How Would We Better Off With President Clinton After A Year?

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Trump certainly excelled at that. He got 3,000,000 more Sec. Clinton supporters to show up than those who showed up for him.

Did Trump ever call Clinton supporters deplorable?

 

[Yarddog]

It is said that Clinton could have won if she hadn't taken the trip to Arizona in the last few days. A campaign trip to MN, WI, MI and PA (especially non-city areas) might have won her the election, but no more senate seats.
========================
I've been a Democrat for over 50 years. I don't think that we would be better off now had Clinton been elected.

So, I'll listen. How would we be better off? Surely, no legislation would have been passed. I suppose that we'd still have the youth paying the Obamacare penalty.

She wouldn't have gotten any more of her agenda done than Trump did before this tax bill. Republicans control both houses and would block her and she would block them.

The place where she would have done better is on the world stage. She wouldn't have alienated the US as Trump has and is doing.

 

[USincognito]

Did Trump ever call Clinton supporters deplorable?

Trump favors personal attacks, and lots of them.
Trump's most notable insults

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why do people think this is the case? In neither Christianity nor Judaism does THIS nation state of Israel have to be THE ONE OF PROPHECY. In theory, it could be wiped out for another two thousand years and nothing changes.

Vested interest. Career Dispensationalists have sold a lot of books and manipulated politics on the basis that the current state of Israel is the linchpin of biblical prophecy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mark46]

I had forgotten that Clinton eked out a close win in Humphrey country. However, yes the Minneapolis TV market hits most of WI. IMHO, a later focus on MN, WI, MI and the ALA portion of PA (between Philly and Pittsburgh) might very well have made the difference.

It is interesting that the 3rd party candidate did well in MN. MN is the ultimate 3rd party state. The is no Democratic Party. What we call the Democratic Party is actually the DFL formed by joining the Democratic, Farmer and Labor parties by Humphrey and his friends.

She won Minnesota narrowly. So I suppose a Minnesota visit would have been to influence the Wisconsin portion of the Twin Cities media market. Maybe it would have tipped Wisconsin. I don't know.

Very interesting is that Minnesota is considered the safest of states for Democratic Party presidential candidates. But in this last election the third party vote was significant. Evan McMullen, formerly quite Republican and frankly mostly attracting disaffected Republicans, got more votes than Hillary beat Trump by. Which is to say that if the Republicans ran anybody else but Trump they may actually have won Minnesota instead of Hillary. That would have been politically earth shattering.

In Alabama, Moore lost by less than the third party and write-in totals. Meaning not so much that the other guy won but Moore lost. In the Minnesota case, where Hillary should have won by a landslide if she was someone else, she almost blew it there too.

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

And yet after, what, 50 Benghazi hearings and investigations, nada..

Because Trump supporters would have voted for her had she not said that?

Because agents of the FBI like Peter Strzok were in her pocket.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I had forgotten that Clinton eked out a close win in Humphrey country. However, yes the Minneapolis TV market hits most of WI. IMHO, a later focus on MN, WI, MI and the ALA portion of PA (between Philly and Pittsburgh) might very well have made the difference.

It is interesting that the 3rd party candidate did well in MN. MN is the ultimate 3rd party state. The is no Democratic Party. What we call the Democratic Party is actually the DFL formed by joining the Democratic, Farmer and Labor parties by Humphrey and his friends.

For a while we didn't have Republicans either, instead we had Independent-Republicans. But now we have Republicans again. I think it was a marketing ploy that didn't work very well.

The distinctiveness of the DFL, the Farmer-Labor part, seems to have little left of it. My grandfather was Farmer-Labor and was at the convention that brought them together with the Humphrey and the Democrats. And while almost everybody in Minnesota was a 'close personal friend' of HHH, my grandfather probably actually was. He thought 25 years ago that the Farmer-Labor influence was eroding. He was not too happy about it.

Minnesota has a lot of political currents, coalitions, and conundrums which make it an interesting place, even if it is more homogenized than it was. For example, we have one congresscritter who is Randian and another an ultraliberal Muslim. And then we had Franken. But I'm not going to derail this thread with another word about him.

