No. People thought we were headed for permanent one-party Democratic rule in 2008, and they were just as wrong then. People like to blame the incumbent party for whatever goes wrong, so they’re inclined to switch frequently; and the parties are generally pretty good at responding to shifts in public opinion, so we’re likely to see new Democratic strategies aimed at either recapturing some of those white Rust Belt voters, and / or offsetting their loss by appealing to other voters elsewhere (like people who used to be moderate, establishment Republicans and are turned off by the new populism).
Well let’s see we’ve had in my lifetime:
1 term Carter (D)
2 terms Reagan ®
1 term Bush ®
2 terms Clinton (D)
2 terms Bush ®
2 terms Obama (D)
Seems very balanced to me for the last 40 years.
Translation: most of his voters are nihilists.
Democrats outnumber Republicans. All that was needed to put a Democrat in the White House was a candidate that could beat Donald Trump.
Trump took 9% of AA votes and 26% of Hispanic votes. There are your swing votes.
Say what? Just weeks ago people were saying the GOP was doomed to near-extinction.
Trump’s election was an aberration. The Democrats will swiftly re-dominate in 2020.
That would depend on how Republicans govern. Even in blue states, Republicans who govern well do just fine.
I remember hearing the same thing after W was reelected. Didn’t happen.
To echo the others, people said this in 2004 when Bush won reelection with GOP majorities in both houses of Congress and in 2008 when Obama got into the White House.
However, if the party in power does what the people want and doesn’t screw things up, they will usually be able to enjoy a long time in power, or at least a long period where the other party can only win by adopting large parts of their agenda. Obama was transformative to the extent that he ended the Reagan era, where both parties agreed(Democrats for tactical reasons only) that government was too big. But he wasn’t strong enough to usher in an era of liberal dominance. So now we’re at an inflection point. Whichever party can be successful at governing can build a dominant coalition. Right now the GOP has the ball, and the opportunity.
I concur with those who point out that we get this kind of thing after every election.
On the SDMB it’s usually that every Democratic win signals the end for the GOP, and every GOP win is a blip caused by low turnout.
In 2018 there are more Democratic Senate seats up for re-election than Republican ones. OTOH the controlling party usually loses ground in the midterms. OTOOtherH turnout is usually lower in non-Presidential elections, and that favors Republicans. That may or may not be the case in 2018. People were certainly energized to GOTV against Trump in 2016 and he still won (albeit not the popular vote). “All politics is local”, they say, and Senate elections are by state. It is entirely possible that red states will re-elect Democrats, blue states will re-elect Republicans, and Trump’s coat tails will neither help nor hurt the GOP, overall.
The most significant long-term effect of 2016 is going to be the Supreme Court. If Trump keeps his word and nominates a conservative, and if the GOP sticks together and gets him or her confirmed, that will put the balance of the Court back to what it was with Scalia. If Ginsberg dies, that will be a shift.
Yes, the Dems will stall and delay and filibuster and obstruct any nominee that Trump puts forth, and the media will not call them on the flip-flop. SOP. A lot depends on how well the GOP can maintain party discipline under a loose cannon like Trump.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not really a flip flop though. Republicans provoked that response by not voting on Garland. If the democrats just rolled over for Trump’s nominee that would let the rest of the air out of the deflated balloon that is Democratic morale.
There isn’t going to be a conservative Scalia replacement unless Republicans invoke the nuclear option, which in turn the Democrats also provoked with their own nuclear option and thus can’t bitch. Alternatively, Trump could take the opportunity to play statesman, withdrawing a conservative nominee and finding one that’s a likely swing vote on the court like Kennedy. Such a nominee would almost certainly be approved and Trump gets a big win, bringing the squabbling sides together.
Absolutely. No Democrat will ever win an election in the US going forward. Good call!!
It would be a flip-flop in the sense that Democrats like Biden and Obama (when he was in Congress) talking about not confirming a nominee until the next election, then Democrats at least on the SDMB saying that Congress was abrogating its duty by not confirming or at least holding hearings on Garland until after the election, and then not holding hearings or filibustering on whoever Trump nominates. And the Dems aren’t going to roll over - all 47 of them will vote against anyone Trump nominates.
The GOP may well have to do that. The Dems will bitch and the media won’t call them on it.
My expectations of Trump acting like a statesman are low. Plus, none of the people on the list Trump has already published are going to be considered centrist by the Democrats or the media.
I am probably biased - the only possible reason I could have voted for Trump (I didn’t) is to get conservatives on the Supreme Court.
The GOP holds Congress and the White House. Why should we give up something important, like restoring a 5-4 conservative balance to the Court, to conciliate the Democrats? No doubt they will howl and say that it is terrible and unfair and all the rest of it. So what? Elections have consequences.
Regards,
Shodan
How exactly is China going to “call in our debt”? That’s not how government debt works. It’s not like your buddy loaned you $20 last week, and today he’s insisting you pay him back right now. Government borrowing is in the form of bonds, which are repayable on a fixed schedule. People who buy US government bonds can’t just demand they get repaid right away.
