People are dissatisfied. A successful Presidency tends to satisfy and build a new consensus. If Clinton is as successful as her husband, it will give Clintonism new life. If Trump is successful, it will realign the Republican Party more towards his populist way of thinking just as Reagan’s Presidency changed the GOP into a very conservative party.
Except for climate change, the Clinton administration made all those things better. I’m not sure where the demand for progressive solutions will come from when Third Way solutions work just fine.
This “Trump is successful” thing. Just what, exactly, would that look like? I’m having a hard time visualizing that. So, you know, help me out here, what is that gonna be like?
New York Magazine has a good profile on her.
Are objections to Hillary related to her positions on issues or her character?
On the issues, Hillary would be great for progressives,* probably much better than Sanders* in terms of what she could accomplish. (The main complaint we hear at SDMB is a misguided one about her vote on the 2002 Military Force Authorization.)
As to character, Hillary may be far from ideal. But you should emphasize that many of the best progressive Presidents — JFK, LBJ, and even FDR — all also had major character flaws.
Let’s say that Trump delivered on his promise to deport tons of illegals and secure the border and impose protectionist measures. Let’s further propose that the economy performs well during those years. Would that not make pretty much all Republicans protectionist and anti-immigration, as well as most of the broad center?
Surely you meant to say Trumpism will over take Reaganism as the GOP philosophy. Why should Bill get his own -ism and not St Ronnie?
Ronnie got an -omics.
Yes, Trumpism would take over for Reaganism.
Successful Presidencies tend to be realigning events, or at the very least they cause a shift in ideological preferences. The Clinton Presidency moved the Democratic Party to the right on fiscal issues and regulation and made the party the Wall Street Party it is today. It’s easy to understand why Sanders voters wouldn’t want to reinforce that with another Clinton Presidency.
I’d note that for all the predictions of a more progressive populace due to demographic change, minority voters strongly prefer to stick with what works, and what works among Democrats is Clintonism. They were willing to take a chance on Obama due to the historic nature of his candidacy, but in the Clinton vs. true blue left wing candidate race, they went strongly for Clinton.
If Clinton wins, and we see another successful Presidency, then minority voters will be Third Way All the Way for a generation while white progressives gnash their teeth and sit in the back of the bus.
I love when you’re all knowing and confident. Tell us more about the future.
The Obama administration did help with climate change. And it reduced income inequality a bit. But there is a feeling that Obama and Clinton and the dems in general just want to lightly touch the issues w/o pissing off the rich and powerful, while true solutions will require pissing them off.
The ACA just expanded our failed health system, it didn’t address the failures at the core of it which cannot be addressed unless someone takes on the hospital industry, pharma industry, medical supply industry, AMA, and insurance industry. Stuff like that is still motivating people for change.
And therein lies the problem: the Democrats are increasingly dependent on some of the wealthiest states in the country for votes, which contain a lot of very highly paid employees of those industries. Plus they don’t want their taxes to go up. A party will always be in part led around the nose by its base, and too many progressives act as if the Democratic base of 2016 are blue collar workers. Nope, those were lost to the party a long time ago. Progressives need to find an agenda that appeals to the double income New YOrk City household, one a stock broker, the other an insurance salesman. Good luck with that.
And let’s say he can heal the sick, raise the dead, and make the little girls talk out of their head! And let’s say that he has actual blueprints for a working hoverboard and the silent caterpillar drive for nuclear subs! How far could we be from FTL spaceships?
“A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure…”
Wait a sec! Deport illegal immigrants, start Terran colonies…I see a synergy developing here!
“I’ve seen things. I’ve seen troopships burning off the shoulders of Orion. I heard Orion yelling 'Hey, fucking troopships! Quit burning my goddam shoulders off! Shit!”
Deporting illegals is actually easy. E-verify+ have SS start reporting false numbers to the INS. “I don’t wanna” does not equal “We can’t do it”. It’s certainly a much easier job than getting us to 50% renewables.
There are 2 parts. Trump is uniquely awful. Hillary is actually pretty good, though she is not a natural politician or a natural orator.
David Frum, formerly of the GWBush administration. Trump is uniquely awful: he shatters the 7 guardrails of American politics.
And here is a letter to a millenial from an old fart about why Bernie Sanders is intellectually consistent, but not intellectually honest. Hillary, in contrast, isn’t afraid to grapple with the underlying politics: the author calls her, “…pretty damn honest.”
Yeah, I know. Basically the opposite of the conventional wisdom. Kevin Drum:
Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy, notwithstanding years of bogus smears that have never stood up to scrutiny (except one, IMHO).
If it was that easy to smear a politician they’d all get smeared that way. There’s a reason the stink of scandal is always around Hillary and not around Obama, Pelosi, Sanders, etc. And if she doesn’t trust the media or the people with the truth then she shouldn’t be in politics.
Yes, once a narrative is established it is difficult to break the paradigm with facts, right Adaher?
It’s easier to smear a politician when their personality is not as likeable. And Obama was smeared a whole lot. Remember the Kenyan and Muslim stuff?
The actual shady stuff I might worry about Clinton doing is not the stuff they try to get her on. They are going after an email issue that means nothing, or trying to pin a terrorist attack on her. The only potential scandal I’d see with Clinton was allowing money to corrupt her.
As for the OP, I think the best answer is just to point out where Clinton and Sanders agree on the issues, and show how much Trump disagrees. Then maybe point out Trump’s volatile nature.
Even if you want to call Clinton evil, she’s the evil we know. And no one but her or Trump can win, so voting for someone else is pointless. Vote against Trump.
Instead of the evil you think Clinton might be doing in the shadows, look at the evil Trump does right out in the open.
Yes. The reason is people continuing to try to *create *that stink, despite the factual evidence inevitably being to the contrary upon even the most casual inspection. People like you. :rolleyes: