What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[alfred russel]

I think the democrats should just try to prevent a massive disaster in the first part of Trump's term, and delay as much as possible until public opinion shifts some republicans to their point of view (they just need 3 republicans to defect in the senate to have a majority on any specific topic, if they can hold together). Then they need to win something in 2018 (probably the house). If they can't win midterms with Trump as president, something is really wrong.

[CountDeMoney]

They did it when they did not have either as well. That also had value for them.

Looking nasty might be what they need. I mean you just called them 'losers'. How is meekly going along with whatever Trump wants going to help them regroup from that label?

yes, and it wasn't smart of them. do think "looking nasty" is a good strategy to regain support in areas the democrats have lost?

You really need to shut the fuck up before I look nasty and give you the night off, you fucking monkey. 

[11B4V]

 

Not in red font yet.

[CountDeMoney]

He's working on it.

[LaCroix]

I think the democrats should just try to prevent a massive disaster in the first part of Trump's term, and delay as much as possible until public opinion shifts some republicans to their point of view (they just need 3 republicans to defect in the senate to have a majority on any specific topic, if they can hold together). Then they need to win something in 2018 (probably the house). If they can't win midterms with Trump as president, something is really wrong.

agree with this depending on your definition of "delay." they need to focus more than anything on rebuilding the party, and this means offering more or at least the illusion of offering more to the average american* than they have in recent years.

*americans who vote

[Valmy]

yes, and it wasn't smart of them. do think "looking nasty" is a good strategy to regain support in areas the democrats have lost?

What wasn't smart of whom?

Anyway I don't know if it is or not. But sometimes having a fired up base with a high turnout is all you need, especially in midterms, rather than moderating to please some moderates. I have yet to see any recent evidence moderating wins anybody any glory or elections.

[viper37]

Valmy has a point.  You don't refuse allies.

Ok, I see the point.  But you need to be careful they don't strike you in the back.

[Valmy]

agree with this depending on your definition of "delay." they need to focus more than anything on rebuilding the party, and this means offering more or at least the illusion of offering more to the average american* than they have in recent years.

*americans who vote

The party still exists. They control many states still. They control 48 Senate Seats and a large number of House districts. They won the popular vote in the last Presidential election. Their base is mobilized and mad as hell and ready to demonstrate and do political battle. And the big plan is to retreat and try to beg Conservative and Moderate voters over to their side? Seems likely to both not impress the moderates and disappoint a base asking for aggressive leadership.

[LaCroix]

What wasn't smart of whom?

Anyway I don't know if it is or not. But sometimes having a fired up base with a high turnout is all you need, especially in midterms, rather than moderating to please some moderates. I have yet to see any recent evidence moderating wins anybody any glory or elections.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/midterm-election-turnout-isnt-so-different-from-presidential-year-turnout/

The reason Republicans won more votes in 2010 — and likely will in 2014 — is that voters wanted Republicans in office, not that minorities and young people didn't turn out to vote.

the problem doesn't seem to be the turnout

[viper37]

or at least the illusion of offering more to the average american* than they have in recent years.

*americans who vote

actually, they need to convince more Americans to vote.

[Valmy]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/midterm-election-turnout-isnt-so-different-from-presidential-year-turnout/

The Republicans obstructed from a minority position starting in 2009. In 2010 their voters showed up and the Dems did not. Seems pretty clear to me.

[LaCroix]

The party still exists. They control many states still. They control 48 Senate Seats and a large number of House districts. They won the popular vote in the last Presidential election. Their base is mobilized and mad as hell and ready to demonstrate and do political battle.

I'm saying the party is in a weak spot right now; I'm not saying the party doesn't exist or that they don't control many states. their base seems to be at least mad, agree with you there, but I don't know whether a mad base alone is enough.

And the big plan is to retreat and try to beg Conservative and Moderate voters over to their side? Seems likely to both not impress the moderates and disappoint a base asking for aggressive leadership.

(this is why it's not nice to call people dishonest fucks, etc. I don't think you're being dishonest here, just as you shouldn't think I'm being dishonest when I respond to your posts)

you can win over voters by aggressively showing the voters why it's a good idea to vote for XYZ democratic candidate. obstructionism isn't the only tool in the aggression playbook

[Valmy]

actually, they need to convince more Americans to vote.

And LaCroix's vague weaksauce 'loser' strategy is unlikely to do that.

I mean this is all academic anyway. The Democrats are leaderless and gutless so neither strike out in an aggressive way nor will they start some great overhaul of their grass roots. They will just sort of try to do what they already do.

[LaCroix]

The Republicans obstructed from a minority position starting in 2009. In 2010 their voters showed up and the Dems did not. Seems pretty clear to me.

and now we're back to my earlier post

maybe I misunderstood you.

by obstructionism strategy, I thought you referred to an obstructionism strategy where it somehow leads to the democrats regaining ground across the states, and maybe regaining the senate or the house or both

so, this is what you mean. there's no evidence the republicans obstructing is what caused their voters to show up. it's very probable the republicans were doing non-obstructionism things that resulted in them winning OR/AND the democrats did things that caused them to lose

from your recent posts, you seem to be focusing on obstructionism while ignoring other things. there's way more to aggressive political strategy than obstructionism

[Valmy]

(this is why it's not nice to call people dishonest fucks, etc. I don't think you're being dishonest here, just as you shouldn't think I'm being dishonest when I respond to your posts)

You were being a dishonest fuck. You were accusing me of things I never did and said except in your own imagination and asked me to address them. I will never play that bullshit game.

I am not being dishonest here. I asked you a clarifying question. You made it sound like they needed to moderate somehow and try to win over the middle.

you can win over voters by aggressively showing the voters why it's a good idea to vote for XYZ democratic candidate. obstructionism isn't the only tool in the aggression playbook

Hey I am just throwing it out there, pointing out that seems to be what their base wants and demands, and saying that is what the Republicans used to win in 2010 and 2000. I would prefer, of course, that everybody carefully consider each bill and policy and vote on its own merits in a sane and reasonable manner and campaign based on high ideals and wise policies.

But, as I said, probably academic. The Democrats are lead by fossils who are likely stuck in their ways and will be completely reactionary during this whole thing. As per usual.