Presidential election, 2016

[Bob Butler 54]

A statue of Ben Franklin on Boston's Freedom Trail came off it's pedestal recently.  Pundits are trying to determine if the cause was a windstorm, or the near certainty of a Clinton - Trump general election.

[pbrower2a]

...Could it be possible that what seemed like the "new normal" of the Democrats  and Republicans getting overwhelming advantages in most states that they win, with very few states being truly contested, could be  coming to an end? Could it be that Barack Obama is, whatever his virtues, the most polarizing Presidential nominee that America has ever had?

Hillary Clinton seems to be winning, but not by as great margins, most of the states that Barack Obama won, but by far narrower margins. She also seems to be losing much the same states as Barack Obama lost, but also by far smaller margins. Maybe one can impute that to people having a visceral dread and loathing of Barack Obama due to ethnicity  in some places and looking at policy and not ethnicity in other places.

Say what you want about Barack Obama being above average in just about all matters that concern most Americans (economic stewardship, a cautious but decisive foreign policy, avoidance of scandal and corruption,  respect for precedent, working well with the intelligence agencies and the Armed Forces, and taking the side of social progress on social issues as the political culture changes), Barack Obama is the most polarizing President since Lincoln.

Making any further comparisons between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln is blasphemy. The polarization in part represents campaign strategies of Barack Obama -- play well to crowds in medium to giant cities and their suburbs and abandon rural America. Except for Arizona, Texas, and Utah, such allows him the ability to win the most urban of states. It also ensures that he gets clobbered elsewhere. It also means that the Right can utterly destroy Democrats in Congressional elections in any Congressional district that is significantly rural.

Hillary Clinton is not as polarizing a politician as Barack Obama has been.  She is also more likely to win a state like Michigan by 6% instead of by 16% and lose a state like Tennessee by 6% than by 16%. Barack Obama played a beat-the-cheat strategy in 2008 and 2012, and Hillary Clinton seems to trust in being on the right side of history more than in any coherent political strategy.

In an ordinary year, a Republican nominee should be winning Oklahoma with well over 60% of the vote3. In 2012, which was not a good year for Republicans, Mitt Romney got nearly 67% of the vote. In the most even election ever (2000), George W. Bush got 50% of the vote. (Obama must be incredibly polarizing). Donald Trump will win Oklahoma, but he really needs to win it by at least a 20% margin to be winning nationwide.

Oklahoma, -Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates

Trump 48%
Clinton 28%
Johnson 6%
Undecided 18%

http://newsok.com/article/5498100

One of the last states from which I would expect a poll.

One of the last five states in which I would expect Hillary Clinton to have a chance. Trump will win it, but perhaps not by the 60% or higher levels that one usually expects.  

   



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

[Eric the Green]

People in this country may be stupid and put a right wing creep into the White House and the Congress just because they don't like Hillary. But others need to consider the consequences of putting a right-wing madman into the White House and keeping the congress Republican. Remember, the Supreme Court is directly on the ballot. It can't be stated any clearer than that. All 3 branches of our government depend on those of you who live in swing states. Yes, that includes Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota as well as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Missouri, Georgia and Nevada.

Here's what Trump says about the Supreme Court.

Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks
Image: Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks
Wednesday, 18 May 2016 02:10 PM

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court justices he plans to vet to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called the list a "conservative dream team." He said it would be very similar to what conservative Sen. Ted Cruz would have released.

Six of them are judges who were appointed to federal appeals courts around the country by Republican former President George W. Bush. The other five serve on various state supreme courts.
Scalia's replacement could tip the ideological balance of the court, which now is evenly divided with four conservative justices and four liberals. Scalia, who died in February, was one of the court's most conservative justices.

All of Trump's 11 judges are listed as affiliated with the Federalist Society on the influential conservative legal group's website. The organization is known as a breeding ground for conservative legal thinkers.

It is unusual for a presidential candidate to release names of potential Supreme Court or Cabinet nominees before winning an election.

