Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[Stavros]

I would like to qualify my post above. Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, one might believe there is a natural majority against BS-45, and that the key is winning 'marginal' states where the Electoral College figures are decisive.

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

If this means Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, I see it as a winning combination, but while Biden is a safe pair of hands and not someone who is going to insult and abuse Americans in the way BS-45 does, he could also be seen as a return to the past, leading a party that cannot make up its mind in what direction it wants to take the US. Kamala Harris would thus give Biden the edge he lacks, and position her for the succession, as Biden may choose to be a one-term President.

In policy terms, I assume Democrats will seek to improve relations that have been sullied by BS-45 and not be so friendly with dictators, though the USA's record in its dealings with Saudi Arabia does not encourage anyone who thinks that relationship will change, though one at least hopes the sale of nuclear technlogy will be denied to the Kingdom of 9/11.

The problem is thus confusion among Democrats as to who and what they want. It would be a tragedy if weakness and division were to deny them the opportunity they have to remove from power the most disgusting person to have occupied the Office of President since his grubby idol, Andrew Jackson.

[buttslinger]

Theoretically, there should be no personality in politics, theoretically there should be no egos.
I don't really see a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton yet, there have only been two Democrats in the White House since Jimmy Carter. I would love to see Bernie pulling all the levers, but I don't see him as a spokesperson for the people, the people haven't got there yet.
Trump is in office because he speaks racist. Racists don't have much anymore except themselves. Then again, that's all they need. Racists don't see themselves as the problem, they see brown colored people that talk funny as the problem. Education isn't the problem, F students are the problem. The framers of the Goddam Constitution didn't think women or blacks should vote. Maybe we should elect an Asian who believes in Education.
We've seen clues of what the Mueller Report might say, but we have not had any charges that stick to BS-45....YET. But I'd say they're coming. CRIMINAL charges straight outta New York South District. Stuff Mueller found but had to send to New York. When criminal charges from grand juries start popping up on a weekly basis, the Republicans won't have any choice, and they won't have a choice of anybody to follow that act. But yeah, that leaves another huge mess for a Democrat to fix. Fixing Trump will be easy compared to what comes next. I'm glad I bought a nice little one room apartment next to my pineal gland.

[filghy2]

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

I'm not so sure. There's a certain logic that says it's best to appeal to the centre, especially when the other side has moved to the right. But that same logic also suggested that Hillary Clinton was the right candidate to beat Trump in 2016.

In order to win elections you need to get people inclined to your side motivated enough to turn out to vote. A key reason why Trump won is that voter turn-out among Democrat-leaning groups was lower than it had been for Obama. Will the revulsion towards Trump be enough to turn things around next time, or do Democrats need to do more to offer a positive alternative than just being not Trump?

One of the roots of Trumpism is that working people have not been doing well economically over the past decade or so. Will a continuation of the moderate Clinton-Obama approach be enough to convince these people that the Democrats offer a better prospect to improve their lot than Trump's protectionist anti-immigrant approach?

How radical are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren anyway, and why do you characterise their approach as negative? Many of their policies seem to be just bringing the USA closer to the norm for other developed countries; eg single-payer health cover, higher minimum wages. I'm pretty sure they are less radical than Jeremy Corbyn, and most people wrote him off in the last UK election for being too far to the left.

I'm not saying I have a firm view that Sanders or Warren are the best candidates, but I think your assumptions are open to question. There is a good case for the next Democrat candidate to move somewhat to the left of where Hillary Clinton was. Traditional centre-left parties haven't been very successful around the world in recent years. Perhaps they need to offer a clearer alternative to the politics of nationalism and xenophobia? Isn't that what FDR did in the 1930s?

[blackchubby38]

I would like to qualify my post above. Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, one might believe there is a natural majority against BS-45, and that the key is winning 'marginal' states where the Electoral College figures are decisive.

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

If this means Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, I see it as a winning combination, but while Biden is a safe pair of hands and not someone who is going to insult and abuse Americans in the way BS-45 does, he could also be seen as a return to the past, leading a party that cannot make up its mind in what direction it wants to take the US. Kamala Harris would thus give Biden the edge he lacks, and position her for the succession, as Biden may choose to be a one-term President.

In policy terms, I assume Democrats will seek to improve relations that have been sullied by BS-45 and not be so friendly with dictators, though the USA's record in its dealings with Saudi Arabia does not encourage anyone who thinks that relationship will change, though one at least hopes the sale of nuclear technlogy will be denied to the Kingdom of 9/11.

The problem is thus confusion among Democrats as to who and what they want. It would be a tragedy if weakness and division were to deny them the opportunity they have to remove from power the most disgusting person to have occupied the Office of President since his grubby idol, Andrew Jackson.

When you have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez telling the centrists in the party to get on board with the program or face primary challenges, you know the Democratic Party is in trouble. So far, I haven't been impressed with any of the candidates that announced they were running. At this point, I'm going to wind up voting for the CEO of Starbucks.

[filghy2]

At this point, I'm going to wind up voting for the CEO of Starbucks.

Why do you think that will achieve anything other than increasing Trump's chances? And why do people think that businessmen with no policy experience make good political leaders? Why would your prefer Howard Schultz to a mainstream Democrat like Joe Biden?

