What will happen if Clinton is elected President

[Eric the Green]

And guess who has been making a lot of RIGHT predictions? as usual..........

I don't know if the current Trump meltdown and Hillary bounce will continue. They are both weak candidates, so the election could still be relatively close. However, I think it will look pretty much like 2012. Trump might make Ohio closer, and Florida is always close. PA has often trended strongly Democratic this year, as it's doing now, and so is NH. Trump is in danger of losing North Carolina, and maybe Arizona. I'd say the most likely result is that Trump squeezes through in AZ, but Clinton squeezes through in FL and NC, meaning that Hillary will do better than Obama in 2012 and get 347 electoral votes. It could be 346 if the Maine 2nd CD votes for Trump. I would predict that won't happen. Iowa is also close this year; I predict it will stay blue too.

[playwrite]

(08-04-2016, 12:10 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: What will happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president? I made this poll just like its parallel thread: "What would happen if Trump is elected president", with the same options.

By the way, thanks, Mr. T for setting this up!

I really really wanted to write "Mr. T"  

[playwrite]

(08-04-2016, 01:17 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: I would definitely disagree with you. Hillary will not be impeached (even if the Republicans try it will fail miserably). She is actually more honest and trustworthy than Trump, and definitely less dangerous than him (not to mention how unpredictable he is). With her being elected, she will try hard to push her progressive agenda, especially since the Democratic Party has been driven left by Sanders and the like. I'd be fine with her running as Obama's third term, because that's still better than Trump, but even so, I believe she will be a successful President.

As I said elsewhere, if the House remains in GOP hands (looking less certain these days) I really really hope they try impeaching her.  That worked so well for them with Bill in the 90s; I can only imagine the backlash of a male-dominated GOP going after the first woman President.  I can't think of a better way (maybe making the SCOTUS Progressive for decades to come) of accelerating the inevitable decline of today's Right into a regional rump party.

[playwrite]

(08-04-2016, 12:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Successful one-term President -- issues of age and health.

At worst she will be the new Bush I, with Obama as the liberal equivalent of Ronald Reagan.

And should that scenario play out, the big difference between her and Bush 1 will be that the GOP will not have an evil twin of Bubba to follow up with in 2020.  Just the demographics of the White-male-over-55 years-old-voter cohort being 2% less of the electorate every cycle makes that almost a certainty; add-in more female and urbanized, it seals the deal.  With Georgia and North Carolina firmly behind the Blue Wall and Texas leaning Blue, the race will be all about the Dem primaries and the General a formality - sort of like a District of Columbia election on steroids.  

The DNC needs to get its act together before this becomes obvious.  They need to jettison the biggest voter suppression tool in their nominating process - the caucus.  That needs to take priority over ending closed primaries and super-delegates.  Anyone telling us otherwise is just playing out a political calculation for their narrow political views rather than what's in the best interest to the country.

[playwrite]

(08-04-2016, 02:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: To me, the critical question for the hypothetical Clinton 45 presidency is how badly Trump messes up the Republicans.  Can he possibly disrupt the GOP to the point where the Democrats can break filibusters?  Obama's problem has never been coming up with progressive ideas to fight the Robber Baron dominated Republicans, it's been getting his ideas through Congress.  Trump is messing up the Republican unity big time, and more than a few thinking Republicans will be shifting to Hillary, but Trump would really really have to be very Trumped up to give a supermajority Congress to the Democrats.

It almost seems like that's what Trump is trying to do.  No one shoots himself in the foot quite as often as Trump does unless he is aiming for his foot.

A Clinton win will change the SCOTUS to Progressive for decades to come (once the 2016 election is in the bank, be sure to start sending those McDonnell's coupons to the Thomas household again!) and that will start to reverse both the Citizen United, voter suppression and gerrymandering rear guard actions of the declining Right.  We can take them out in the early 2020s if the Dems can pick up state governorships/legislations prior to the 2020 Census.  If not, it will be more of slug fest with the GOP House and with Red States attempting various levels of sedition for much of the coming decade but it will become increasingly apparent they are literally dying out.

