The long term effect of the failed Trump presidency?

[Harry Bosch]

Nonsense. Most minorities, indeed, most *democratic primary voters*, had never heard of Bernie. The DNC did their damnedest to keep it that way, because they know what everyone in politics knows: the more people get to know Hillary Clinton, the more her support falls. She started out with perhaps the biggest name-recognition a candidate can ever hope for, and a wide-open primary field. The DNC wanted her, and didn't want the same thing that happened in 2008 to happen this time around. And it almost did.

HRC won the democratic fair and square.

Yeah, OK haus. whatever you say...

Yea, you're buying into trump/putin's meme to separate the democratic vote. Congratulations. It's bull shit. The DNC is just like every other political entity in the world: they always prefer the known entity in the beginning. They want to win. In 2008, they preferred the known entity. Obama overcame that, won them over, the DNC fully supported him. They would have supported Sanders also, but he couldn't convince a majority to vote for him.

I'll be straight. I preferred HRC. I voted for her in the primary. But I would have happily voted for Sanders against Trump.

 

[LordKiran]

Nonsense. Most minorities, indeed, most *democratic primary voters*, had never heard of Bernie. The DNC did their damnedest to keep it that way, because they know what everyone in politics knows: the more people get to know Hillary Clinton, the more her support falls. She started out with perhaps the biggest name-recognition a candidate can ever hope for, and a wide-open primary field. The DNC wanted her, and didn't want the same thing that happened in 2008 to happen this time around. And it almost did.




Yeah, OK haus. whatever you say...

Yea, you're buying into trump/putin's meme to separate the democratic vote. Congratulations. It's bull shit. The DNC is just like every other political entity in the world: they always prefer the known entity in the beginning. They want to win. In 2008, they preferred the known entity. Obama overcame that, won them over, the DNC fully supported him. They would have supported Sanders also, but he couldn't convince a majority to vote for him.

I'll be straight. I preferred HRC. I voted for her in the primary. But I would have happily voted for Sanders against Trump.

Kind of beside the point but why Hillary in the primary?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, you're buying into trump/putin's meme to separate the democratic vote. Congratulations. It's bull shit. The DNC is just like every other political entity in the world: they always prefer the known entity in the beginning. They want to win. In 2008, they preferred the known entity. Obama overcame that, won them over, the DNC fully supported him. They would have supported Sanders also, but he couldn't convince a majority to vote for him.

I'll be straight. I preferred HRC. I voted for her in the primary. But I would have happily voted for Sanders against Trump.

Kind of beside the point but why Hillary in the primary?

Well, you'll be shocked to hear me say that I trusted her more. I found her more sincere and warm. I know that this is not the common experience. I met her in person. She gave a speech at my reservation hall. We talked for a couple minutes. We really liked her. Her persona in private is much warmer and sincere that her public persona.

I also favor HRC's economic policies more than Sanders. However, again I would have gladly voted for him over Trump if he had won.

 

[funinspace]

Bottom line: I hate the false assumption that there were a bunch of back office dems in a dark smoky room who threw the primary to Sanders. HRC won the democratic fair and square.

And quite convincingly at that.

But it was't just Bernie Bros that fucked us. It was people that didn't show up in the same numbers as they did for Obama; purist Greens who thought Hillary wasn't good enough for them; the socially-left Libertarians who thought Trump would be better at turning government into a profitable business (god, that's so fucking stupid, I feel like an idiot just writing it out).

It was a collective hissy fit on the part of uncompromising myopics that played such a crucial role in putting Trump in office. And what really puts some extra stink on that cumulative pile of shit is that they won't admit just how badly they fucked up. It's the same Naderites still denying having anything to do with the election of Dubbya. 100's of thousands of dead, trillions in expenditures, and they'll still whine about how Gore wasn't the perfect candidate/made mistakes in his campaign. It's all so fucking stupid.

I think you need to have a meet-up with Underseer, as he is always harping with his Conservolibertarian meme that libertarians almost always roll to the Repugs/conservatives when they vote or are closet conservatives.