[Stavros]

How radical are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren anyway, and why do you characterise their approach as negative? Many of their policies seem to be just bringing the USA closer to the norm for other developed countries; eg single-payer health cover, higher minimum wages. I'm pretty sure they are less radical than Jeremy Corbyn, and most people wrote him off in the last UK election for being too far to the left.

I'm not saying I have a firm view that Sanders or Warren are the best candidates, but I think your assumptions are open to question. There is a good case for the next Democrat candidate to move somewhat to the left of where Hillary Clinton was. Traditional centre-left parties haven't been very successful around the world in recent years. Perhaps they need to offer a clearer alternative to the politics of nationalism and xenophobia? Isn't that what FDR did in the 1930s?

I agree my assumptions can be questioned, because I don't live in the US I don't get many of the nuances in the discourse that shape the tone as well as the content of it, for example I was not aware of the remarks of AOC that Blackchubby refers to in his post.

I live in the UK wherre we have single-payer health cover, but don't know if this is the right model for the US. I see the problem being huge -a Federal Tax for a Federal Service to replace most of what exists in States, that is a big admin project, but must surely collide with States Rights on taxation and even the definition of health care. Would family planning become part of a Federal Health Care programme, integrated into General Practice and the Hospital sectors? I did once try to understand health care provision in the US and gave up as life is too short and it quickly becomes evident the US missed the boat on health care and have been left stranded with a broken mast taking them nowhere. A minimum wage might be one way of raising living standards, but if OAC and people like her are right, a structural change to taxation in the US is in order, with restrictions on capital flight added in to the mix, though ultimately, in a capitalist society, it is all about jobs -and jobs for all.

I am not that much older or younger than Warren and Sanders, but feel the US needs someone with youth and vision to offer a positive alternative to the misery it has at the moment, but Blackchubby, who has to make the real decisions, is not energized right now, and that is not good.

[broncofan]

I did once try to understand health care provision in the US and gave up as life is too short and it quickly becomes evident the US missed the boat on health care and have been left stranded with a broken mast taking them nowhere. A minimum wage might be one way of raising living standards, but if OAC and people like her are right, a structural change to taxation in the US is in order, with restrictions on capital flight added in to the mix, though ultimately, in a capitalist society, it is all about jobs -and jobs for all.

I once took an entire course on health care law in the U.S. and the point of the course was that our health care system is not a system, but dozens of overlapping, poorly written laws.

The best model for how a single payer system would work for us is provided by Medicaid (though technically it gets funds from two payers-state and federal). Medicaid is funded by our federal government but administered by the states and provides health care to those below a certain poverty threshold. States can technically opt out of this system, but they tend not to want to turn down federal money even if it requires them to take care of their needy. It might avoid any constitutional challenge if it were set up in this way, by allowing for state administration and tying federal funds to certain minimum care requirements.

We spend far more than other countries for the quality of care we provide and one reason is that health care is not accessible until people are very sick. The system we have now, even with Obamacare is better than it was but not good for people who work for small employers, for the self-employed, or unemployed. So, this should be a priority for us in the election.

I like the idea of higher taxes in this country and better allocation of them for social programs. I think people like Bernie and AOC have been very helpful in making people understand that robust social programs are not frightening or crazy. My complaint with Bernie has been more about the fact that he didn't seem to know how he would achieve his vision and not what he recommends. I also thought the demagoguery with finance was performance politics; regulating the financial sector very stringently over Republican objections is extremely important. Breaking up banks is possibly disastrous imo.

I certainly won't be voting for Howard Schultz and obviously hope he decides not to run. Beyond that, I tend to like Kamala Harris but mostly for personal characteristics and don't know a lot about her policies but have always been impressed with her.

Is someone in their mid-70s a bit too old to begin a first term as President? Everyone is different but I agree it's not an asset for a candidate.

[blackchubby38]

Why do you think that will achieve anything other than increasing Trump's chances? And why do people think that businessmen with no policy experience make good political leaders? Why would your prefer Howard Schultz to a mainstream Democrat like Joe Biden?

If Biden gets in, I would vote for him. But last I checked, he hasn't said he was running.

Also if past history is any indication, a 3rd party candidate is not going to increase Trump's chances of winning. The Democrats running a shitty campaign and/or candidate will do that.

[filghy2]

Also if past history is any indication, a 3rd party candidate is not going to increase Trump's chances of winning.

Why do you say that? There are historical examples where a 3rd party candidate is thought to have influenced the outcome, although we can't know for certain how their supporters would have voted if they had not run..
https://www.history.com/news/third-p...nfluence-facts

The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning. Even Teddy Roosevelt only managed a distant second.

[blackchubby38]

Why do you say that? There are historical examples where a 3rd party candidate is thought to have influenced the outcome, although we can't know for certain how their supporters would have voted if they had not run..
https://www.history.com/news/third-p...nfluence-facts

The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning. Even Teddy Roosevelt only managed a distant second.

I'll give you the impact that Teddy Roosevelt had on the 1912 election. But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

I think there are enough people who are fed up with both parties, that you can start to see more people clamoring for a third party candidate to run. It has to be the right person though.