cause.” Take your pick. The Comey endorsement in the final week would certainly be on the list. And yes – there plenty of things Clinton did wrong. Hindsight is 20/20.
As for the polls: rural turnout greatly exceeded what pollsters were expecting, in more than one state. For example, compare the turnout in rural counties in say, PA, between 2016 and 2012 – the one state I looked most closely at. Rural turnout surged in 2016. I understand Florida was similar – presumably the other states, too.December 17, 2016 at 10:26 pm in reply to: Bernie Sanders Would Have Lost the Election in a Landslide #25673
Doug, many of the Bernie Bros turned on Bernie the minute he endorsed Clinton. To too many of them, she was simply “corrupt.” She was toxic to them, and they were beyond reasoning with. I tried to talk to a number of them on Facebook; it was pointless, like trying to reason with cult members.
Before the election, I assumed the average American voters – not the alt-right and the hard-core Republican voters – would see through all of the anti-Clinton nonsense, realize it was BS, and do the right thing. But as I’ve talked to people since the election, I’ve been shocked to the extent that even so-called “average” voters bought into to all of the anti-Clinton propaganda. I don’t blame “fake news on Facebook” or Wikileaks for this – it was just icing on the cake. The real reason Clinton was so poisoned was the “regular” news media, so eager and willing to report on anything negative about Clinton. How many times did they react to every new piece of irrelevant new info about the email server as if it were Watergate?
I used to listen to a radio station that used AP Radio News, and I was amazed at the way they reacted to the email scandal in particular as if it were a murder trial, and even if only a minor irrelevant detail came out in the news, they’d report the whole thing breathlessly yet again as if it were a big breaking story. When this kind of nonsense was repeated over and over and over again, while real stories like the Trump University swindle were largely ignored, no wonder people bought into it.
Even some Democratic voters who voted for Clinton believed the BS about her and voted against Trump, not “for” her. One of my very liberal friends (who held her nose and voted for Clinton) mentioned Benghazi to me before the election, and I tried to point out how unfair the whole Republican series of investigations was (EIGHT separate investigations that found NO wrongdoing at all by Clinton???). Her response was: yeah, but have you SEEN THE MOVIE? (“13 Hours”)? Had I gotten my facts about Benghazi from a fictional Hollywood movie??? Of course not – but like her, many people probably were swayed by the movie and by all of those taxpayer-funded Congressional investigations designed to “bring her numbers down” as Kevin McCarthy admitted on Fox, and surely many of those people voted trump or for Stein or Johnson or not at all, when they probably voted for Obama in 2012.December 17, 2016 at 2:32 pm in reply to: Bernie Sanders Would Have Lost the Election in a Landslide #25663
I sincerely doubt Bernie would have done better than Clinton against Trump, although we’ll never know of course.
But the article you link to is not particularly persuasive. The idea that “being liberal” can be quantified as a single digit number that can be used to compare candidates over 60 years is a bit silly. For one – what was a “liberal” issue 50 years ago might not be today. (Eisenhower was a strong proponent of Social Security and labor unions, for example.) Today’s big “liberal vs. conservative” issues were not even around 50 years ago – for example, guns, abortion, and illegal immigration. The end of the Cold War and the civil rights movement have re-aligned politics a lot in the last 50 years.