I have no idea how most libertarians would tilt, if they weren’t allowed vote for the LP candidate. FWIW, as a registered LP person I voted for HRC last fall, not that it was in question in my very blue state. I think it would be hard to argue that most libertarians would have shifted to HRC if forced into a Repug/Dum choice. Lots of third party voters vote third party as a way of saying “none of the above”, which is why I am registered LP but often don’t vote that way (I voted for Obama in 08 & Kerry in 04). Removing the only equivalence of “none of the above” would hardly endear libertarians to HRC. I can imagine that Don the Con would work as a substitute middle finger to the usual “none of the above”. I will agree that most of the Stein voters would probably switch over to HRC if it was a binary vote. Using Michigan as an example, the LP got 3.59% of the vote, whereas the Green’s got 1.07%. So, I’d say that Don the Con lost more votes there by third party voters than HRC did. Additionally, HRC probably won New Hampshire largely due to the third party vote. Wisconsin’s results are almost identical to Michigan’s. Pennsylvania is harder to make a guess from the data. Gary Johnson did remarkably well getting 3.28% of the national vote, as they almost have never gotten above 1.1% of the vote. Not that it matters much, but Jill Stein did quite well as the runner up third party garnering 1% of the national vote.

In the end, I think it is pretty clear that the election results were impacted far more by people not bothering to vote, as well as from Russian meddling, and of course HRC being a not very good candidate.

 

[Toni]

My biggest fear is a further disengaged electorate who stays home reading fakenews and conspiracy theories instead of going to the polls or gasp! running for office.

 

[Terrell]

I have my doubts that Bernie would have won the general election. As far as I know, the Republicans hadn't started to attack Bernie in any substantial manner. I think that him being a self declared Democratic Socialist would have been used against him.

Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball, was already asking the question "What's the difference between a Democrat & a Socialist?" I doubt his motives were pure but I can't say for sure.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I have my doubts that Bernie would have won the general election. As far as I know, the Republicans hadn't started to attack Bernie in any substantial manner. I think that him being a self declared Democratic Socialist would have been used against him.

Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball, was already asking the question "What's the difference between a Democrat & a Socialist?" I doubt his motives were pure but I can't say for sure.

In my opinion, he should have went with Socialist Democrat, I think it would actually make the difference. Then he can tell a better story. A story about how at one time, the US was the world leader in with such reforms like Social Security, Medicare, and going even further back, the Homestead act. The Europeans merely picked up the ball once we were done playing with it, and now here, to our shame, it's a dirty word.

As to Chris Mathews, his wife was in the Hillary Campaign, so there's your answer.

 

[LordKiran]

I have my doubts that Bernie would have won the general election. As far as I know, the Republicans hadn't started to attack Bernie in any substantial manner. I think that him being a self declared Democratic Socialist would have been used against him.

Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball, was already asking the question "What's the difference between a Democrat & a Socialist?" I doubt his motives were pure but I can't say for sure.

If you take a name and make it your own it can't be used against you, or so the traditional thinking goes. People respect confidence and forthrightness. If Bernie was willing to go in front of the nation and say "Yeah I'm a Democratic Socialist, what of it?" It's difficult to say how effective an attack that would be against him outside of the voting base that wouldn't have voted for him to begin with.

 

[Terrell]

I'm not so sure given the country we live in, where our voters tend to vote to the right of the rest of the Western nations. While we won't ever know for sure, I think that the red baiting that the Republicans would have thrown at him would work. I'm also not convinced that owning a term works, if it's a term that the country isn't open to. I think in this case Socialism isn't going to go over too well in the U.S. Maybe not as badly as during the Cold War, but at this time I'm more inclined to believe that the voters will put the label before the issues.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I dunno. I would think the word "socialist" is scary to old people that would vote for Trump anyway. That's been my experience at least.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What do you think the long term effect of the Trump presidency will be on US politics? Will US politics look substantially different a decade from now than it would have had Hillary won? Will Democrat politics look different? Will Republican politics look different?

Not much. Trump is basically a clone of Reagan. Did it make the world more dangerous and unstable? Yes. Did the world end? No.

It'll be fine

 

[Harry Bosch]

I dunno. I would think the word "socialist" is scary to old people that would vote for Trump anyway. That's been my experience at least.

Agreed. The dems need to get some of the old white people vote in the mid east states. They aren't going to vote for socialists. They are scared. They are scared of Muslims; scared of losing their jobs; scared of immigrants; scared of losing their culture; and etc. We need a sliver of them to return to the democratic party.

