President Trump - The First 100 days.

[Zanza]

Clinton should nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. 

First Barrack then Michelle. 

[The Brain]

No time. Obama has to make peace somewhere to earn his Prize.

[Razgovory]

Clinton should nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. 

It's been done before.

[Rex Francorum]

Day 1: Trump becomes president.
Day 44: We run out of emergency supplies.
Day 59: The NRA becomes the fourth wing of government.
Day 60: Martinus is executed
Day 75: The eastern seaboard becomes its own nation under the leadership of Donald Trump. The rest of the country is cut free.
Day 80: The rest of the US unites behind the LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson and we created a theocratic republic governed out of Salt Lake City.
Day 81: Trumpland sinks into the ocean.
Day 100: Everyone becomes Mormon. The second coming of Jesus is triggered.

Day 101: Ottoman Empire rises(?)

[Hamilcar]

Clinton should nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. 

It's been done before.

Really?! By golly!

[alfred russel]

The Republican senators aren't blocking Garland because they are excited about a potential trump pick and bullish on a trump win. They are blocking garland because they are scared of republican primary voters and supporting an Obama nominee no matter how reasonable may earn them a damnable reputation: a moderate.

Does that fear meaningfully change when it is the general instead of the primaries?  They'll be just as vulnerable to such accusations.

No.

[Sheilbh]

He already nominated a moderate that was being referenced by Orrin Hatch as the kind of compromise guy that should be nominated but wouldn't be. What more do you want from him?

I'm talking about if Clinton loses.

[Malthus]

Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?

[Hamilcar]

Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?

Trumpism is here to stay. The really interesting question is who will take up Trump's mantle after his defeat in the election.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?

Nah, not yet. So Romney despite going hard-right in the primaries and largely staying there in the general, had long been seen as a "Rockefeller Republican" or "RINO" ( a charge that would be leveled at me if I was a public figure, since I tend to be more of a 1980s, George H.W. Bush type of Republican--if I had been voting back in the Primaries in '80 I'd have been an H.W. guy, not a Reagan guy.) A large part of the far right believed Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Ted Cruz was the answer to that charge, and had Ted been defeated in the general it may have forced some soul-searching among power brokers on the far right, to acknowledge their views simply cannot win the White House. Or maybe not, but at least it'd have forced them to think about it.

Instead, Trump was elected, representing a form of blue collar populism we hadn't really seen in a long time, but he definitely holds many views that are 100% anathema to mainstream conservatives, so assuming Trump loses, the Cruz-wing of the party will still be there, believing the right time for a "true conservative" is still now.

[DGuller]

Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?

I doubt it, there is clearly a lot of demand for this kind of insanity among the voters.

[Malthus]

Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?

Nah, not yet. So Romney despite going hard-right in the primaries and largely staying there in the general, had long been seen as a "Rockefeller Republican" or "RINO" ( a charge that would be leveled at me if I was a public figure, since I tend to be more of a 1980s, George H.W. Bush type of Republican--if I had been voting back in the Primaries in '80 I'd have been an H.W. guy, not a Reagan guy.) A large part of the far right believed Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Ted Cruz was the answer to that charge, and had Ted been defeated in the general it may have forced some soul-searching among power brokers on the far right, to acknowledge their views simply cannot win the White House. Or maybe not, but at least it'd have forced them to think about it.

Instead, Trump was elected, representing a form of blue collar populism we hadn't really seen in a long time, but he definitely holds many views that are 100% anathema to mainstream conservatives, so assuming Trump loses, the Cruz-wing of the party will still be there, believing the right time for a "true conservative" is still now.

This makes sense I guess: there were at least three flavors of insanity on offer in the primaries: Trump, Cruz, and Carson. If Trump crashes and burns, that doesn't discredit the other two.

[Hamilcar]

This makes sense I guess: there were at least three flavors of insanity on offer in the primaries: Trump, Cruz, and Carson. If Trump crashes and burns, that doesn't discredit the other two.

It's a shame that Romney-ism wasn't even really being considered.

[Tamas]

Trump is only the beginning for sure. There will come a candidate who will do the same act but will be less narcistic and more sociopath, and win the election

[Sheilbh]

Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?

My guess would be no. For a start too many people are making money out of this crazy.

I know the argument that in general when outlier candidates win they tend to shift the party in the long-term. I'm not sure if that'll be the case with Trump because he's not a party man unlike, say, McGovern and Goldwater. I don't know if there's a movement or an intellectual trend behind him - the "alt-right" are only an internet groupuscule after all.

Challenge I see for Republicans is they've built their party on that old Reaganite stool: fiscal conservatism, national security, social conservatism. Off the top of my head Trump has given very strong support to social security and Medicare, he's widely regarded as an unserious foreign policy candidate and his social conservatism leaves a lot to be desired too. It's been obvious for a while that the base of the GOP is different from the people who'll benefit from the GOP elite policy opinions (in part this is why I like Huck in 2008: they needed to be more like a party led by guys you work with and less like one led by the guys who fire you). But that gap is now huge. Trump has shown that you can entirely disregard the post-Reagan GOP ideological structure and win and the issues that won it were things like immigration where the Republicans were thinking of compromising.

If they've any sense they'll start re-thinking their policies so their economic policy is actually an offer for working class America not just 1986 extrapolated forward. They may end up being rather more isolationist than were used to and I think definitely more nativist. The challenge is to come up with some coherent policy offer for these voters and to break up the Democrat coalition of the college educated and minorities.

It may be that like the GOP in 68 and the Democrats in 76 the Republicans automatically go to the other extreme. While I don't think he's going to transform his party in the way they did - ie. in any constructive fashion - I think Trump may have lit the touchpaper beneath core parts of the GOP since Reagan. In my view, in the long-run, it may lead to a different Republican and Democratic Party.