What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[frunk]

  Now I'm sad that those hats don't exist.

[HVC]

Bernie 2020 makes even less sense than 2/3rds of House Democrats choosing to keep Pelosi in the top job.

The way forward for Democrats isn't that complex:

1. Use the simplistic economic rhetoric of Bernie/Trump, but ideally not as far left as the stuff Bernie spews out.
2. The national party should step back a little bit on the most divisive cultural/social issues, anything that polls less than say 45-50% in important swing states.
3. Do more to help conservative Democrats run in red/purple states.

So for the democrats to win they should become conservative?

[OttoVonBismarck]

They are slowly taking over North Carolina and Georgia in this fashion. It may yet work in Texas. They are slowly taking control of all the major cities. This is really their only chance for success. Trying to be two-faced and game the system has not worked for them. It also makes them the moderate establishment, which everybody hates these days. Which is why I think populist leftism is about to be resurgent, and will win them back the rust belt. I don't think the lesson they will take from this election is they need to be more moderate and conservative, that was the now discredited Clinton strategy.

As somebody who is actually moderate and "pro-establishment" that kind of sucks.

Besides plenty of guys like Paul LePage might be in blue states but they are far from moderate or left leaning.

Yeah, I agree it's possible the Democrats could just change nothing, maybe get more leftist, and just wait for the browns to take over a few big Southern states. But FiveThirtyEight's Harry Enten made a good point that this may not actually work, not if whites in states like  Florida, and the Rust Belt start to vote like whites in the "core" Southeast, where they sometimes vote 70-75% for the Republicans. At that level of white support it'll be literally ages before the Dems flip those states, during which the GOP will have a significant structural advantage. Texas is definitely the achilles heel though, since whites there already vote about 70% for a candidate like Trump; but that's because Texas is only 55% white, and getting less white.

The chances of this happening aren't that far fetched, there's decent evidence a lot of whites view themselves as members of a broader "white tribe" that is under assault in varying ways from minorities, and that can create pressure for more ethnocentric voting.

[derspiess]

Now I'm sad that those hats don't exist.

They are selling MAGA hat Christmas tree ornaments if that makes you feel any better.  Perfect way to trigger your lefty cousin when he comes over to the house

[OttoVonBismarck]

Bernie 2020 makes even less sense than 2/3rds of House Democrats choosing to keep Pelosi in the top job.

The way forward for Democrats isn't that complex:

1. Use the simplistic economic rhetoric of Bernie/Trump, but ideally not as far left as the stuff Bernie spews out.
2. The national party should step back a little bit on the most divisive cultural/social issues, anything that polls less than say 45-50% in important swing states.
3. Do more to help conservative Democrats run in red/purple states.

So for the democrats to win they should become conservative?

I think I've pointed out I'm more talking about state/local than anything. Because just winning the White House (as you saw with Obama) vastly limits the lasting governance you can do. You have to run more conservative candidates in more conservative districts, is what I'm saying. Not that the  party as a whole needs to become more conservative. Like I said, it's the difference between a Chris Christie Republican and Mike Pence, they are from different states and used different messaging.

[Valmy]

Yeah, I agree it's possible the Democrats could just change nothing, maybe get more leftist, and just wait for the browns to take over a few big Southern states.

Well they went more conservative and triangulated and then got clobbered by the being the party that made evil capitalism take all the rust belt jobs.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also, I should add Democrats may be closing in on flipping some states in the electoral college, but I don't see much sign they're moving much on house districts and state legislatures in those states. Unlike last time when Democrats got more popular votes for House candidates than Republicans (but still lost the House), Republican House candidates outright got more votes than Democrats, there's thus some level of Republican strength in Congress (and State legislatures) that is independent of trends in the electoral college, or at least not in perfect lock step with said trends.

[Valmy]

Also, I should add Democrats may be closing in on flipping some states in the electoral college, but I don't see much sign they're moving much on house districts and state legislatures in those states. Unlike last time when Democrats got more popular votes for House candidates than Republicans (but still lost the House), Republican House candidates outright got more votes than Democrats, there's thus some level of Republican strength in Congress (and State legislatures) that is independent of trends in the electoral college, or at least not in perfect lock step with said trends.

True. But that probably requires solutions that are dependent on the conditions in each state.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, I agree it's possible the Democrats could just change nothing, maybe get more leftist, and just wait for the browns to take over a few big Southern states.