 

[untermensche]

What do you think the long term effect of the Trump presidency will be on US politics? Will US politics look substantially different a decade from now than it would have had Hillary won? Will Democrat politics look different? Will Republican politics look different?

Not much. Trump is basically a clone of Reagan. Did it make the world more dangerous and unstable? Yes. Did the world end? No.

It'll be fine

Reagan was a governor, he was a good politician, he worked well with other people, he did not piss off world leaders after meeting them. Trump is nothing like him. Trump is an ignorant infant that does not know how to do more than bribe and threaten. That is how he has gotten through life.

Reagan was also very ignorant of history and did not read.

So in that one dangerous trait Trump is like Reagan.

 

[bilby]

I dunno. I would think the word "socialist" is scary to old people that would vote for Trump anyway. That's been my experience at least.

Agreed. The dems need to get some of the old white people vote in the mid east states. They aren't going to vote for socialists. They are scared. They are scared of Muslims; scared of losing their jobs; scared of immigrants; scared of losing their culture; and etc. We need a sliver of them to return to the democratic party.

It's probably easier and quicker to wait for them to die, than it is to get enough of them to change.

That being the case, the real priority is to inoculate their children against the same fear-driven conservatism.

The jobs, the comfortable unquestioned racism, and the bolted-on religion are gone; and they are never coming back. Rural and small town America is massively overpopulated; and the only solution is mass migration to the cities, where there is at least the possibility that jobs will be available. Going back to the 1950s boom-times is simply impossible - the world has changed, largely for the better, and it's never going to change back, so the people need to change with it, or get trampled underfoot.

The only thing that could possibly soften the blow is socialism - taxing the people in the cities to provide handouts for the rural and small town folks (of course, these can be disguised as 'subsidies' and 'incentives' to generate busywork and salve their pride). It's not a solution, but it will perhaps mitigate some of the worst effects of the problem. Except that it's the one thing they are adamant that they will not allow. Which makes it hard to be even slightly sympathetic to their plight.

At the end of the day, these people are scared and angry, because they have been systematically lied to. They were told all their lives that hard work, self reliance, and support for a rigid social structure would result in prosperity. But this is neo-Marxism - The idea that hard work is always rewarded is just a re-wording of the idiotic labour theory of value. Hard work doesn't get you wealthy, it gets you a bad back. Self reliance makes you weak, because you refuse to accept the help you need - or to allow it to be offered to your neighbour. And the rigid social structure - belief in God, and the innate superiority of the white Christian American over all others - sows the seeds of a destructive rage, when it turns out that neither of those things are actually real.

You can no more get these people to vote Democrat than you could get the high priests to stop sacrificing virgins, and start running away from the lava flow. They know that what they are doing isn't working; But they conclude that this means they haven't done enough of it yet.

 

[Opoponax]

At the end of the day, these people are scared and angry, because they have been systematically lied to. They were told all their lives that hard work, self reliance, and support for a rigid social structure would result in prosperity. But this is neo-Marxism - The idea that hard work is always rewarded is just a re-wording of the idiotic labour theory of value. Hard work doesn't get you wealthy, it gets you a bad back. Self reliance makes you weak, because you refuse to accept the help you need - or to allow it to be offered to your neighbour. And the rigid social structure - belief in God, and the innate superiority of the white Christian American over all others - sows the seeds of a destructive rage, when it turns out that neither of those things are actually real.

You can no more get these people to vote Democrat than you could get the high priests to stop sacrificing virgins, and start running away from the lava flow. They know that what they are doing isn't working; But they conclude that this means they haven't done enough of it yet.

The disillusionment is so thick you could stir it with a spoon. Couple it with decades of assault by right wing radio and Fox News and you get what we got.

It's odd though. One usually realizes these things relatively early on in life; that moment of "Huh, that whole thing about me being able to be an astronaut turned out to be bullshit." Something like that. It just depends on the dream, but eventually it dies. You experience the bitterness and anger, but eventually it gives way to a more realistic view of the world. Reaching the understanding there's no god is like that.

Clark Griswold's dad said it best to Clarke's wife in Christmas Vacation when, in defending Clarke, she said, "Clark works hard!" And his dad replied, "So does a washing machine!!!"

The hard truth is that hard work doesn't necessarily get you what you want. It usually just gets you tired.