But Trump is working to assure conservatives in his own party that, if elected president on Nov. 8, he would not appoint a liberal or moderate judge to the court. Trump allies had encouraged him to announce the names of potential court nominees in order to allay fears among conservatives wary of a Trump presidency.

Trump's list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, a judge on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Raymond Gruender of Missouri, also a judge on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

It also includes: Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, a judge on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals; William Pryor of Alabama, a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state supreme court jurists include: Allison Eid of Colorado; Joan Larsen of Michigan; Thomas Lee of Utah; David Stras of Minnesota; and Don Willett of Texas.

Democratic President Barack Obama in March named centrist appellate court judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. But the Republican-led Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings or a vote, insisting that Obama's successor, to be elected in November, should get to select Scalia's replacement.

Lee is the brother of Senator Mike Lee of Utah, one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate.

Sykes is the wife of conservative Wisconsin radio host Charles Sykes. The radio host posted on Twitter that his wife would make a great justice, but that "I simply don't believe Trump."

At least one judge on the list has been critical of Trump. Willett last June tweaked Trump on Twitter. Willet posted about imagining Trump selecting a Supreme Court nominee.

"The mind reels. *weeps-can't finish tweet*," Willett wrote, suggesting he was crying at the idea.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest, at his daily briefing, said he would be surprised if any Democrat would describe any of Trump's picks "as a consensus nominee."

"But the individual President Obama has put forward is somebody that Republicans have described as a consensus nominee," Earnest said of Garland, adding that it would be wise for the Senate to act on Obama's nominee.

Trump's list does not include some prominent conservatives who are viewed as Washington insiders and have been mentioned as potential nominees in the past, including appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh and Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under Bush.

Trump said in a statement that his "list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices."

In March, Trump said he would consult with the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank to compile a list of potential nominees.

The risk for Trump is that public scrutiny of the names on the list could elicit criticism within his own party and from Democrats, who will likely tie Trump to all of the judges' previous positions.

Below is Trump's complete statement:

"Today Donald J. Trump released the much-anticipated list of people he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court. This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.

"Mr. Trump stated, “Justice Scalia was a remarkable person and a brilliant Supreme Court Justice. His career was defined by his reverence for the Constitution and his legacy of protecting Americans’ most cherished freedoms. He was a Justice who did not believe in legislating from the bench and he is a person whom I held in the highest regard and will always greatly respect his intelligence and conviction to uphold the Constitution of our country. The following list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.”

Steven Colloton

Steven Colloton of Iowa is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a position he has held since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2003. Judge Colloton has a résumé that also includes distinguished service as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a lecturer of law at the University of Iowa. He received his law degree from Yale, and he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Colloton is an Iowa native.

Allison Eid

Allison Eid of Colorado is an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters (with 75% of voters favoring retention). Prior to her judicial service, Justice Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Justice Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Raymond Gruender

Raymond Gruender of Missouri has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since his 2004 appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gruender, who sits in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensive prosecutorial experience, culminating with his time as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Gruender received a law degree and an M.B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis.

Thomas Hardiman

Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 2007. Prior to serving as a circuit judge, he served as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2003. Before his judicial service, Judge Hardiman worked in private practice in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh. Judge Hardiman was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Notre Dame.

Raymond Kethledge

Raymond Kethledge of Michigan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit since 2008. Before his judicial service, Judge Kethledge served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, worked as a partner in two law firms, and worked as an in-house counsel for the Ford Motor Company. Judge Kethledge obtained his law degree from the University of Michigan and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Joan Larsen

Joan Larsen of Michigan is an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law from 1998 until her appointment to the bench. In 2002, she temporarily left academia to work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Justice Larsen received her law degree from Northwestern and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.

Thomas Lee

Thomas Lee of Utah has been an Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court since 2010. Beginning in 1997, he served on the faculty of Brigham Young University Law School, where he still teaches in an adjunct capacity. Justice Lee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division from 2004 to 2005. Justice Lee attended the University of Chicago Law School, and he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Lee is also the son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee and the brother of current U.S. Senator Mike Lee.