In the last election cycle the Republicans preferred Rubio big time. I was at the state Republican election where the politicking was fierce to not endorse Trump. Unfortunately Trump had already sewn it up nationally, but we were intent on doing what we could to stop him. So most of our delegates, even the ones 'for' Trump, were planning to switch to Cruz or anyone else on the second ballot at the national convention.

Lots of Minnesota Republicans couldn't vote for Trump. A lot voted for McMullen, and I campaigned for him quite hard. I was pleased to see that he got more votes than the difference between Trump and Hillary. At least some of us have some sort of sanity.

I don't think we would be better off with Hillary. I never saw her as a peace candidate, but as a bit of a hothead. Trump could get us into a war, but she, IMHO, was just as likely to do so. I have no operant conditioning towards either candidate, as I voted for neither of them. What I find most distasteful is the war on Trump. Elections have consequences. At least Obama said they did. Now the Democrats want to destroy Trump as if elections were intended to be overturned by revolution.

 

[mark46]

Democrats secretly applaud when Trump continues to attack the FBi, the CIA, and the State Department. The Republicans used to be the party that supported these institutions. Now the Democrats are the supporters of these institutions, and strongly support Kelly, McMaster and even Hailey as our protectors and buffers to Trump. Trump has indeed turned the political world upside down.

In addition, Democratic and Republican moderates can now work together in the Senate on various pieces of legislation.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Trump has indeed turned the political world upside down.

You got that right. And I'm in political exile, having been pushed out of the 'D' camp some years ago over abortion and now too creeped out to stay in the 'R' camp.

In addition, Democratic and Republican moderates can now work together in the Senate on various pieces of legislation.

Moderates could work together if there were any. Not sure but I think they went extinct.

 

[mark46]

What I find most distasteful is the war on Trump. Elections have consequences. At least Obama said they did. Now the Democrats want to destroy Trump as if elections were intended to be overturned by revolution.

I worked for the DFL in the 1964 campaign, for a local candidate in Saint Paul.

I strongly agree that elections have consequences. For example, I have indicated that the tax bill is a relatively good one, given that it written under a Republican administration.

I believe that Trump brings so much of the attack upon himself. Even politically, he could have chosen to have an early win, by working on infrastructure first, with pressure on the Democrats up for election in states where he won by 15% or more. Healthcare was doable also, if the $1T tax cut and Medicaid cut wasn't attached. Lots of Republican ideas could have been included. Again a couple of Democrats could have been pressured.

Instead, Trump decided to attack, and rule through tweets. As soon as it was clear that everyone would know that some of his folks spoke to the Russians, he could have ordered everyone to come clean to the lawyers, and a coordinated statement could have been made. Sure, the Dems would have attacked (and republicans did to Clinton of benghazi), but Republicans control the leadership and the dialog.

BOTTOM LINE
The time for Republicans passing any legislation without significant Democratic buy-in is over. 50 votes was hard, sixty is much tougher. McConnell well understands this and understands what can be brought to the floor, and who is wasting their time. Even Trump seems to understand. In any case, there will be lots of negotiations between now and January 19th, and perhaps again after the can is kicked down the road one more time.

Elections do indeed have consequences. Republicans can pass court appointees (if they can find any), but that's about it in the Seante, without Democratic help.

 

[Belk]

You got that right. And I'm in political exile, having been pushed out of the 'D' camp some years ago over abortion and now too creeped out to stay in the 'R' camp.

Moderates could work together if there were any. Not sure but I think they went extinct.

Has it really gotten so bad that abortion is being used as a litmus test for democrats? I know when I was on the pro-life side there used to be a bunch of us on the democrat side.

 

[mark46]

You got that right. And I'm in political exile, having been pushed out of the 'D' camp some years ago over abortion and now too creeped out to stay in the 'R' camp.

Moderates could work together if there were any. Not sure but I think they went extinct.

well, sort of

There is a bi-partisan senate committee proposal on subsidies to insurance companies on healthcare. There is another on CHIP. Others are working on the FISA renewal. Others are working on DACA and other immigration issues. There are others. I'm sure that there will be one on infrastructure. This might amount to nothing, or perhaps it will. There is more than one set of discussions on defense.

 

[mark46]

The Democratic Party is strongly pro-choice, but this position isn't a general litmus test.