My dad is a Fox News guy now. He's 77 or so and to hear the once sharp as a tack lawyer drool Fox News and Trump one-liners out of his mouth is at first angering. Then, it becomes sad. He's not going to change. It's because of what he consumes TV-wise. Fox fucking News all fucking day, every day. He's not stupid. He just stopped learning and his brain hardened...

Well, that's got fuck-all to do with anything, but your post made me reflect on things.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Agreed. The dems need to get some of the old white people vote in the mid east states. They aren't going to vote for socialists. They are scared. They are scared of Muslims; scared of losing their jobs; scared of immigrants; scared of losing their culture; and etc. We need a sliver of them to return to the democratic party.

It's probably easier and quicker to wait for them to die, than it is to get enough of them to change.

That being the case, the real priority is to inoculate their children against the same fear-driven conservatism.

The jobs, the comfortable unquestioned racism, and the bolted-on religion are gone; and they are never coming back. Rural and small town America is massively overpopulated; and the only solution is mass migration to the cities, where there is at least the possibility that jobs will be available. Going back to the 1950s boom-times is simply impossible - the world has changed, largely for the better, and it's never going to change back, so the people need to change with it, or get trampled underfoot.

The only thing that could possibly soften the blow is socialism - taxing the people in the cities to provide handouts for the rural and small town folks (of course, these can be disguised as 'subsidies' and 'incentives' to generate busywork and salve their pride). It's not a solution, but it will perhaps mitigate some of the worst effects of the problem. Except that it's the one thing they are adamant that they will not allow. Which makes it hard to be even slightly sympathetic to their plight.

At the end of the day, these people are scared and angry, because they have been systematically lied to. They were told all their lives that hard work, self reliance, and support for a rigid social structure would result in prosperity. But this is neo-Marxism - The idea that hard work is always rewarded is just a re-wording of the idiotic labour theory of value. Hard work doesn't get you wealthy, it gets you a bad back. Self reliance makes you weak, because you refuse to accept the help you need - or to allow it to be offered to your neighbour. And the rigid social structure - belief in God, and the innate superiority of the white Christian American over all others - sows the seeds of a destructive rage, when it turns out that neither of those things are actually real.

You can no more get these people to vote Democrat than you could get the high priests to stop sacrificing virgins, and start running away from the lava flow. They know that what they are doing isn't working; But they conclude that this means they haven't done enough of it yet.

Bilby: you make some good points, however, why should we "soften the blow"? I don't think that the rich, college educated, liberal, cities should be taxed to support the poor, blue collar, scared republicans in the rural parts of the country. I might not have been so blunt before, but fuck them. Their crazy policies are going to damage the environment, decrease scientific spending, increase the debt, hurt access to college, hurt world peace, and etc. We have to live under their crazy religious practices. And etc. If the dems ever win again (and they will), I don't think that our reward should be our taxes being increased to help out the knuckle draggers. Higher taxes for education, economic development, infrastructure spending, health care, sure.... But to help out bubba, forget it!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not much. Trump is basically a clone of Reagan. Did it make the world more dangerous and unstable? Yes. Did the world end? No.

It'll be fine

Reagan was a governor, he was a good politician, he worked well with other people, he did not piss off world leaders after meeting them. Trump is nothing like him. Trump is an ignorant infant that does not know how to do more than bribe and threaten. That is how he has gotten through life.

Reagan was also very ignorant of history and did not read.

So in that one dangerous trait Trump is like Reagan.

I think they've just forgotten all the dumb shit he did. Reagan pissed off everybody. What he had going for him is that he worked very hard in protecting the world from communism. That was a real threat people in the west and around the world felt. That allowed him to get away with the most horrendous idiocies and still be popular.

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21reasonsReaganwasaterriblepresident

He also lied about as much as Trump does.

He was also about as fickle and untrustworthy.

He said lots of really dumb shit. There's pages of idiot quotes by that man.

History hasn't been kind to that man. He kept supplying arms to anybody who said they supported America, even when they didn't. Quite a few of the dictators Reagan supported eventually turned on USA. He didn't care about democratic rights, nor economic reforms. He only cared that they weren't communist. I don't know about you, but whether the Taliban is more or less freedom loving than communists is splitting hairs. His hate for communism blinded him and led to him financially supporting groups way worse.