William Pryor

William H. Pryor, Jr. of Alabama is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has served on the court since 2004. Judge Pryor became the Alabama Attorney General in 1997 upon Jeff Sessions’s election to the U.S. Senate. Judge Pryor was then elected in his own right in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In 2013, Judge Pryor was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Judge Pryor received his law degree from Tulane, and he clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

David Stras

David Stras of Minnesota has been an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court since 2010. After his initial appointment, he was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Stras worked as a legal academic at the University of Minnesota Law School. In his time there, he wrote extensively about the function and structure of the judiciary. Justice Stras received his law degree and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Diane Sykes

Diane Sykes of Wisconsin has served as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004. Prior to her federal appointment, Judge Sykes had been a Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 1999 and a Wisconsin trial court judge of both civil and criminal matters before that. Judge Sykes received her law degree from Marquette.

Don Willett

Don Willett of Texas has been a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 2005. He was initially appointed by Governor Rick Perry and has been reelected by the voters twice. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Willett worked as a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as an advisor in George W. Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and as a Deputy Attorney General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Justice Willett received his law degree and a master’s degree from Duke.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-li...z492rTb7SZ
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-18-2016, 10:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks
Image: Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks
Wednesday, 18 May 2016 02:10 PM

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court justices he plans to vet to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called the list a "conservative dream team." He said it would be very similar to what conservative Sen. Ted Cruz would have released.


<snip>


Trump's list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, a judge on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Raymond Gruender of Missouri, also a judge on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

It also includes: Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, a judge on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals; William Pryor of Alabama, a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state supreme court jurists include: Allison Eid of Colorado; Joan Larsen of Michigan; Thomas Lee of Utah; David Stras of Minnesota; and Don Willett of Texas.
<snip>

Rags Wrote:Wow, Trump sure does   X'ers. 10 are GenX.

[Odin]

Robert Kagan: This is how fascism comes to America

Quote:The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s “conservative” principles, all would be well.

But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as it has everyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.

Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.

This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Fuhrer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who singlehandedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn’t matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party’s most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.

In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over. The human race in such circumstances breaks down into predictable categories — and democratic politicians are the most predictable. There are those whose ambition leads them to jump on the bandwagon. They praise the leader’s incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won’t let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin’s show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway.

A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot. Let the storm pass, they insist, and then we can pick up the pieces, rebuild and get back to normal. Meanwhile, don’t alienate the leader’s mass following. After all, they are voters and will need to brought back into the fold. As for Trump himself, let’s shape him, advise him, steer him in the right direction and, not incidentally, save our political skins.

What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing. He will have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. By then that following will have grown dramatically. Today, less than 5 percent of eligible voters have voted for Trump. But if he wins the election, his legions will comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?

This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.

[Eric the Green]

The nominees may be presumptive, but the voting continues!

Here's how the voting and my projections are going.

Democratic:

I projected Kentucky delegates would split 28-27 in favor of Hillary R. Clinton. Results: 28-27 Hillary R. Clinton.
I projected Oregon would split 41-20 for Sanders. Results: 35-26 Sanders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of...ries,_2016

Democratic totals

Pledged delegates: Clinton 1771, Sanders 1499
Projected by me originally for remaining states: Clinton 403, Sanders 363
Totals by June 14: Clinton 2174, Sanders 1862.
2026 pledged delegates is a majority.

Republican (no longer contested) I projected Trump-Cruz-Kasich would split the delegates in Oregon 11-10-7. Results: 19-4-5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of...ries,_2016

Republican totals:

Trump 1107, Cruz 555, Kasich 160, Rubio 168
Projected by me originally for remaining states: Trump 178, Cruz 160, Kasich 34
Totals by June 7: Trump 1285, Cruz 715, Kasich 194

1237 is majority.

[Eric the Green]

Great article by Robert Kagan above.