What Pro-Life Democrats Want from the DNC

I would note that there was a time when such issues were not federal issues, especially for libertarians. I would point out that the Republican Party has the same "problem". Is pro-life a litmus test?
=====

Perhaps politicians should work together on goals instead of pounding at each other with slogans and banners. Perhaps, we might have a goal of reducing the number of abortions, year by year.

Has it really gotten so bad that abortion is being used as a litmus test for democrats? I know when I was on the pro-life side there used to be a bunch of us on the democrat side.

 

[Belk]

The Democratic Party is strongly pro-choice, but this position isn't a general litmus test.

What Pro-Life Democrats Want from the DNC

I would note that there was a time when such issues were not federal issues, especially for libertarians. I would point out that the Republican Party has the same "problem". Is pro-life a litmus test?
=====

I know that it has been a litmus test on the other side for quite a while.

Perhaps politicians should work together on goals instead of pounding at each other with slogans and banners. Perhaps, we might have a goal of reducing the number of abortions, year by year.

Suggesting that and watching the reaction was what put me on the path to the other side.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Elections do indeed have consequences. Republicans can pass court appointees (if they can find any), but that's about it in the Senate, without Democratic help.

Sometimes government by stalemate is not so bad. Really, sometimes nothing can be better than something bad. But then we get things like immigration law reform that is 20 years tardy, and things get worse because it isn't 1987 any more.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Democratic Party is strongly pro-choice, but this position isn't a general litmus test.

It WAS a litmus test for going any higher as a delegate than the precinct caucus. We were actively hampered from participation in the DFL in Minneapolis in the mid 1980's. We were not wanted. There was a particular 'orthodoxy' where one just had to be pro-choice if one was to have any sort of party decisionmaking role, at least in Minneapolis. So I switched parties. I found the Republicans at the time to be much more accepting of diversity than the Democrats. At least in the 1990's and 2000's.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We'd be better off in that we'd have a moderately alert career politician

Are we sure that's a good thing?

 

[archer75]

Are we sure that's a good thing?

It's not a good thing. Didn't mean to suggest it was. But it's better than what we have.

 

[tulc]

(snip)
Just my point. Other than Iraq, nothing.

hmmm...16+ years out of 17 years, 2 wars? We've been at war pretty much all this century. I wouldn't actually call that "nothing".

In 5000 years of recorded history, do you think 20 years is a long time? I mean, it's within most people's memory. If you do, I suppose your entitled to that opinion, but don't think it's going to make you sound sharp in any discussion of history.

If I were discussing 5,000 years of history, perhaps not. Of course we aren't discussing 5,000 years of history we were talking about modern history. Which would be (in my mind any way) this century. As for sounding sharp...well that's never been something I worry too much about on internet forums, most discussions don't evolve into "big picture discussions" until one side realizes they're losing the discussion going on in the "small picture" and they try and move the goal post to suddenly make it about "the big picture".

You think that the Bill Clinton's presidency was too long ago to be relevant - but you supported his wife for president last year?

I didn't vote for President Clinton either time he ran and if he had been the one running against President Trump in the last election I wouldn't have voted for him then either. So, no, I don't think his administration has any relevance to Sec. Clinton running last year.

...and as far as your comment about Democrats cleaning up the mess - it was in fact Putin who cleaned up the mess, just as he cleaned up the mess in Chechnya. You want to talk about "spanking their little bottoms when they act up" - is that how you thank him?

...ok, thanks Putin...now quit killing journalists. How was that? I know, I know, it's more criticism then President Trump has ever given about the Russian President, but then again, I'm never ran for President of the US and don't owe President Putin as much as President Trump does.
tulc(suspects that his criticizing President Putin must mean to SoldierOfTheKing that he's chomping at the bit for "THE USA TO GO TO WAR WITH RUSSIA!!" (tm) but he's really not)

 

[KCfromNC]

Because it's a Deep State and DNC lie that they gave no credence to before the election and only started crying about it afterwards in a treasonous attempt to subvert the newly elected president.

There's a conspiracy theory forum for this kind of nonsense.

If you think they had no substance, you obviously haven't look at any of the scandals yourself, instead relying on what the media tells you instead.

I do know that previous investigations into "scandals" like these turned up nothing.