I think that it is within the realm of possibility that had Clinton won in 2016, the house and Senate would be fully GOP controlled.
And it’s certainly possible that president Clinton would have been impeached in 2019, and even convicted in the Senate. For what? Doesn’t matter. Wearing a tan suit.
The party of “HELL NO” would have blocked anything she said.
Had an (unimpeached) president Clinton come out with strong measures against Covid, I am sure that a very large portion of the GOP would have simply said “HELL NO” to anything she suggested, masks included. The GOP would have MADE this a political issue. Defeated Candidate Trump with his new popular TV network would have been spinning every bullshit conspiracy theory going, and would have convinced 30% of the population that masks were an Evil Hillary Mind Control Device, and the virus was a Democrat Hoax.
During Covid, the GOP would not have somehow morphed into a magically responsible party that would try to do the best for the American People. With or without Trump, they are composed mostly of degenerate scum who would do anything (including letting a million die of Covid) if this would help them consolidate power.
Remember, Trump is the Symptom. The GOP have not cared about actually governing for years.
Sure, Republicans might have let a million people die if it would help them gain power. But it won’t; it’s pretty clear this unchecked wave of Covid19 is hurting Trump and the Republicans. Nobody gains from letting a disease run wild through their country.
If Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush or Rick Santorum had gotten the nomination and been elected President, they would be telling people to wear masks and practice social distancing. Just like Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden would be.
This is Trump’s unique contribution. He’s doing something nobody else - not even another conservative - would have done. He’s helping a disease.
I obviously agree wholeheartedly with the rest of what you posted, but no way would they get the double digit Democratic support they’d need for removal (I’d be shocked if they got a single one, although I suppose it’s possible Manchin could be in play).
Yeah, this sucks for sure, although I still think it’s more than balanced by getting control of redistricting in the 2020s. It’s often not popular when I say this, but we need to play hardball on that: instead of supporting some sort of “fair” district lines, we need to gerrymander to the max. No matter how much we do it, it won’t change how unfair the Senate map is anyway (but in that department we also need to push through statehood for DC and PR–I’d also support breaking California up into multiple states, but I doubt Californians would agree even though it would dramatically increase their net political power).
I believe we do have an ace in the hole this campaign season, and in the fairly likely event that Trump tries to contest the outcome. I believe most GOP senators, although they can never openly admit it for fear of primary-season backlash from the Trump-loving base, are keen to see Trump gone. Not so much for sincere ethical reasons (although there’s a little of that here and there), but because they think (probably with good reason) that they have a better chance to win in 2022 and 2024 if he’s gone.
Because liberals are concentrated in two metropolitan areas, breaking up California into four or five states would result in a wash or net gain for Republicans in the Senate. Some proposals even suggest including SF and LA in the same state with would result in all additional states likely being red.
Well, you obviously wouldn’t put both of them in the same state. Simply splitting the state into northern and southern halves would double their power and make a lot of sense. I mean, North and South Dakota combined don’t cover as much area as California does. The 820 mile span from the northwestern to southeastern points of CA is 50% farther than from northwestern ND to southeastern SD. Yet the Dakotas combined have four percent the population of California but twice as many senators. RIdiculous.
Northern California would likely be red even with the Bay Area. There are huge Republican-leaning populations in Sacramento and the Central Valley. Southern California would be purple thanks to conservative counties like San Diego and Orange which have only gone blue recently as a reaction to Trump. People forget that up until he Nineties, California was a red state. Less than 10 years ago, we had a Republican governor.
California also has the distinction of having the largest city with a Republican mayor in the United States in Kevin Faulconer of San Diego.
But Faulconer is an urban California Republican, which are often pretty moderate as Republicans go and in general I think I am unconvinced by your red north/purple south scenario. CA has been shifting blue since long before Trump. Trump drove Orange county over the edge it’s true and that area may partially revert in a “normal” election.
But the Republican party currently holds a whopping total of 18 out of 80 State Assembly seats and 11 out of 40 State Senate seats. California hasn’t elected a Republican to a major statewide office since 2006. All of these majorities well pre-date Trump. I’m not saying it is cast in stone, voting preferences do shift. As you note the Republicans held a majority of the State Assembly back in the mid-90’s (though I’d hardly cast the state as red even then - last time CA voted for a Republican president was 1988). But mid-90’s is a quarter century ago - one entire generation .
I just don’t see where the Republicans get the votes to turn northern CA red. They have wide swaths of the central valley and the east generally. But that plus ~half of Sacramento doesn’t outpace the Bay Area which would have about 2/3 of the population in a standard 48 county north.
Not that I’m particularly in favor of splitting the state. But I think two blue states is a near certainty if you did. For sure in the short term and probably in the long term.
Trump has been exceptionally awful, even by Republican standards, but he’s not black-swan awful (something like a Hitler). We’re just seeing the true picture of Republican governance when they quit bothering with the fig-leaves of small government, deficit-hawking, personal liberty, and just go full-bore “because we can, fuck you, that’s why”.
I feel better about Trump taking on the job of saying “look, here is the turd in the punchbowl, and you will support it because it’s our turd.” I’m no fan of turd punch, but this outcome is preferable to a candidate with equally bad politics but with better charisma and aesthetics.
And we absolutely would have had 6 figures of COVID deaths under Hillary. She’s competent enough to do better than Trump, of course (who isn’t), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republicans started impeachment proceedings the minute COVID hit triple digits.
.