The only thing I wonder about is, how much would Trump bow down to the Republican Party's politicians and platforms? Will Trump feel the need to fall in line, as he is doing now? (witness his announced conservative field for Supreme Court pick) Will he feel the need to have a united Republican congress and Court behind him as he becomes virtual dictator of America to make it "great again?" I assume he'll largely fall in line, and that makes him even MORE dangerous.

And thus ever more need to get over the nonsense about Hillary and get behind her now.

[Eric the Green]

(05-18-2016, 11:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(05-18-2016, 10:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks
Image: Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks
Wednesday, 18 May 2016 02:10 PM

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court justices he plans to vet to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called the list a "conservative dream team." He said it would be very similar to what conservative Sen. Ted Cruz would have released.


<snip>


Trump's list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, a judge on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Raymond Gruender of Missouri, also a judge on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

It also includes: Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, a judge on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals; William Pryor of Alabama, a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state supreme court jurists include: Allison Eid of Colorado; Joan Larsen of Michigan; Thomas Lee of Utah; David Stras of Minnesota; and Don Willett of Texas.
<snip>

Rags Wrote:Wow, Trump sure does   X'ers. 10 are GenX.

And Gen Xers have produced the worst crop of politicians in history, to go along with their list of the worst rock and pop "musicians" (cough cough) in history. Yeah, Trump falls in line with the Reagan-Bush children.

[TnT]

(05-19-2016, 01:42 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In the past I have been very doubtful about "Civil War" being the key challenge in this 4T. I'm now modifying this opinion. However, I still don't foresee a "War Between The States" situation. I see something more akin to the Spanish Civil War. And as we know that one was both a battle between forces of Fascism versus all other factions as well as an early proxy war between Fascist oriented nations versus Communist, Socialist and Republican Democratic ones. Seeing how many idiots are being swayed into the Trump camp it's clear that we have now reached the point that was feared by Founders and some later observers like Tocqueville. Mobocracy is here. So the battle lines, be it a full on war or merely a set of skirmishes will be a Fascistic or Fascistoid Mobocracy versus all others.

I'm in the "all others" camp and intend to cling until death to my 2nd Amendment rights. If it comes to a Civil War I plan to use firearms against our modern equivalent of Francoistas and to join the Freedom Fighters. I'm old now, with no kids, and I've done pretty much what I'm going to do in the Civilian world.

As a "liberal with a room-ful of guns" folks like you interest me.  A couple questions:

What "Freedom Fighters?" The beer-gut guys I occasionally run into out in the Rocky Mountain west? The ones who "hunt" from ATV's and probably couldn't hike out a ten mile day in the mountains without having a heart attack?

And, whom, exactly, would you shoot?  This is actually my primary question whenever I hear this stuff.  Whom WOULD you shoot, or shoot at?

[pbrower2a]

(05-19-2016, 11:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Great article by Robert Kagan above.

The only thing I wonder about is, how much would Trump bow down to the Republican Party's politicians and platforms? Will Trump feel the need to fall in line, as he is doing now? (witness his announced conservative field for Supreme Court pick) Will he feel the need to have a united Republican congress and Court behind him as he becomes virtual dictator of America to make it "great again?" I assume he'll largely fall in line, and that makes him even MORE dangerous.

And thus ever more need to get over the nonsense about Hillary and get behind her now.

Once in power, most leaders who achieved power through demagoguery end up $crewing the people most vulnerable -- those people who have no recourse if the promises made are not or cannot be met. What can they do? Wait until the next election? Donald Trump will quickly make amends with the "Establishment" Republicans who, once they see his largely-reactionary agenda, will ignore his style as he sells out many of those who voted for him.

The real danger arises should the Trump Administration enact 'reforms' that further consolidate the power of our economic elites -- like giving employers rights to determine how their employees vote.

Can anyone really trust him?

[pbrower2a]

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump

(NO LONGER SHOWN)

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.

