What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

I find it a bit comforting that Trump is pretty unique as a cross-party appeal machine. I don't think the Republicans can easily produce another one, Ted Cruz and his ilk are not going to cut it.

[LaCroix]

The election was decided by around 80k total votes split between (50k) Pennsylvania, (10k) Michigan, and (20k) Wisconsin. I don't think the Democrats need to do some huge realignment to pick up borderline Trump mouth breathers. They need to turn out their base.

200k less people voted in Wisconsin in 2016 vs 2012.  130k less people voted in Michigan in 2016 vs 2012. It's true Pennsylvania turnout was up from 2012 but if Hillary got the same number of as Obama did in 2012 she would have won that state too. If she didn't have the stink of scandal I think those people would have turned out and delivered another 4 boring years of divided Rep/Dem government.

hillary "almost" winning against a candidate like trump, who had no experience with this and was rocked with some of the craziest scandals in the history of american elections, is not a good thing. trump's message beat hers. next time there are fresh candidates on both sides, if the republicans do a non-populist approach, they're going to have a better message than the democrats if the democrats keep to the same strategy as this past election

[viper37]

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.

I admit I am confused about the Democrats right now.  Well, I've been for a while.  they seemed really passive in front of the Republicans attack.  No counter strike, no nothing in the past, just playing it cool.  I would crank up the rethoric a little, backed by hard facts.

[DontSayBanana]

The election was decided by around 80k total votes split between (50k) Pennsylvania, (10k) Michigan, and (20k) Wisconsin. I don't think the Democrats need to do some huge realignment to pick up borderline Trump mouth breathers. They need to turn out their base.

200k less people voted in Wisconsin in 2016 vs 2012.  130k less people voted in Michigan in 2016 vs 2012. It's true Pennsylvania turnout was up from 2012 but if Hillary got the same number of as Obama did in 2012 she would have won that state too. If she didn't have the stink of scandal I think those people would have turned out and delivered another 4 boring years of divided Rep/Dem government.

They're not unrelated.  From what I've seen, the vast majority of Democrats aren't as much ideologues (or at least, not as vocal ideologues) as their Republican counterparts.

Republicans can be drawn out by highlighting a few key issues.  Democrats need more coaxing, and were largely disillusioned with Hillary Clinton even before the primaries were completed.  She made zero effort to appeal to the base of her own party, let alone any attempt to draw Republicans in who might be concerned about Trump putting his money where his mouth was (or failing to do so).

[Valmy]

God knows what. The party became stagnant and complacent after Obama. Maybe they got overconfident.

The party has had this problem forever. At least so long as I have been politically active. I do not recall the vibrant and aggressive stage of the Democrats. Obama was Obama, he was a bit of an outsider.

Now that they're in the wilderness they have a chance to reinvent themselves and choose a new Beacon of hope throughout the galaxy. The Chosen One.

Well somebody has to. Angela Merkel cannot do it alone.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't mean a "simple solution" -- you can have a complex solution to a complex problem, and you can wrap that up in a message that the voters understand. the problem is like you seem to be saying, there's no current solution. I suspect the reason for this is because those voters have been essentially overlooked/forgotten/ignored by both parties until now. the first one in awhile to really reach out to those voters did so with a populist message. that doesn't mean the only way to reach out to those voters is with a populist message.

(edit) I don't think "scapegoat a culprit" is an essential component to reaching out to the working class

You suspect that if people just sat down and really really cared, they would come up with complex solution that would take care of white working class America's problems? But you have no idea what that complex solution would look like? That's a populist point of view right there.  If the elites only cared enough, then everything would be hunky dory.

It's a complex problem because *any* kind of solution would impose massive costs and burdens on the rest of Americans.

[derspiess]

Protecting health care, minimum wage raises, easing of college debt, clean energy subsidies... Dems have long pushed for economic measures to improve salaries, jobs, and the economic problems of lower classes. All those were part of this election, and pushed by Hillary.

I find the whole "Dems only cared for transgender bathrooms" a gross mischaracterization from the right to justify the idiocy of voting Trump.

Hil had 'binders' of policies and initiatives that were available in detail on her site. Peeps weren't feeling that.

Unfortunately she was the wrong messenger.

Pretty much. Both candidates were pretty terrible. 

But re: 'binders of policies and initiatives' did Hillary do much to tell voters about her policy positions other than post stuff on her site?  Her TV ads were nearly 100% telling us how bad Trump is and how we should vote for him.  She didn't spend much time at all trying to give people positive reasons to vote for her.   Yeah, going negative often can work, but putting all her eggs in that basket hurt her IMO.

[viper37]

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?

Donald saying it works would count.  Short of that...

[Valmy]

She made zero effort to appeal to the base of her own party, let alone any attempt to draw Republicans in who might be concerned about Trump putting his money where his mouth was (or failing to do so).

She made plenty of efforts to appeal and pander.  It is one of her most constantly mocked qualities because she is so hilariously bad at it.