Well they went more conservative and triangulated and then got clobbered by the being the party that made evil capitalism take all the rust belt jobs.

Well, I'm not convinced free trade is a conservative issue. I don't think Obama governed as anything close to a conservative Democrat (like Bill), he was moderate in some areas and liberal in others and he was a big proponent of free trade. A lot of people in the global left are fans of free trade, particularly the ones who believe "free trade makes free people." It's only been relatively recently that the disaffected anti-trade liberals seem to have taken over on this front, globally speaking.

In a sense the Republicans got lucky they ran Trump, and that the Democrats ran Hillary. As a Clinton she had no real way to easily separate herself from Bill's free trade policies (or even Obama's, as his Secretary of State), and unlike most other Republicans Trump has hated NAFTA for decades and has no ties to the general Republican establishment support for free trade deals.

But you're confusing the point again--I'm not suggesting the Democrats run Bill Clinton 2.0 in 2020. But I am suggesting they run guys like him at the State/Local level.

[Valmy]

But you're confusing the point again--I'm not suggesting the Democrats run Bill Clinton 2.0 in 2020. But I am suggesting they run guys like him at the State/Local level.

Well this is what I think: this kind of strategy will not work these days. Populist disaffection with the establishment is in and those forces will rise on both left and right. That is what I predict will happen.

Now if the Democrats can sit down and carefully strategize and take a moderate position that swipes tons of votes in key states while somehow mollifying their left wing then that would be swell. I just don't think that is what is going to happen, and even if it did I don't think it would be successful.

And the left has been railing against 'neo-liberalism' and 'globalization' forever so I do not agree that is relatively recently.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think you're overstating the power of populism in regard to State legislative and congressional seats / senate seats. Several populist type Democrats for example lost races against establishment Republicans, in purple states.

I also think America is generally less leftist than it is conservative, I think firebrand leftists are too close to socialist too close to communists. Going that route will likely make the Democrats lose ground, not gain it.

Lower level races get far less media attention, and I think media attention, and lots of it, is a key aspect to populist revolts like Brexit or Trump's election. State legislative seats and at least the congressional/senate primaries are usually decided by the blue hairs and such who are members of the Rotary Club or etc. It's a mistake to confuse national elections with state and local ones.

For President in 2020 the Dems absolutely need a populist rabble rouse, I don't think Bernie is that person, but someone like him, but probably one who focuses more on blaming people for problems versus offering free stuff.

[viper37]

And the left has been railing against 'neo-liberalism' and 'globalization' forever so I do not agree that is relatively recently.

the 90s and early 2000s.  Seattle riots, Quebec city riots (FTAA) and such.

[frunk]

I think Valmy is correct in that Populist movements are the current wave.  The rightist populists are successful right now, but all it would take is for Trumpian Economics to crash and burn (or even be mildly unsuccessful) to turn a bunch of rightist populists into leftist.  There's been a lot of promises made (even if the specifics were vague) and the Republicans run the show.  Screw it up and things will change very fast.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Your quote got fucked up there viper, ascribing Valmy's words to me, but anyway--I didn't say there were no lefties opposed to globalization/free trade, just that they weren't the dominant voice until recently, very recently. And to a degree I think it's been more of a cross-sectional thing, in Britain it was a coalition of Tories and Labour disaffecteds who voted for Brexit, a rejection of globalization. Going back to my point, I don't think free trade is a clear cut conservative/liberal thing. The official leftist party of Britain was technically (if not practically) anti-Brexit, and liberals throughout the EU are pretty strong on globalization.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think Valmy is correct in that Populist movements are the current wave.  The rightist populists are successful right now, but all it would take is for Trumpian Economics to crash and burn (or even be mildly unsuccessful) to turn a bunch of rightist populists into leftist.  There's been a lot of promises made (even if the specifics were vague) and the Republicans run the show.  Screw it up and things will change very fast.

Again, but not at all levels of government. I can assure you Republicans aren't running mini-Trumps, or even mini-Cruz's for state house, I'm actually semi-involved in some of these local races. Antics like that would alienate the old, staid voters who are involved in these elections (both sides of the aisle.) I'd even say the weight of U.S. House / U.S. Senate races (since they don't always co-occur with a Presidential) are less amenable to the sort of grandiose populist rabble rousing of a Trump or a Farage.