What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

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

What would count as evidence? The evidence seems very compelling to me. The way they handled the whole ACA was brilliant from an obstructionist point of view. They refused all cooperation, forced the Democrats to own it completely, and then drilled them on it. Hell the Democrats could do that for miles on every Trump policy. The Republicans would be forced into a very rigid party discipline on most things, it would open them up for attack all over the place.

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

My entire point was just a hypothetical exercise on why shouldn't the Democrats just go along with the Seedy plan. Which is why I was focusing on that.

[grumbler]

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.

This.  I cannot understand why the Democratic congressional and senatorial caucuses continue to reward fuckups who have led them to disaster after disaster in the elections.  The very frst order of business for them should be firing their leadership and finding people interested in winning elections, not in feathering their own beds.

[LaCroix]

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.

there are times when it's good to listen to your base, and there are times when it's bad to listen to your base. for political strategy, it's probably not good to let your base influence certain things like whether to obstruct. there's too much emotion there that gets in the way of good decision-making. for political candidates, it's maybe better to listen to the base as we saw with hillary v. bernie

[LaCroix]

What would count as evidence? The evidence seems very compelling to me. The way they handled the whole ACA was brilliant from an obstructionist point of view. They refused all cooperation, forced the Democrats to own it completely, and then drilled them on it. Hell the Democrats could do that for miles on every Trump policy. The Republicans would be forced into a very rigid party discipline on most things, it would open them up for attack all over the place.

I'm seeing some claiming gains were due to obstructionism, but I'm not finding evidence of it. even if it was, one possibility is the democrats were just inept at responding to it.

anyway, I suspect trump will make it easy for the democrats to resist, send a message home, but not adopt a pure obstructionist mentality. they need to do more things like, with the immigration ban at least, play to (not ignore) voter fears while trying to get them to empathize with the refugees. you take trump's message and use it against him -- patriotism can be used in a good way

if you go against trump with pure obstructionism, that's so easy for him to say hey, look, this is those dishonest, awful, nasty politicians I'm here to defeat

[LaCroix]

like, the democratic party needs to focus more on fixing things like this

(new reuters poll on the immigration ban)
http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-TRUMP-IMMIGRATION-POLL/010031NQ3V0/index.html

than focusing on a pure obstructionist strategy. it might be obvious to some why the immigration ban is a terrible idea, but it's not obvious to a ton of people

[CountDeMoney]

I think I did that. 

[Zoupa]

I don't see the upside in Democrats NOT being obstructionist as much as they can.

Even if it's just delaying the inevitable, any minute that passes without DeVos or Sessions in power is a win.

[LaCroix]

the emotional outlash against trump/republicans might make strict obstructionist approach seem appealing, but it's not necessarily the best choice. devos and sessions are getting in regardless, and whatever happens -- assuming something big does happen -- can be undone

[Zoupa]

Please, do enlighten us with your brilliant ideas for the Democratic Party.

[Eddie Teach]

Please, do enlighten us with your brilliant ideas for the Democratic Party.

A little less social progressiveness, a little more economic, so they can continue to win the Rust Belt.

[Jacob]

Super interesting article on psychographically targeted political ads to drive/ suppress turnout in key voter groups in key areas. It looks like Trump had the edge there: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump

[dps]

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

What would count as evidence? The evidence seems very compelling to me. The way they handled the whole ACA was brilliant from an obstructionist point of view. They refused all cooperation, forced the Democrats to own it completely, and then drilled them on it. Hell the Democrats could do that for miles on every Trump policy. The Republicans would be forced into a very rigid party discipline on most things, it would open them up for attack all over the place.

I can't speak for any Republicans other than myself, but I want my representatives in Congress to obstruct policies I don't agree with;  I don't want them to be obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist, or as a political ploy.  I certainly don't deny that the Republicans in Congress have at times been obstructionist as a political tactic, but I think less of them for that, rather than more of them for it.  I would think that a reasonable Democrat would fell the same way about Congressional Democrats being obstructionist.

Of course, there's a pretty compelling argument that appealing to reasonable voters isn't a winning political strategy right now, but I don't think that means that we should applaud unreasonableness.

[Tamas]

While I also think the Democrats should show restraint and moderation when sabotaging their own country to spite the government (unlike the GOP was very happy to disable everything just show the N-word Prez, who is boss), I do wonder who are these Republicans they can target for conversion. Are there really Trump voters who would en-masse switch to the same platform as pro-gay marriage, and pro-lets-not-tell-women-what-to-do-with-their-bodies?

[dps]

While I also think the Democrats should show restraint and moderation when sabotaging their own country to spite the government (unlike the GOP was very happy to disable everything just show the N-word Prez, who is boss), I do wonder who are these Republicans they can target for conversion. Are there really Trump voters who would en-masse switch to the same platform as pro-gay marriage, and pro-lets-not-tell-women-what-to-do-with-their-bodies?

In the words of the Democrat's most successful political strategist of the past quarter century or so, "It's the economy, stupid". 

[Valmy]

Of course, there's a pretty compelling argument that appealing to reasonable voters isn't a winning political strategy right now, but I don't think that means that we should applaud unreasonableness.

Well I was trying to make a point not unveil my new Democratic Plan for 2018. I think the reality is being irresponsible would win and trying to be reasonable would lose.

In the words of the Democrat's most successful political strategist of the past quarter century or so, "It's the economy, stupid".

You mean the guy who presided over the collapse of 1994 which has given the Republicans control of both houses of Congress and more and more of the states for most of the past 25 years? Heck I think the only real political victory this guy won was his re-election in 1996. It has been a pretty dismal record of failure since then.