Sometimes, a discussion veers towards something portending great
complexity & differences, but which has already been fully explored,
.When it looks like a daunting amount of work, I'd rather just skirt it.
Or should I "kilt" it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
~ The Clinton Victory Thread ~
- Thread starter columbus
- Start date
complexity & differences, but which has already been fully explored,
.When it looks like a daunting amount of work, I'd rather just skirt it.
Or should I "kilt" it?
Underhill
Well-Known Member
You think she could win a second term? It would take some kind of miracle for that to happen.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I am basing that on the reality the Republicans have been saying they must "learn from their mistakes" since '08, such as broadening their appeal and reaching out to minorities, and they have only miserably failed at doing that, with Trump being the new high point of their lows. I wouldn't be too surprised if their next nominee is someone like Pence who has hardcore appeal to religious Conservatives. If the Republicans would put forth someone who has a strong moderate appeal they could win, but their image of the "rich Christian white boy's party" is becoming more deeply embedded into their ideology.
And the threat of ISIS potentially might make her a war-time president, and historically the presidency just does not change hands during times of war. And I don't see the Republicans limiting the amount of hopefuls standing on the stage even though their herd of hopefuls is probably how Trump made it as far as he did.
In every POTUS election I'm familiar with (going back to Reagan), the party not in power holds the keys to cultural power. I think it is partially because the 'winning side' has overwhelming majority of its (voting) supporters rest on their laurels and pretend like nothing more needs to be done (for at least 3 to 4 years), and partially because the winning candidate is likely to implement policies in year one that just gives a whole lot of fodder to their opponents. Like, I would've thought 10 years ago and pretty much every year before that, if an African American could ever make it to POTUS that black America would not only relish in the victory, but see their lives and communities get substantially better. Well, we saw the relish in the victory part, but also have seen the black community take what is by most accounts a nosedive. Cause now, there's nothing (at highest level) to fight against. I don't think it is best example, just one that comes to mind. Better example is how gun-rights people have been I believe far more steadfast in upholding gun rights under Obama than I think they have ever been. Likewise, women rights (and supporters) tend to fight far more with Pub in office than not in office. So, if Hillary wins, I see that fight for say year one of her term appearing to be strong and then greatly fizzling out. While all those that resist that (as the propaganda it mostly is) will keep going very strongly in years 2 and 3. When Bush was in office, the Left supporters (read as voters) were much stronger, more unified than they were under Clinton or Obama.
Thus, your comment strikes me as extremely naive if you think alt-right will lose significance with a Trump defeat. The term is now part of the lexicon and if Hillary wins, I see them only getting stronger, more unified.
What you're conveying would need to deny a partisan divide exists and that the divide isn't as much as 25% of the overall population or around 50% of the voting population. Also would mean that all 50% on the winning side cannot rest on their laurels. Some of them surely won't, I believe overwhelming majority will.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
This is no surprise. Everything Trump has said has been contradicted by himself. The guy has no defining principles.
Last edited:
I don't know why you think this. The incumbent has huge advantages. That's why four of the last five presidents won reelection. I would give Clinton similar odds in 2020 as she has now.
Particularly if she flips a significant portion of Capitol Hill blue, then uses that power. Instead of frittering away political capital on bipartisanship that clearly won't be reciprocated, like Obama did.
Tom
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
From what I've been reading, Trump may flip a significant chunk of Capitol Hill from red to blue.
As long as Hillary has been in "the game" and as far as she's gotten, I just don't see that happening with her. She'll probably be with advisors planning out what cards to play and pawns to move on election night, especially because I wouldn't be surprised if she at least subconsciously have the drive to get things done as the first female president. Obama tried, but it was as if he didn't get that you have to whip your whips when those below you aren't getting beneath you, and play some real nasty hardball when faced with such opposition at each turn. As far as politicians go, Obama was just too nice. The Clintons, on the other hand, have probably already begun manipulating party ties to get the Democrats firmly behind Hillary.
I see no "probably" in any part of your post. If there is anybody in Washington DC better at playing this game than Billary, I can't think who it would be.
Tom
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I don't know who else it would be either.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But his supporters think he's just being flexible and "not a politician", but then probably most of them also believe he's a "conservative" and a "Republican" (he has switched party allegiances six times during his life, btw).
Now that he has become "flexible" on immigration what is left? Other than not being Godzillary.
I wish Trump would settle down and stop shooting himself in the foot. He is making it too easy for Hillary to go for moderate Republican voters and stop being concerned about the Sanders supporters.
Tom
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Trump's greatest enemy in this campaign is Trump, and there's simply no indication that he's going to stop being Trump.
Good luck on Trump "settling down". Oops, I mean bad luck on that. If Hillary would just stop saying stupid stuff and just shut up, Trump would destroy Trump-- but then expecting Hillary to shut up would make her unHillary.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It makes me wonder if Hillary could "Murdock" herself? Meaning, can she say anything that will sink her ship? Trump's ultra-minimalist approach with minority support and the fact Liberals tend to show up for presidential elections do not bode well for Trump. But can Hillary say something, or even do something, that has everyone abandoning ship? Especially since the other "ship" is Trump? Can Hillary yank what should be an easy win away from herself? At this point, it may even have an interesting effect if she didn't even acknowledge Trump unless she absolutely had to, act like she is already the president, which of course will illicit a response from Trump, which is really all Hillary needs at this point if all she does from here is focus on mobilizing voters.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think there's two big dangers for Hillary, and one is the possibility of an "October surprise" maybe dealing with an e-mail that provides a "smoking gun", real or just hyped by the Pubs, and the other is the debates.
With the latter, the "law of low expectations" works in favor of Trump, much like it did for Kennedy in 1960 and Reagan in 1980. My guess is that Trump will try and rattle and frustrate Hillary to the point whereas he looks "strong" and she looks "weak". Remember that image and emotion are more carrying the day than policy is.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Valid points...
Akivah
Well-Known Member
IMO, there are no Republican candidates in the current presidential race.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You won't get an argument from me.
This is not a new thing either.
For most of my life I was a slightly Dem/left leaning independent. But I was perfectly willing to vote for Republican candidates, because often they were the sensible moderate choice.
This started changing in the late 90's. More and more, the Republicans seemed less interested in the good of the country and more interested in partisanship and ideological purity.
When the TeaParty replaced my favorite politician with a freak in the 2008 primary, I pretty much became a straight ticket Democratic voter. Not because I am ok with everything that they stand for, Oh No. But because the Republicans are consistently the worse of two evils. I don't even care what the candidates stand for anymore, not as individuals. It is the party that matters and the Republicans more consistently put partisanship above patriotism.
Consistently!
Tom
Underhill
Well-Known Member
I would say there are no liberal candidates either. So we're even...
Underhill
Well-Known Member
I am probably a little more left leaning than you. But I am in a similar situation. I voted republican in the mid 90's, voted for Bush the first time. Voted against him the second. I am not generally anti-republican. But they basically have three camps now; the tea party, the church and the corporate interest. They've always been a bit churchy for my taste, and the corporate interest have always lurked in the background (they can be found on the dem side too I know) but the tea party has taken the religious right with it farther to the right (into some weird places in some cases) and ran with them. It has not been a positive move.
I think Trump is directly the result of the tea party mentality. Not so much his policies but his anti-liberal loud mouthed manner.
On many of his issues, he is fairly moderate with a few exceptions, but he appeals to the worst of the party with his attitude. Not cool.