[Kinser79]

(05-19-2016, 01:42 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I'm in the "all others" camp and intend to cling until death to my 2nd Amendment rights. If it comes to a Civil War I plan to use firearms against our modern equivalent of Francoistas and to join the Freedom Fighters. I'm old now, with no kids, and I've done pretty much what I'm going to do in the Civilian world.

Just to let you know, many of these so-called "Modern equivalent of Francoistas" are also armed to the teeth too.

(05-19-2016, 06:38 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: It's not rocket science. The Spanish Civil War is instructive in this regard. In this type of scenario actual military split into factions as I'm sure law enforcement would as well. The "not-Fascist" camp of those would constitute the Freedom Fighters. This also answers the question regarding who to shoot - just as it always has been - the opposing forces. In this case, The Fascists.

I think you assume too much.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/milit.../84132402/

Like Franco, Daddy has wide support among Vets, active military, and the police. If all of those groups are "Teh Fascists!!!$#%%$one!" then you really don't stand a chance. Unlike Al Queda (who later trained other groups), the American public has not been trained by the CIA in asymmetric warfare.

[TnT]

(05-19-2016, 06:38 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: It's not rocket science. The Spanish Civil War is instructive in this regard. In this type of scenario actual military split into factions as I'm sure law enforcement would as well. The "not-Fascist" camp of those would constitute the Freedom Fighters. This also answers the question regarding who to shoot - just as it always has been - the opposing forces. In this case, The Fascists.

I think that both you and I are attracted to post-apocalyptic dystopia fantasy.  I know I am.  Cormac McCarthy, Stephen King, "The Book of Eli," man those are fun, fun, fun!!

What you describe above has to follow many other preparatory stages. But fun to conjure up scenarios, eh?

[Kinser79]

(05-20-2016, 07:15 PM)TnT Wrote:

(05-19-2016, 06:38 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: It's not rocket science. The Spanish Civil War is instructive in this regard. In this type of scenario actual military split into factions as I'm sure law enforcement would as well. The "not-Fascist" camp of those would constitute the Freedom Fighters. This also answers the question regarding who to shoot - just as it always has been - the opposing forces. In this case, The Fascists.

I think that both you and I are attracted to post-apocalyptic dystopia fantasy.  I know I am.  Cormac McCarthy, Stephen King, "The Book of Eli," man those are fun, fun, fun!!

What you describe above has to follow many other preparatory stages. But fun to conjure up scenarios, eh?

Not really. I'm not the one screaming doom and gloom should HRC get elected. I just expect a failed presidency from her and probably a war in the Middle East. IN SHORT more of the same, more of the same old status quo which is unacceptable. As such I'm willing to try something, anything different. Had Bernie not been cheated out of the nomination I would have voted for him--and did vote for him in the FL Democratic Primary. The simple fact is that HRC is unacceptable.

[Cynic Hero '86]

The status quo is increasingly unacceptable and is regarded as such not by just the american people, but more ominously by many foreign nations, some of whom are quite important.

[radind]

(05-19-2016, 05:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-19-2016, 11:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Great article by Robert Kagan above.

The only thing I wonder about is, how much would Trump bow down to the Republican Party's politicians and platforms? Will Trump feel the need to fall in line, as he is doing now? (witness his announced conservative field for Supreme Court pick) Will he feel the need to have a united Republican congress and Court behind him as he becomes virtual dictator of America to make it "great again?" I assume he'll largely fall in line, and that makes him even MORE dangerous.

And thus ever more need to get over the nonsense about Hillary and get behind her now.

Once in power, most leaders who achieved power through demagoguery end up $crewing the people most vulnerable -- those people who have no recourse if the promises made are not or cannot be met. What can they do? Wait until the next election? Donald Trump will quickly make amends with the "Establishment" Republicans who, once they see his largely-reactionary agenda, will ignore his style as he sells out many of those who voted for him.

The real danger arises should the Trump Administration enact 'reforms' that further consolidate the power of our economic elites -- like giving employers rights to determine how their employees vote.

