What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

I don't think you can separate out "things that make it likely to be elected" from "things that mean he'll do a good job once elected".  Being electable is a key qualification for being a politician.

As a voter I think it's very important to separate out the two.

As do I.  "Handsome" is something helps a man get elected.  It's not really much of a qualification for office.

[Savonarola]

Fair question.  Jeb!, for example, was about as terrible a candidate as you can get.  Yet oddly enough I think he could have made a halfway decent president. 

Some others-- particularly Rand (with whom I still stand), Cruz, and Rubio-- I still think were good candidates.  They just got caught off-guard by Trump's asshattery and in the latter two cases Trump pummeled them when they tried to beat him at his own game.  I think Kasich was also a pretty good candidate but waited too long to commit to running.

Also Rand and Cruz; and Rubio and Bush both drew from the same ideological pool of voters.  This split the donations and votes and allowed Trump to divide and conquer.

[Grey Fox]

Trump is the best candidate a right leaning american voter can wish for. All the others were unelectable in a general election.

Altho, it is a surprise that Trump is.

I think the GOP had multiple candidates that could have beaten Hillary.  Rubio and Kasich are the first two that come to mind.

No. They wouldn't have carried Rust Belt states.

[Savonarola]

Today the thought hit me that all political news, articles, TV shows, general discourse, have been dominated by Trump since the start of the primaries. I am now utterly tired of him and the hysteria on both end of the Trump spectrum, and I dread the thought of having to endure 7 more years of this shit. Because there is no way he can lose if all the world revolves around him to this fucking degree.

It isn't just hysteria, the public (or at least the media watching public) has a weird fascination with him.  I now know how many Diet Cokes Trump drinks every day (12) thanks to CNN's relentless journalistic efforts.  For whatever reason we need to know personal details that specific about Trump.

[garbon]

Today the thought hit me that all political news, articles, TV shows, general discourse, have been dominated by Trump since the start of the primaries. I am now utterly tired of him and the hysteria on both end of the Trump spectrum, and I dread the thought of having to endure 7 more years of this shit. Because there is no way he can lose if all the world revolves around him to this fucking degree.

It isn't just hysteria, the public (or at least the media watching public) has a weird fascination with him.  I now know how many Diet Cokes Trump drinks every day (12) thanks to CNN's relentless journalistic efforts.  For whatever reason we need to know personal details that specific about Trump.

Well while we know you are obsessed with detailing the low standards of CNN, I doubt that most of us actually look at CNN on a regular basis.

[Malthus]

I don't think you can separate out "things that make it likely to be elected" from "things that mean he'll do a good job once elected".  Being electable is a key qualification for being a politician.

I think I would make an excellent politician, but I doubt I'd ever be able to get elected.  Which would of course make me a terrible politician.

And yes "running a billion dollar business" is probably a qualification in and of itself, even given his numerous failures.

This is circular reasoning - that if someone gets elected, they must be qualified, by virtue of having been elected.

Point of 'qualifications' is that they point to previous relevant experience and skills, which arguably has some sort of predictive power as to their likely performance on the job.

An unqualified candidate may well win, but that doesn't stop them from being unqualified.

I seem to recall Justin Trudeau getting a lot of criticism for his lack of qualifications for a leadership role (a critique with some real sting) - but he was far more qualified than Trump, having been a MP since 2008.

[garbon]

I don't think you can separate out "things that make it likely to be elected" from "things that mean he'll do a good job once elected".  Being electable is a key qualification for being a politician.

I think I would make an excellent politician, but I doubt I'd ever be able to get elected.  Which would of course make me a terrible politician.

And yes "running a billion dollar business" is probably a qualification in and of itself, even given his numerous failures.

This is circular reasoning - that if someone gets elected, they must be qualified, by virtue of having been elected.

Point of 'qualifications' is that they point to previous relevant experience and skills, which arguably has some sort of predictive power as to their likely performance on the job.

An unqualified candidate may well win, but that doesn't stop them from being unqualified.

I seem to recall Justin Trudeau getting a lot of criticism for his lack of qualifications for a leadership role (a critique with some real sting) - but he was far more qualified than Trump, having been a MP since 2008.

Yeah kind of like when a person gets hired for a job. You can get hired for a job despite not being qualified for it.

[garbon]

That said, Sav, I did just watch the interview with Stephen Miller. First thought, damn this dude seems like he's dead inside. Second thought, did he really just say the book is a garbage book by a garbage author and third, oh fuck really, Trump Force One?

[Habbaku]

That said, Sav, I did just watch the interview with Stephen Miller. First thought, damn this dude seems like he's dead inside. Second thought, did he really just say the book is a garbage book by a garbage author and third, oh fuck really, Trump Force One?

I'm watching it right now. Miller is getting seriously triggered.

[grumbler]

I think the GOP had multiple candidates that could have beaten Hillary.  Rubio and Kasich are the first two that come to mind.

No. They wouldn't have carried Rust Belt states.

Kasich was a popular two-term governor of a rust belt state. Saying he couldn't carry rust belt states when he had done it twice is foolish.

[derspiess]

No. They wouldn't have carried Rust Belt states.

Against Hillary?  I think they could've.  Especially Kasich.  Being a popular governor in a Rust Belt state might've helped him a little.


edit: Dang you, grumbler.  Dang you to Heck.

[Eddie Teach]

Also they might have carried states Hillary won like Virginia and Colorado. It's not like Republicans haven't won before.

[Admiral Yi]

Also they might have carried states Hillary won like Virginia and Colorado. It's not like Republicans haven't won before.

I think the trend in Virginia and Colorado is bluer and bluer.  Virginia because of federal sprawl and Colorado because every pothead in the country is moving there.

[garbon]

Also they might have carried states Hillary won like Virginia and Colorado. It's not like Republicans haven't won before.

I think the trend in Virginia and Colorado is bluer and bluer.  Virginia because of federal sprawl and Colorado because every pothead in the country is moving there.

I wonder how that will play with California if Sessions 's play doesn't actually lead to war on the states policies. After all, why live in Colorado for that reason if you can live in California?

[dps]

I don't think you can separate out "things that make it likely to be elected" from "things that mean he'll do a good job once elected".  Being electable is a key qualification for being a politician.

I think I would make an excellent politician, but I doubt I'd ever be able to get elected.  Which would of course make me a terrible politician.

And yes "running a billion dollar business" is probably a qualification in and of itself, even given his numerous failures.

I think you're ignoring that there is a big difference between politics and statesmanship.