I’m a republican and quite frankly barring a miracle I see Hillary winning and believe it or not, I’m ok with that. Why? I believe in the democratic process and if things go bad democrats will feel the wrath of voters in the 2018 midterm elections and it could lead to a major republican blowout in 2020 like Reagan did to Carter in 1980. Its even possible for the president to step aside and not seek re-election like Johnson did in 1968.
So what would be next?
The democrats on this board I’m sure are realists. You know things can and do go bad no matter who is the president and yes, presidents can be major screw-ups.
But I’d like to ask;
Do you anticipate any major policy changes under a Hillary administration?
If things do go bad do you think the democratic party will put the blame on Hillary and seek to oust her early or will they stand behind her no matter what?
No. She’s much in the mold of both her husband and Obama: People who would have been Liberal Republicans before Reagan and the Conservative Coalition made that an oxymoron. This is part of what makes the extreme Hillary Derangement Syndrome so amusing: She’s the least likely among any of the Democrats running this cycle to rock the boat. (Not that I think boat-rocking would be successful. If, by some bizarre happenstance, Sanders won, he’d be unable to get much done.)
First, the Democratic version of things “going bad” is markedly different from the Republican version. For example, the Democrats aren’t going to seek to oust Hillary because Hillary is in office, no matter how much of a disaster a goodly number of Republicans would see that as. Similarly, mildly reformist moves on her part will not be seen as Hillghazi Come To Take Your Guns by anyone outside the Trump/Cruz/O’Reilly universe.
Second, “no matter what” doesn’t exist in politics. If Hillary did something terrible (by the normal person definition, not the “Oh my fucking God a woman’s in the Oval Office it’s the End of Days” definition) Democrats would impeach her and throw her out of office, for the good of the country, the party, and their own political careers.
Third, if trends continue, and if the GOP continues to move rightwards and Trumpwards, she could be primaried from the left in 2020. Right now, she’s a somewhat exciting candidate who is solid, electable, and generally a known quantity. Someone like Sanders but with actual broad popularity beyond white progressives could oust her as long as the DNC wasn’t worried about who the GOP would be able to get past the primary system.
IMO the biggest concern a D administration will have from 2016 to 2020 is that Congress will remain R and will be at least as obstructionist as they have been the last 6 years. In their mind “Just say no, no matter what.” seems to be a winning strategy.
Eventually D voters will get tired of their side not accomplishing anything. Each person will decide for themselves whether that’s because the D president is ineffectual or because the R Congress is obstructionary. We see that situation today with Obama.
To the degree D voters conclude the problem is their particular D president they’ll either want somebody different in 2020, or they’ll give up on politics and quit voting, thereby handing both Congress and the Presidency to the Rs in 2020.
To the degree D voters conclude the problem is R Congress obstructionism they’ll either double down on activism in 2020, or they’ll give up on politics and quit voting, thereby handing both Congress and the Presidency to the Rs in 2020.
In many ways the R Congress tactic of “No. Never. No way, no how. No matter what issue.” is a decent strategy for eventually dominating politics through shear exhaustion of the other side. Unless the country falls apart before they finally wear the other side’s voters down.
The idea that “our party is going to kick ass right after we lose this election!” is a terrible strategy. Seriously, how many times has it worked?
Democrats probably thought they were going to win huge in 1984, after that silly cowboy actor won in 1980. They surely thought the same in 1988, and 2004. Republicans were sure that 1996 was going to be a huge win for them after losing to that clown Clinton in 1992 (he didn’t even get a majority of the vote, hurr hurr!), and by 2012 Obama’s inexperience would surely lead him to resign and go hide in Kenya.
But since you say you’re a Republican, I urge you to pursue this strategy wholeheartedly – you’ll get us next time for sure.
Or the kinds of people who vote them in begin to die off and the block as a whole gets out-voted and the only GOP politicians left are true believers like Cruz who are mentally incapable of appealing to any other kind of voter.
Hillary would presumably pursue a militant gun control policy. Depending on Congress it might or might not get anywhere, like it’s been with Obama; but if a Hillary win was seen as a green light to institute major bans and restrictions, there would be a LOT of pushback.
I think you underestimate the power of the rural & small town vote. It is white, un-/under-educated, evangelical and staying that way UFN.
Because of the way the electoral college & Congress is constructed, that group has voting power 2 or 3x what its absolute numbers indicate.
The R party of 2040 will stand for somewhat different ideas than the R party of 1960 or 2016 did/does. But there will still be (comparatively) conservative people who’s (comparatively) troglodytic ideas are anathema to the (comparatively) progressive other people of that or any era.
The details change. Politics is eternal. Said another way:
Because of the way the electoral college & Congress is constructed, that group has voting power *at the Federal level *2 or 3x what its absolute numbers indicate. And 5 to 10x the voting power at the State and local levels. That structural advantage is not due (much) to gerrymandering and therefore isn’t going to change (much).
From what I read, women took over Iceland. And now, corrupt bankers are going to the slam. Women looked at the mess, and cleaned it. More and more, I come to the position that the soft guys with the wobbly bits should run things. Testosterone poisoning is not a qualification, it is a drawback.
Some of us nut-scratchers dread this, wrongly. It will free up time for fishing! Perhaps what the Goddess intends for us is our natural inclination, to run naked through the woods peeing on trees. Just be sure to listen for the bell that calls us home for food or snoos-snoos. But not to worry, no one misses it twice.
Hillary may be a woman (well, she is a woman), but she’ll govern more like man, so don’t be fooled by that BS about her still picking out the flowers for state dinners. She’ll be more hawkish than Obama, but less so than most Republicans.
She might get booted out next time around if the economy is in bad shape, or if Da-esh is still around and committing acts of terror in the West, especially in the US. But it also depends on the Republicans fielding someone who can beat her, and they’ve been sorely lacking in the “presidential material” department of late.
Well, that’s the real issue, isn’t it? To beat Hillary you’ve got to find someone to oppose her who can get through the primary process and not be crazy. At the moment that appears to be a reach for the Republican party.
To my read and sense there are few domestic issue policy differences between Hillary and Obama and she will indeed have the same obstructionist Congress issues to deal with. Both are centrists. Foreign policy wise she tends to be more interventionalist. Possibly a little greater risk of getting us into a deeper ground war than Obama has been, which has economic impacts as well, but again much more able to manage all the tools in the foreign policy toolbox than anyone else running.
Agreed with LSLGuy: the structural advantages for the GOP at the Congressional and state levels are extremely substantial. The Democratic Party dominates in the cities and increasingly in the suburbs but it will take a concerted and sustained focus to break the grip that the GOP has on rural America. Until that happens the GOP has a lock on pretty much everything other than the Presidential level.
Which brings me the one domestic policy level difference that I think Hilary is savvy enough to do. The rural initiatives that Obama has accomplished have been little trumpeted. Hillary will double down on those programs and try to force the GOP into obstructing them.
In terms of ousting her after one term … well nothing is written in stone. She gets support from even those who are not enthusiastic about her because most perceive her as very likely to be a competent executive and very likely to put an able team in place … but sure proverbial meteors can hit and the person in charge often has to take the hit when they do. If somehow she unmasks and actually is an lizard person then likely her lizard overlord government would lose the support of the non-lizard coalitions that support her. Given an obvious lizard person status we might even ask to see her hatching certificate and ask if she is a naturally hatched lizard person or an alien.
I remember after Kerry lost a lot of libs were hopeful they’d clean up after Bush wrecked everything and were even saying it was better for them to lose so Dems wouldn’t get blamed for the chickens coming home to roost. A minor victory for accelerationism.