Can anyone really trust him?

It appears to me that the inside power broker Repubs are still fighting against Trump and would prefer Clinton over Trump. If Trump manages to win somehow, I doubt that Trump would make amends with them.
Whatever happens , I see a  vastly different GOP after the election  or the current GOP may  just cease to exist.

[Eric the Green]

It's likely that Trump will sell out to whoever boosts his power. He has already departed from the ideals he stated and wrote in the past, because he decided that the Republican Party was his path to power. Although he claims to have an agenda, and may fulfill it to a degree if elected, he is primarily loyal to himself. I expect him to be "flexible," as he claims to be, which will mean that his followers cannot count on him fulfilling his promises to them. Many of followers may well be happy though, just to have a strong and/or entertaining leader to follow, and one who bashes people according to their fears and passions. That's what many of them want; that's what they think will "make America great again."

[Mikebert]

We used to have victories. When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, an owlbear?

I beat owlbears all the time. All the time.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...CUUqKFJY&e=

[pbrower2a]

Trump's 2 point lead (in North Carolina) represents a 4 point improvement from our March poll of the state, when Clinton was ahead by a couple points. The movement has come completely among Republicans. In March Clinton was up 79-13 among Democrats, and now she's up 79-12 among Democrats. In March Trump was up 49-32 among independents, and now he's up 45-27 among independents. But in March Trump was only up by 63 points among Republicans at 73/10, and now he has a 76 point lead among them at 81/5. That's the entire reason the race has shifted from a slight Clinton advantage to a slight Trump advantage.

If a 2 point advantage for Trump held through November, that would match Mitt Romney's margin of victory in 2012 in North Carolina. That's a trend we've found in a lot of our recent polling- the race is shaping up very similarly to how things went between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

Geography


Most Recent PPP Poll


2012 Results

North Carolina Trump +2 Romney +2

New Mexico Clinton +8 Obama +10

Arizona Trump +2 Romney +10

National Clinton +4 Obama +4

West Virginia Trump +27 Romney +27

Ohio Clinton +3 Obama +3

Every place we've polled in the last month we've found the Clinton/Trump race within a few points of where the Obama/Romney race ended up with the exception of Arizona, where there were a disproportionate share of Republican voters on the fence and we would expect them to eventually come home and give Trump a broader advantage. There was so much talk earlier this year of Clinton winning some sort of historical landslide that expectations got out of whack and now fuel perceptions that she's doing really poorly, but the bottom line is she's pretty much where Obama was in an election that while relatively close in the popular vote ended up as an electoral college landslide.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/...olina.html

(Technically, I do not see 332 electoral votes as a landslide. It's near the median in electoral results, with all other Presidential elections resulting in close elections in popular and electoral votes giving the winner under 57.1% or fewer, as with Truman in 1948, or 66.5% or more, as with Taft in 1908. Obama 2008 was similar to Taft 1908 in popular and electoral vote. One might expect electoral victories to cluster around 62% of the electoral vote, but there is only one election close to that. Of course, had Obama lost Florida he would have had a win close in magnitude to those of Truman in 1948 and Kennedy in 1960, and there would be no Presidential election with the winner getting between 57.1% and 66.5% of the electoral vote.

Random scatter usually results in data clustering near the median, but such does not happen in Presidential elections. The margin between a close Presidential election and a Presidential election not-so-close is roughly that of the electoral votes of California. California hasn't been a swing state in a close election since at least 1892, when it had only 8 electoral votes and Herbert Hoover was matriculating at Stanford University).

Obama had landslide wins in some regions of the US, getting Reagan-like margins of victory in some states and McGovern-like margins of loss in some others in 2008. The Reagan-like victories of 2008 eroded some in 2012 and the McGovern-style losses deepened in 2012, but he still won.

Two elections, 100 years apart:

http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusma...NE3=0;99;6

[pbrower2a]

Mostly from another site, with some adaptation. The poster posed the proposition that Donald Trump could win in a landslide.

