Let’s face it: A Hillary presidency is inevitable. Let’s look to what both sides, the right and the left, have to work with when she’s inaugurated:
The Republicans have two things they might like about a Hillary presidency: She’s a tough military hawk, and will also be tough on China and Russia and other such nations of concern, while also hitting ISIS hard.
The Democrats would have a feminist president, one who is pro-abortion, speaks more on women’s issues than perhaps any other presidency in contemporary history, and probably is less likely to compromise with Republicans than Obama.
What else do both sides have to look forward to and anticipate?
On foreign policy, Clinton would uphold the Iran deal. I suspect that most Republican Presidents would as well though, campaign talk notwithstanding.
Could she reverse past cuts in infrastructure spending? Yes, if the Dems take the House and Senate. There’s bipartisan support for things like that, but they can’t be done because of GOP obstructionism. If both houses are swept and the filibuster is eliminated we could do that. There’s a shared interest in a growing economy: even the donor class would benefit. We are the 100%.
Like most Democratic Presidents, Clinton will propose budgets with lower budget deficits than Republican Presidents would. That’s a mixed blessing, as we could use a little stimulus. It’s unfortunate that Republicans don’t go for temporary tax cuts.
If the Republicans keep the House (likely now, guaranteed if the opponent was other than Trump or Cruz) then much of the Clinton/Sanders debate will look like disagreements about actual unicorns vs. magical unicorns. Neither of which exist in this world.
Here’s something I’ve wondered. Obama spooked the Republicans with his talk of finding common ground. That shtick would have worked during the 1970s, but McConnell felt that bipartisanship helped the Presidential Party disproportionately. But maybe de facto bipartisanship could work with someone who can be painted as something other than conciliatory. McConnell has changed his tune a little now that he has his majority back. Don’t get me wrong. This smacks of wishful thinking. But sometimes you stirring the pot and changing the cast of characters gives a different outcome. One can hope that Koch Network could opt for patriotism and common ground, after this Trump scare. I mean you would think a capitalist would understand the benefits of predictability in policy.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
If the Republicans keep the House (likely now, guaranteed if the opponent was other than Trump or Cruz) then much of the Clinton/Sanders debate will look like disagreements about actual unicorns vs. magical unicorns.
[/Quote]
I agree with this, which is why I think you will see Wall Street support a democratic candidate more strongly than at any time in recent memory. Indeed the Kochs, who typically don’t say much and instead prefer to let their money speak for them, are already talking about national unity and so forth. Wall Street will probably support republicans in congressional races, which would seem to bolster your prediction that they will keep control of congress - the House particularly. The key here, however, is what kind of ‘control’ does the House have. I think that at minimum, the congressional republicans are going to be stung so badly in this election that, even if they win in congress, they will be sent a stern warning. Their majority will probably be only a slight one and this might encourage some republicans to moderate their stances a bit and work across the aisle, which would favor Clinton.
Yeah, she’s more hawkish, but also she has better relationships with Republicans. It seems to be an assumption among many Dopers that she’ll be less accomodating because Obama supposedly bends over backwards and Clinton’s tough. Actually, the Clintons have always been willing to work with Republicans even as those same Republicans are trying to destroy them and Hillary counts many Republicans in the Senate as close friends. So I think we’ll see much more dealmaking than we saw the last eight years.
I don’t know how much conservatives care about this, but Clinton also cares more about the details of governance. Obama’s always preferred the grand gestures and left the details to others. The Clintons used to stay up till 3am talking about things like grazing fees on public lands. The Clintons always realized something many liberals refused to acknowledge: that if government doesn’t work well, then there will be no support for government. So one of Clinton’s top priorities as President was to assign Al Gore to the Reinventing Government initiative, which eliminated tons of unnecessary regulations and saved taxpayers money on useless or duplicative programs.
The Clintons are also free traders and deregulators, so there’s more to make conservatives happy.
aside from the standard keep abortion legal, increase embryonic stem cell research, she’ll have better relationships with our allies, particularly Israel, than Obama or possibly Trump, and be taken more seriously by rivals Putin and China, both of whom laughed at Obama. Look how Russia ran over Ukraine while Obama admitting he’d be softer on them after the 2012 election practically invited it.
Assuming Hillary is elected, I’d look forward to her continuing to not be Donald Trump. She could achieve world peace, cure cancer, and bring fourth a time of prosperity unlike any the world has ever known, but not being Donald Trump would still be the greatest thing she could do for the country.
I don’t see any problem with our current relationship with Israel.
But Mrs. Clinton will be good too.
I don’t the Republicans will have any legitimate problems with her presidency, but I do fear they’ll pretend to very unhappy with the direction our country is going and vow to work to take it back.
They don’t want to take it all, that would be greedy and gross. Just the legislature, the courts and the police. We can have the rest. Damn white of them.
Green Tea Partiers have united before with environmentalists in defeating lame brain moves to limit the growth of solar energy used in homes.
Forward thinking conservatives are mostly going for that idea because they want to be more independent from virtual local monopolies of energy and save money, they are not much thinking about the environment where humans live and controlling emissions to deal with climate change; but regardless of the reasons, there is something in common here. And Clinton plans to set the goal of more 1/2 a Billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of her first term.
There is no way in hell that we will see the likes of Trump promising policies about what needs to be done in this front, only retarded conspiracy theories.
[QUOTE]
We have to do much more — and we have to do it now. Watch Hillary's plan to curb climate change.
[/QUOTE]
The main thing I look forward to is the probability of 2 moderate left choices for the supreme court.
I also think that with the Clinton presidency there is the possibility of actually getting occasional legislation through congress. I don’t think its a certainty, or even actually likely but I think there is a chance. Clinton is a master at getting down and dirty and applying pressure and influence to get what she wants. It may be that she can push, poke, deal and cagoule enough to actually get slim majorities through the house on useful legislation.
Maybe the Congressional Pubs will be less obstinately determined to deny her any successes and delegitimize her presidency than they were with Obama – but I see no reason to expect it; everything depends on the Dems’ showing in the Congressional elections.
I think for many Republicans Clinton is more of a known entity that they have a playbook for. Many in the traditional GOP lane are business people and in business you want to be able to plan ahead. You need some degree of predictability. A circumstance of possibly 50/50 having 2X or zero in a year’s time is not worth the same as X in a business world; you’d pay extra to know it is going to be X, give up the chance to have 2X, for the ability to plan knowing that future X is a known thing. Clinton will mostly be a continuation of the incrementalist approach that Obama is known for, something they are already used to, and an option that gives the traditionalist business focussed GOP lane a chance to regain control of the party.
Been a Republican many years but I’ve only ever voted Republican locally (B-More). Voted for Omalley the first time so please don’t pretend to be more moderate than me. Even after my radicalization, I’m on the record for favoring a Clinton victory.
Hillary is hated, and, as one libertarian commentator has noted, she couldn’t initiate the “Wave” at a ball game. This is great from a libertarian perspective. She will constantly be hounded by the Republicans for scandals real and imagined, and nothing of substance will be accomplished. More good stuff.
She is also likely to instigate a feud with Russia. Not good, but she will only serve one term, she may not have time to go Full Hillary on us. That said the wars will continue with no opposition, including from Bernie the Coward. Her presidency will sadly be a continuation of the US Govt’s jihad.
If I got my way on which president she will most resemble, it would be GHWB. Just a run of the mill bad president. That’s the most she can do for me at this point.
The unknown is how the Republicans will react after Trump. I’m hoping more Ted Cruz and less Paul Ryan.
Uh, WillFarnaby, this is about what both Republicans and Democrats would like about a Hillary presidency, not what the haters that will always hate think.