[playwrite]

(08-04-2016, 07:04 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well since I'm essentially ignoring Playdude's existance...primarily due to the fact that talking to him is like talking to a brick wall (only the wall is more intelligent, and also more well researched), and since Odin has little more than insults to fling about I'm going to address a point brought up by Bob.

The clockwork theory of S&H is quite wrong and one should look at the way society is headed.  However, there are other factors in play at the present time.  The Megasaeculum and the Microturnings.  At present we are in a Mega-Unraveling which means that the whole saeculum has been one of stagnation from the 1T all the way to the present day.  If one adds to that the concept of microturnings and that there is a period within the general turning (the ones S&H describe) where the mood of that turning stalls, we are clearly in the unraveling of that turning.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Regressive Left doesn't like the way the micro-awakening turned out.  They were rejected, and the Reaganite (which includes the Clintons, yes both of them) establishment from the 3T must be destroyed.  As HRC is the personification of that establishment she will as a consequence be destroyed.  Her physical decay is as inevitable as her political decay, but I think the political decay will happen far sooner.  

Should HRC be elected, that will actually stall the microturning, it will frustrate the momentum of the country, and it will make the person who comes after Trump that much worse.  Instead of someone is kinda, sorta, maybe if you look at everything through an ultra-left pc lens proto-fascist, we'd end up with an actual fascist.

Orlov tells us that those things which must collapse ultimately will collapse, that smaller collapses are less severe than larger collapses and that more frequent collapses are less severe than more infrequent collapses.  As such I have every reason to believe that should HRC be elected she may be able to hold back the tide for 4 years (if she's really skilled--I'd argue she isn't but whatever) but what follows will be more severe, of longer duration and will almost certainly result in a muted, less high like resolution (since I hate calling 1Ts 'highs').

You and The Donald share a lot of 'attributes' like living in a fact-free zone.

Maybe you two should get a room?

[playwrite]

(08-04-2016, 07:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 06:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:40 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: First let me say that I highly doubt she will be elected.  Her post convention bump was far lower than Trump's, and her unfavorablity is growing, also it is quite likely she will not fare well in the debates.  Seriously Grouchy Commie Grandpa (Sanders) trounced her on a regular basis and he wasn't even really trying to hurt her.  Trump won't be nearly as nice, and HRC's reputation as being a hard as nails political animal negates her gynocentric advantage.

Furthermore she's been running as Obama's third term thus far.  As such it is likely that in the unlikely event that she is elected she will be an unsuccessful one term president.  That of course assumes she isn't forced out for corruption, high crimes and misdemeanors (and the GOP Congress will be looking to take her out...Hillary Hunting is their pastime) impeachment or even health factors.

All of that said in over 200 years of having presidents only one has resigned, and two impeached (both unsuccessfully) and as such I doubt that would resign unless there was a Nixion level scandal (though she does make her own drama and reaps that karma) or she has a stroke or something on national TV.

That said I think it is telling that she's not had a press conference in 243/4 days....not good....not good at all.

She will be elected President. The only question is now actuarial. The most likely entity to stop her from succeeding Barack Obama as President is the Grim Reaper.

At this point she is on par with where Barack Obama was on Election night, 2008. I'm not saying that she will win Indiana, but maybe she ends up with Arizona or Missouri instead. As late as early September 2008 the Presidential race looked close to even.  

Obama won Florida by just under 4% in 2008 and just under 1% in 2012. Up 6%? Bill Clinton did that in 1996 when Ross Perot siphoned off lots of usual R voters. Maybe that happens this year. Carter won Florida by about 5%... when he won every former Confederate state except Virginia.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have not voted for a Republican Presidential nominee since at least 1988. You need remember that Hillary Clinton was shown up 11% in Pennsylvania, probably the shakiest of those states Michigan is up 9%. Those states and the District of Columbia hold 243 electoral votes between them. Florida has 20. 270 wins. Do the math.

The material for the negative campaigns is already in place. If you got sick of the "Willie Horton" ads in 1988, don't worry. The Clinton campaign has a variety this time. Negative ads work.  He has bad business dealings, bankruptcies, and preferential hiring of foreigners (even if they come on H1B visas to be hotel staff). He has stiffed contractors. He has shown admiration of nasty dictators -- like Satan Hussein.