[derspiess]

She made zero effort to appeal to the base of her own party, let alone any attempt to draw Republicans in who might be concerned about Trump putting his money where his mouth was (or failing to do so).

She made plenty of efforts to appeal and pander.  It is one of her most constantly mocked qualities because she is so hilariously bad at it.

I liked the time she went on that black radio show and told the hosts she kept hot sauce in her purse.

[Fate]

The election was decided by around 80k total votes split between (50k) Pennsylvania, (10k) Michigan, and (20k) Wisconsin. I don't think the Democrats need to do some huge realignment to pick up borderline Trump mouth breathers. They need to turn out their base.

200k less people voted in Wisconsin in 2016 vs 2012.  130k less people voted in Michigan in 2016 vs 2012. It's true Pennsylvania turnout was up from 2012 but if Hillary got the same number of as Obama did in 2012 she would have won that state too. If she didn't have the stink of scandal I think those people would have turned out and delivered another 4 boring years of divided Rep/Dem government.

hillary "almost" winning against a candidate like trump, who had no experience with this and was rocked with some of the craziest scandals in the history of american elections, is not a good thing. trump's message beat hers. next time there are fresh candidates on both sides, if the republicans do a non-populist approach, they're going to have a better message than the democrats if the democrats keep to the same strategy as this past election

she got 3 million more votes than trump which seems to really bother him a lot. those americans just live in the wrong state so we go on and pretend like they and their opinions on Trump don't matter.

i don't think his affirmative policy message won anything. it was his, comey's, and the Republican Congress' total character assassination of hillary which won him the race.

dems just need to run someone who isn't radioactive and scandal prone. easier said than done, but those people exist.

[viper37]

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

Things are moving fast elsewhere in the world.
Let's assume the Trump wins another election.
8 years from now, if the US seeks another trade deal with Asian or European countries, do you really think they will welcome you open hearted?  The answer is no.

8 years from now, after Russia has annexed the other half of Ukraine, Georgia and has troops in the Baltic states, do you really think your NATO allies will move a finger on your next terrorist attack?  No.

When it comes to trade barriers&such, are you really naive enough to believe the countries you trade with will not retaliate?  And how would Americans getting low paid jobs in a Toyota plant at 12$/hr will be able to afford a new car sold for 30% more than now?

When it comes to climate change, as we see more&more of the drastic effect on the environment, do you really think the countries hurt by these extreme weather phenomenas will happilly believe in cooperating with the US on anything?  2 out 3 Presidents refused to move a finger on these issues and Congress used every attemps to block the other tried.  They'll move without you and impose tariffs on your goods due to environmental concerns.

In 8 years, America will be weaker and poorer than it was last year.  And it will be isolated.

All the people in the State Departments who spent years developping a network of contacts abroad are gone.  The military expenditures will have created an enormous deficit that you won't be able to counter-weight with exports since foreing countries will turn to other superpowers, China, for one, to seek trade deals.  When you try to rekindle those links, you'll have to start anew, as you did in 1945, but this time, you won't be hailed as the saviour.

so, yes te damage can be undone, pretty much anything can be undone, even if all intelligent life on Earth were to disapear, there would still be Trumpist to bread and rebuild some form of civilizations.

That doesn't mean it's the ideal outcome.  There's a difference between living and surviving.

[LaCroix]

You suspect that if people just sat down and really really cared, they would come up with complex solution that would take care of white working class America's problems? But you have no idea what that complex solution would look like? That's a populist point of view right there.  If the elites only cared enough, then everything would be hunky dory.

It's a complex problem because *any* kind of solution would impose massive costs and burdens on the rest of Americans.

I think somewhere between 1988-2016 the strategies that got the democrats firm victories in the blue wall states started to fail, but those voters kept voting democrat either for similar reasons as solid republican states or because the republicans didn't really reach out to them. ohio being an exception for reasons I don't know why. this is the year of brexit and trump, and it's because of the working class not being compensated for industries leaving. the democrats could offer to compensate them somehow with a massive plan -- expensive, yeah, the democrats need to be willing to drop other expensive plans.

I don't think the democrats really sat down before this election to think about how to help the working class in a substantive way that forces them to sacrifice in other areas, because they didn't need to sit down before this election -- their previous strategies worked. if the republicans manage to steal those voters from them on a long term basis, then the democrats are fucked for a generation.

[LaCroix]

she got 3 million more votes than trump which seems to really bother him a lot. those americans just live in the wrong state so we go on and pretend like they and their opinions on Trump don't matter.

i don't think his affirmative policy message won anything. it was his, comey's, and the Republican Congress' total character assassination of hillary which won him the race.

dems just need to run someone who isn't radioactive and scandal prone. easier said than done, but those people exist.

the 3 million votes thing is a meme -- she got votes in states that don't matter because they were going to vote for her anyway. yeah, people in california loved her. it doesn't matter whether california is lukewarm or loves a candidate, because it's going to vote democrat either way.

[viper37]

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.

and yet, you voted for them again.  You think less of them, but still think more of them than you do of Democrats.

So it worked.