How will the Democrats respond if Trump wins?

There are some threads on what will happen to the Republican Party if Trump loses this fall. I haven’t seen any threads to speculate about the opposite scenario. How will the Democratic Party change? My guess is that the party will become more liberal to try to bring in the Sanders voters, since if Clinton loses it will likely be due to her inability to attract the Sanders supporters. Feel free to speculate / predict on whatever you want. The 2018 midterms, 2020 nominees, how the DNC will respond, tactics to be used as a minority party in the Senate and House, etc.

Impeaching Trump with the help of many Republicans.

Which is why Kasich should accept the VP nomination.

Hillary will have to be executed. The Democrats will gather a firing squad and form a circle.

There are multiple possibilities here based on the president, Trump or Clinton, and the congress, House and/or Senate can go to either side or end up close enough to be roadblocked.

Trump and a solid Democratic congress could be a very good thing, it just depends on Trump and whatever he actually is.

Trump and a roadblocked congress will be very interesting. Maybe better than a Democratic congress.

Trump and Republican congress will be an economic disaster. The chaos will eclipse all other issues.

Clinton and a solid Democratic congress will result in out of control maintenance of the status quo. Steadily increasing the size of government with faulty programs and feel good measures. What happens two and four years down the road depends on what rises from the ashes of the Republican party.

Clinton and a roadblocked congress or Republican congress produces nothing. Four years later Bernie Sanders becomes president with a solid Democratic congress.

If the Democrats lose they will lay blame on Sanders and the party will move right. There is a widening gap in the middle the Republicans becoming ever more right wing where they can get the votes they lost to the far left.

As far as polling is concerned there isn’t much evidence Sanders supporters wouldn’t vote Clinton, there is simply a very vocal minority making this claim.

Maybe 30 years down the line there will be enough of a gap on the left that there would be room for a new left wing party, until then denying the Democratic party votes isn’t going to convince them to embrace far left positions.

Currently, Clinton has a very strong lead over Trump. Therefore, Trump will only win if something very unexpected happens. The response, then, must depend on just what that unexpected event is.

Major Islamic terrorist attack in the US shortly before the election, especially if traceable to Da-esh.

Even then, I’m not 100% convinced that would help Trump and only Trump. It would depend, again, on the reaction.

But that’s a bit off topic, and a possibility that’s useless to contemplate right now, and pretty horrible, for multiple reasons.

We contained the damage, by and large, from GWB. We didn’t let him privatize Social Security. But we didn’t go into total blockade, the way the Republicans have of Obama. We held hearings on GWB’s Supreme Court nominees. Roberts and Alito were confirmed. (Miers was a very sad aberration…but even so, she got a hearing.)

We would likely do the same with Trump. We’d engage with him in real bipartisan work, whenever possible, and only did in our heels for the stupidest of his plans. We wouldn’t permit a “huge” border wall with Mexico. We wouldn’t approve a renewal of heavy economic penalties against Iran.

The Democratic Party has lots of experience as a “working opposition.” The Republican Party, for the past few years, has tried going on a total work-stoppage, including trying to shut down the government and refusing to pay our bills. Democrats aren’t that crazy.

You think Sanders becomes president at seventy-nine?

It’s not a matter of whether Democrats are crazy or not – and they aren’t. But what gets overlooked is the fact that the increasing frustration that many on the left and even in the center left have with the endless republican filibustering and political chicanery has stoked a more impassioned left wing response, which explains the rise of Bernie Sanders. Just as the Republicans have the Tea Party, the progressives have the anti Tea Party. I wouldn’t bank on democrats working with a republican who makes overtures to occasionally meet dems in the center. There’s a genuine feeling that Wall St and K Street have gotten away with a lot over the past 20 years and that it’s time to get their William Wallace on. I’m not saying I feel that way, but I think an increasing number of liberals apparently do. I think we might see this come to the fore at the DNC convention.

Or that Hillary doesn’t run for reelection?

asahi: I do agree that the Democrats, working with Trump, would probably see a slightly stronger internal divide than was evident in 200-2008, but I wonder if that really is meaningful. In the House and Senate, once you vote “no,” what more can you really do? It’s like repealing Obamacare 50 times…

The Tea Party tried the technique of voting “no” on life-blood issues. The government itself; the debt.

I’m not sure that I can see even the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party doing anything like that. They might take some lesser issues hostage: Trump wants a free trade deal with India, and the Democratic Senate says no. It might even be something like Trump wants a free trade deal…and the Democrats say no to a new Aircraft Carrier or Oil Pipeline.

I can definitely see a greater degree of opposition. I just can’t see anything like the current total disengagement of the Republican opposition. I think we Democrats are better at playing the game: better at Realpolitik. Better at the Art of the Possible.

(We’ll only vote to repeal the “Mexican Wall” legislation twenty times before we figure out it’s a waste of time.)

I agree. Four years from now, Bernie won’t remember where he left his Hoveround, let alone what the White House is.

“Feel good measures”? You mean, like medicine, food, stuff like that?

If the Democrats lose, it won’t be because of their ideology, it will be because they turned a blind eye to the very real problems with their candidate. HOpefully they’ll be more careful in the future.

As it is, this election is only 75% in the bag, when it could be 99%. If anyone can lose this election to Trump, it’s Clinton. For what it’s worth, Predictit gives Trump a 38% chance of winning.

Like insufficient food and medicine that only puts a band-aid on the problem. Don’t look at this in some partisan way, neither side is interested in actually fixing problems.

Among the Democrats I’ve heard from, Canada, Australia, the UK, France, and half a dozen other countries have all been cited as good places to live if Trump wins. Sadly, Canada is uncomfortably close. One can only hope he builds a wall or something.

The Democrats had little, if anything, to do with quashing Bush’s plan to partially Privatize SS-- it died as a trial balloon when virtually no Republicans supported it.

You mean to keep Americans from fleeing?..