I see Donald Trump as a Republican mirror image (except for being a rake) of Jimmy Carter, an 'outsider' who has very specific ideas of how to change America and unable to achieve them -- and having no Plan B. There might be something to running the federal government like a business -- except that justice, diplomacy, welfare, and the Armed Services cannot be run on profit-and loss bases.

The only effective President who had little-to-no experience in elected office who was at all effective since the Civil War was Dwight Eisenhower.  Ike at the least had the difficult task of lobbying for funds in a Depression economy with a war-loathing populace, so he got some idea of how Congress works. Trump has no legislative experience, and no experience as a government executive even in a cabinet position. (Herbert Hoover had experience as the very popular Secretary of Commerce).

Quote:Presumably Republicans do quite well in Congressional and other elections, strengthening their control in the Senate and in state governments across the country. What happens next (after Atlas liberals collectively faint)?

They might have done well in 'Congressional and other' elections in 2016 -- but he will have to get miracles and dodge any possible economic downturn in 2017 and 2018 to avoid a scenario analogous to 2006 for Congressional Republicans. Get an economic downturn and have no idea of how to stop it except doing more of the same to intensify hardships for potential voters, and the Democrats will have elections like those of 1930.  

Quote:* Does Trump acquiesce to the Republican establishment and sign off on some kind of "Ryan Plan" that eviscerates social spending while slashing taxes for the wealthy, or does he stick to his idiosyncratic guns and clash with Congressional GOP leadership?

Donald Trump is a crony capitalist. If he should sign off on the destruction of the welfare state while cutting taxes for the super-rich, then he could be Herbert Hoover, Version 2.0

Quote:* Will Democrats make big gains in the 2018 midterm elections (despite a map which forces them to be quite defensive)?

Even poor, white Christian fundamentalist Protestants in the South have their limits. An image of America which looks like some old Bible-related movies of the 1950s in which amoral elites indulge themselves with no limits while the masses suffer extreme poverty will create plenty of opportunities for Democrats.    

Quote:* Does Trump get primaried in 2020? If so, by whom?

Republicans would have nobody to primary him in 2020 if the economy goes sour. If the situation is more like 1980 in which Donald Trump has an administrative mess and no clue of how to solve things, then he will be weakened in a primary. Either way he loses. See "1932" and "1980".

Quote:* Which Democrats run for President in 2020?

FDR, Version 2.0... someone who has resisted the national trend of austerity for the poor and enhanced indulgence for elites, should America have the start of a Great Depression, Version 2.2. If it is simply an administrative mess, then look to Barack Obama, Version 2.0 as a memory of the last somewhat-effective President.

...imagine an electoral map in which the Democratic winner wins all but roughly 50 electoral votes, because that is what 1932 and 1980 maps were.  Basically take all states that Carter won in 1976 and Obama won in 2008 and add Arizona.

So here is the consequence of a Trump win of the Presidency in 2016 -- the Presidential election of 2020


 

Amy Klobuchar, D-MN
Donald Trump, R-NY, Incumbent

(OK, you might trade Montana and the Dakotas for Alabama, or Alaska and Montana for West Virginia. But just look at what is happening to the House and Senate in 2020. Democrats are making big gains in both Houses of Congress, especially in the South. Left-leaning populism analogous to that of the Carter era is back. It may still be conservative on social issues but hostile to the plutocratic agenda that came to dominate in the Mountain and Deep South.  This is practically a revival of the New Deal, which fits the aftermath of a President as much a failure as Herbert Hoover).

As for the generational angle not welcome on Leip's Atlas of American Elections: I picked Amy Klobuchar because she was born just before the Boom-X divide in 1960. She will be the last Boomer President, her second term ending when she is 69 in 2029... at the most. America will be ready for a 60-something X'er as President, for which America will be well prepared in the dawning 1T. That new President will be much like Truman, Eisenhower... or Obama, who has everything but the age right. Obama was born in 1961, and he is definitely not a Boomer.