What they can do is sell those bonds, which dumps a bunch of US debt on the market, which depresses the ability of the US to issue new debt. Which means nobody wants to loan money to the US, which means we have to offer higher interest rates. Except right now interest rates are pretty near zero. So right now we can borrow money for free. In the future that won’t be true, and that will be a problem because we’ve gotten used to the idea that we can issue zero interest bonds, and it’s going to come as a bit of a shock when we have to start offering better and better rates.
It’s pretty easy to repay that massive government debt, because we can just create new dollars to repay our creditors. Of course that means inflation, people in America lose their savings, and so on, so that’s not a great option. The reason other countries get in trouble with debt is that they have to borrow in foreign currency. If Argentina takes on debt denominated in US dollars, they have to pay back the debt in US dollars, or default, or force the lenders to take a haircut, or whatever. But the US isn’t in that position, since we own infinity dollars. That’s why we’ll never have to default on our debts. We just have to print up a trillion dollars and send a container ship full of them over to China.
I think I’ve heard that song before.
Of course filibustering each and every Trump appointment is nonsense. But filibustering objectively terrible appointments is mandatory. If Trump nominates the equivalent of Garland, then that person should be confirmed. If he nominates Chris Christie, then fuck that.
If Republicans vote in lock step to confirm each and every terrible appointment Trump makes, then they win. But does that happen? I can see the Republican Senators, even the #nevertrumpers caving in and being afraid to oppose Trump in any way. Or they could grow a spine and refuse to confirm the worst of the worst.
And as for the hypocrisy charge, what pissed people off about Garland wasn’t that Republicans refused to confirm him. It’s that the leadership refused to reject him. Because if they had held a vote, he would have been confirmed easily, because he was a well qualified person of the sort that Republicans would support. It would be one thing to vote against Garland because you thought he would make a terrible Supreme Court Justice. It’s another to refuse to confirm him even though you think he was a good choice.
And the hypocrisy charge is fucking nonsense. We’re in a whole new era in the last 6 years. Yeah, the Democrats have been complaining about it for a while. But this is the new normal. This is the style of government the Republicans created. So how the fuck can the Republicans claim to be outraged when the Democrats do the same things they did? The Republicans are going to try to hold Democrats to a standard they don’t hold for themselves? How’s that going to work for them?
Bottom line, Trump is going to be a disaster for the country. If the Republicans roll over and rubber stamp Trump’s horrible horrible ideas, then we’re doubly fucked. I’m not holding out much hope that the Republicans will oppose Trump. The ones who complained about Trump did so in the expectation that he would lose. Now that he’s won, they’re probably going to do everything they can to kiss his ass.
The worst electoral and popular vote defeats suffered by parties in modern history were in 1964 (LBJ v. Goldwater) and 1972 (Nixon V. McGovern). In BOTH cases, the losing party took the White House on the VERY next shot. Parties are adaptable institutions, and don’t like losing. It may take an election or two before the Dems find a message/candidate combination that can win back just enough of those voters that went for Trump (let’s call them “the redeemables”) to make sure that instead of breaking “R” that every “swing state” breaks “D”.
The above is true even if Trump does an OK job, a dubious assumption, I know. If he’s an unmitigated disaster, then obviously the Dems could win in 2020 by simply nominating somebody who doesn’t drool onstage.
The above also assumes that Trump doesn’t take us into fascist territory, also a dubious assumption.
How presidential politics works, a parable.
A wealthy industrialist with many types of businesses dies and leaves his businesses to his daughter. His daughter is a vegetarian and meat disgusts her. One of the businesses is a sausage factory. The sausage factory has two management factions one that wants to make bratwurst and one that wants to make andouille. The daughter goes to see the sausage factory periodically and is repulsed by the meat and fires whoever is in charge and gives the other management faction of the factory control. Every time this happens fans of bratwurst and andouille are either elated or despondent and think this is the time where they are in control forever.
Liberals are going to say that any conservative nominee is objectively terrible.
It didn’t piss “people” in general off - it pissed Democrats off, because they missed a chance to swing the Court to the left. And now that chance is (hopefully) gone.
If you want me to believe that “people” were pissed off, then name a Republican Senator who lost his seat because the GOP refused to hold hearings on Garland.
This is the usual “he hit me back first”. But you’re right - Democrats make that complaint a lot.
A Republican (sort of) won the White House, and the GOP controls Congress. That means the GOP gets to nominate judges and Justices that they want. The Democrats don’t. Because they lost. That’s how it works.
If it is a bad thing for the minority party to yell and kick and scream and obstruct and hold their breath until they turn blue, then the GOP was wrong in 2008 and the Dems are wrong now. If it is a good thing, then the GOP was right and the Dems are right now. If it a good thing when I do it but a bad thing when you do it, then the hypocrisy charge is not fucking nonsense.
If it is a good thing only if the policies and nominees are bad, then whether the policies and nominees are bad is a matter of opinion. We resolve these kinds of differences of opinion in a republic with elections.
We just did that. The party that holds my opinion, that conservative justices should be appointed to the Supreme Court, won. Accordingly, I look forward to an outcome, where the Supreme Court uses the text of the Constitution in its decisions and doesn’t simply make it up as they go along.
I recognize that you don’t agree. Nonetheless, that’s how it is going to be (hopefully).
Regards,
Shodan
Objectively Garland was hardly a leftist. He was the sort of appointment that might have been made by Bush 1.