Reagan made our world a hell of a lot more dangerous. We're still living in a world that inherited problems he created. I don't think there's any doubt he's the worst American president in modern times.

 

[marc]

I have my doubts that Bernie would have won the general election. As far as I know, the Republicans hadn't started to attack Bernie in any substantial manner. I think that him being a self declared Democratic Socialist would have been used against him.

Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball, was already asking the question "What's the difference between a Democrat & a Socialist?" I doubt his motives were pure but I can't say for sure.

True, but they had a 20+ year head start on smearing Hillary. There were probably quite a few people who disliked her for those decades of propaganda rather than anything substantive. With Bernie they would have to start from scratch, without much to work with other than the 'Socialist' thing. But honestly, what Democratic candidate have they not tried to claim is the most extreme liberal/socialist/communist ever? Also, Hillary was the 'establishment' candidate, when people were sick of the establishment. That gave Trump some support. Bernie was another non-establishment candidate, so he would have leached voters from Trump. Considering with all the things against Hillary, and yet she still got the popular vote, I think Bernie would have likely won.

Interesting side note: Bernie's brother Larry Sanders lives in the UK, and is running for Parliament.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reagan was a governor, he was a good politician, he worked well with other people, he did not piss off world leaders after meeting them. Trump is nothing like him. Trump is an ignorant infant that does not know how to do more than bribe and threaten. That is how he has gotten through life.

Reagan was also very ignorant of history and did not read.

So in that one dangerous trait Trump is like Reagan.

I think they've just forgotten all the dumb shit he did. Reagan pissed off everybody.

Yeah, Reagan and W had really serious deficiencies. It is just that Trump has managed to commit a Nixonian error within one month. How bad has this Administration been? Am I the only one that kind of forgot about Bowling Green? This Administration has pretty much been like the campaign (just with more illegal shit) in that it has been an onslaught of gaffes, errors, lies, miscommunication, legal obstruction, embarrassments, and very little in the way of accomplishments other than undoing some regulatory stuff from Obama.

What isn't remembered too much is that W too did piss off the world, and very quickly. The world came back to our aid after 9/11, of course, but they needed to come back. But that was also because of policies. With Trump, it is both because of policy, but also because of flat out instability and him being a flat out asshole. World leaders want to try and like Trump, but there is nothing to like.

He also lied about as much as Trump does.

He was also about as fickle and untrustworthy.

He said lots of really dumb shit. There's pages of idiot quotes by that man.

W as well. He unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty, pissed off the world, stepped back from the "symbolic promise" to not touch the Social Security surplus, was working on passing a massive tax cut we couldn't afford using a surplus we never had, while ignoring a severe terrorism threat that Richard Clarke was launching flares about.

But, he didn't obstruct an FBI and House Committee investigation within the first three months of his Presidency.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have my doubts that Bernie would have won the general election. As far as I know, the Republicans hadn't started to attack Bernie in any substantial manner. I think that him being a self declared Democratic Socialist would have been used against him.

Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball, was already asking the question "What's the difference between a Democrat & a Socialist?" I doubt his motives were pure but I can't say for sure.

True, but they had a 20+ year head start on smearing Hillary. There were probably quite a few people who disliked her for those decades of propaganda rather than anything substantive. With Bernie they would have to start from scratch, without much to work with other than the 'Socialist' thing. But honestly, what Democratic candidate have they not tried to claim is the most extreme liberal/socialist/communist ever? Also, Hillary was the 'establishment' candidate, when people were sick of the establishment. That gave Trump some support. Bernie was another non-establishment candidate, so he would have leached voters from Trump. Considering with all the things against Hillary, and yet she still got the popular vote, I think Bernie would have likely won.

Interesting side note: Bernie's brother Larry Sanders lives in the UK, and is running for Parliament.

I believe black turnout was down 7 points nationally. I don't think the BoB could have made up that gap. Nor did the "black community" (as a whole) seem to give a fuck that Sanders marched and was even arrested in the Civil Rights movement. Apparently he didn't earn enough race cred among the community as a whole.

I believe black turnout would have been even lower for Sanders than Clinton and BoB wouldn't have made the difference. And yes, he would have been eviscerated, not just by the AM Radio, but by the press over being a "socialist". And then we'd be talking about how Clinton probably would have won.