What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

Presidential elections tend to be referenda on the past.  Carter won because of Watergate even though Ford had nothing to do with it.  Reagan beat Carter because of stagflation even though the economy was recovering in late 1980.  Bush and the GOP won in 88 based on Reagan's record despite ominous signs of the impending financial crisis.  Bush lost to Clinton because of the aftermath of that crisis- which he wasn't really responsible for creating and even though he was effective in fighting it.  Obama won because Bush's war went bad and the economy collapsed, even though Bush's people put in place pretty decent plans for both problems, plans that Obama essentially continued. 

Trump won because while the economy recovered under Obama, incomes didn't.  Except incomes did come back in 2016.  It was just too late to register - the narrative was already set.

[LaCroix]

You have a tendency--particularly evident in our little post chain, but I suspect more generalized--to walk away from assertions when challenged.  We started off with your bizarro defense of Trump voters against the accusation of populism. You walked away from that without conceding anything and started talking about how easily Democrats could come up with a solution to working class blues.  You walked away from that when challenged and started talking about the political necessity of coming up with a solution to working class blues.  If you can't come up with reasonable arguments to defend your assertions it might be time to consider that your positions are wrong.

I went through our replies to one another, and the only reply this post makes any sense about is your third reply, the one that starts off with "you suspect." if I misunderstood what you meant with that post, then okay, but that doesn't mean I "walk away from assertions when challenged."

I responded to your first replies. correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your argument as saying "they're populist voters because they voted for trump, a populist." in response, I argued, "that they voted for trump's populist message doesn't necessarily mean they're populist -- they voted for the candidate who reached out to them. the democrats haven't reached out to them, if they had reached out to them with a plan that helped them, then it's very possible they would have preferred that plan over the populist plan."

if you think I'm wrong by thinking, "a voter isn't necessarily populist if that voter would favor a non-populist plan over a populist plan," then it's far more appropriate to explain why you think it's wrong

[viper37]

Trump aides violates records law

They're using non traceable encrypted message apps for their communications.

Alex Howard, deputy director of the Sunlight Foundation, called it a "recipe for corruption" and a "willful effort not to be held accountable."

Make Trump great again

[Fate]

Why should text messages between staff be recorded and part of a permanent record? If they said it to each other in person or over a phone call, certainly those aren't recorded...

[grumbler]

He's a little goofy, but would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Yeah, i think he would have needed to tone down the former marine responses (asked who was the opponent he found most difficult to defeat, he said it was the VC who blew him up with a grenade; the question was supposed to be about political opponents, not people actually trying to kill you).  But he was the only candidate talking realistically about how to deal with the permanent loss of manufacturing jobs.  He's liberal enough for all but the leftest portion of the party, appeals to the intellectual wing as the author of best-selling books, but isn't a career politician nor a tool of the political money and is moderate on policies.  He walked away from the sweetest gig in American politics because he had accomplished what he set out to accomplish.

[HVC]

Ya. I mean they work for trump so they're probably discussing shady stuff, but I doubt the intent of the law covered stuff like texts, unless all phone and face to face communication is also to be recorded.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, i think he would have needed to tone down the former marine responses (asked who was the opponent he found most difficult to defeat, he said it was the VC who blew him up with a grenade; the question was supposed to be about political opponents, not people actually trying to kill you).  But he was the only candidate talking realistically about how to deal with the permanent loss of manufacturing jobs.  He's liberal enough for all but the leftest portion of the party, appeals to the intellectual wing as the author of best-selling books, but isn't a career politician nor a tool of the political money and is moderate on policies.  He walked away from the sweetest gig in American politics because he had accomplished what he set out to accomplish.

If you can hypothesize Jim Webb winning the Democratic primary, why wouldn't his opponent be someone like Kasich or even Colin Powell? Sure, he would have destroyed Trump in a one to one contest, but that's not how it works in this country.

[Barrister]

This kind of counter-factuals about alternate candidates ignore the reality of the primary process though.  In primaries, candidates have to appeal to the party's base.  That's why in the GOP all the candidates were trying to position themselves as "true Conservatives", and why in the Democratic Party HIllary's big challenger came at her from her left.

A moderate candidate like Jim Webb, or Lindsay Graham or Jonathan Huntsman, would never be able to get the nomination.

[Grinning_Colossus]

A moderate candidate like Jim Webb, or Lindsay Graham or Jonathan Huntsman, would never be able to get the nomination.

The parties have nominated moderate candidates fairly often over the last few cycles. It depends on one's definition of 'moderate,' of course, but I'd say that Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all qualify.

[Valmy]

and why in the Democratic Party HIllary's big challenger came at her from her left.

A moderate candidate like Jim Webb, or Lindsay Graham or Jonathan Huntsman, would never be able to get the nomination.

Clinton was a moderate candidate.

In any case only she and Bernie really ran at all. O'Malley was the only other candidate to even participate in a primary and he dropped out really early on.

[Eddie Teach]

Clinton was a moderate candidate in that she avoided extreme positions, however, she didn't take Republican positions on anything. True mavericks like Huntsman or Liebermann have no hope in the primaries.

[Grinning_Colossus]

  Hillary cleared her orbit, like a gas giant. Politicians who might have been competitive in Clinton-free years sat it out. I suspect that Bernie only decided to run because he knew that, as the only other candidate, he'd get free airtime for his ideas.

[Barrister]

A moderate candidate like Jim Webb, or Lindsay Graham or Jonathan Huntsman, would never be able to get the nomination.

The parties have nominated moderate candidates fairly often over the last few cycles. It depends on one's definition of 'moderate,' of course, but I'd say that Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all qualify.

The real "moderate" candidate who won was George W Bush, who ran on "compassionate conservatism". 

But no - all of those candidates were firmly within the mainstream of their party's beliefs.

[dps]

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.

If the choice is between people who support policies you like but use tactics you don't much like, or people who support policies you don't like don't use tactics you don't like, what's one to do?

And I try in the primaries, but it doesn't ever seem to do much good.  When we're talking about obstructionism, we're mostly talking about Congress, but at the Presidential level, I don't think I've ever voted for a candidate in the primaries who actually won the nomination (though if I'd been a Republican in 1980 and 1984 I would have certainly voted for Reagan).

[Valmy]

But no - all of those candidates were firmly within the mainstream of their party's beliefs.

I think most of Democratic and Republican moderates whose beliefs are firmly within the mainstream. They are moderates not fringes.