...As for Congress taking her out -- one pollster has the generic ballot for Congress at 49-41. Because of gerrymandering, Democrats need to win about 54-46 in House elections overall to win back the House. Republicans have lots of brittle targets in the Senate.

Democrats solved almost all their problems in their Convention. Republicans got through a formality and otherwise solved nothing.

You're forgetting several factors:

1.  The Greens while not on the ballot in every state are on the ballot in most states.  The only third party that can claim more states are the Libertarians and honestly they never get more than 1% and are unlikely to get 2% if all the #NeverTrump clowns try to flood into that party.  There simply isn't enough of them, were there, they would have won the GOP primaries.

2.  Negative ads do work.  Trump has more than enough material for his own, and he has more than enough of his own money and donations to roll out his own ads.  That said, negative ads work by supressing the vote, which historically does NOT favor Democrats.  Given the hundreds of scandals HRC has been in, and the relatively little dirt there is on Daddy (cause seriously were there real dirt they'd used it by now--hell the Establishment GOP would have used it) I hope HRC goes negative she'd end up shooting herself in the foot that way.

3.  At current some 20% of Sanders supporters are lining up behind Trump.  If we can get this up to 25% or even 30% the Obama coalition would start to break apart.  The cracks are already showing seeing as the Dems had to fix their own primaries with the help of MSM acting as their do-boys to block Sanders (and under normal conditions he shouldn't have had a snowball's chance in Hades).

4.  At present Trump's got the Panhandle and Miami locked in for FL.  Only the I-4 makes FL a contention state, and we are putting a lot of effort in down here.  DC is going to be blue, but PA and OH are likely to turn red this time round.  IN won't be going blue--2008 was a fluke due to the October Surprise that happened that year (which wasn't really a surprise to anyone who was actually watching the economy).  Further HRC's VP pick was purposely done to retain VA as a blue state....unfortunately for her Kaine is pretty much hated in VA.

5.  The only polls that matter are the ones that open in November.  Goldenboy of '08 and '12 Nate Silver has been making a lot of wrong predictions this year.  Methinks  he is an inverse indicator this year.  That is to say that his track record this cycle has been so consistently bad that betting against his prediction is the more prudent course.

Gad, this fact-free horseshXt is simply hilarious -20% of Sanders voters going to Trump; Clinton scandals that mean anything to normal people; Trump has a shot at FL, OH, PA; Kaine is hated in VA (this is the most bizarre)???

We actually have our very own "The Donald" on this forum!  Maybe a moniker change? The K-Trump or maybe K-Dump?

Or maybe you can be "The Donald's Brain" and on election day you can mutter around about how Clinton's win just can't be true because the polls are skewed? You sure you're not "JustPassingThrough?"

[Mikebert]

Looks like Kinser has jumped the shark into Unskewed Polls territory (these were the folks in 2012 who were *sure* Mittens was ahead and had been all campaign and the polls were biased against him).

The Donald is in trouble.  His poll position looks awful right now, but we are still in the choppy period around the conventions.  The poll average two weeks after the last convention (i.e. a week from now) will tell where the general election will start.  It should be fairly stable after that, barring unexpected events, until the debates, if they happen.

Right now, if nothing changes, it looks more or less like a repeat of 2012 where Clinton wins, but Republicans hold the Senate.  However, I have faith in The Donald.  I think when the dust settles it will be closer to the 2008 outcome, Clinton will win easily and Dems will just eke out a Senate majority.

I’m not into conspiracy theories, but the folks who say Trump has been in cahoots with Clinton from the start are looking less crazy.  I still think they are certainly wrong, but I won’t think of them as loons anymore.

[Mikebert]

As for Clinton will do, there are two many unknowns.  Will she have a Democratic Senate? How will the rest of the business cycle unfold.  What does she want to achieve as president?  I can see outcomes ranging from very frustrating to good.

[Odin]

(08-05-2016, 04:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 04:11 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Looks like Kinser has jumped the shark into Unskewed Polls territory (these were the folks in 2012 who were *sure* Mittens was ahead and had been all campaign and the polls were biased against him).

The Donald is in trouble.  His poll position looks awful right now, but we are still in the choppy period around the conventions.  The poll average two weeks after the last convention (i.e. a week from now) will tell where the general election will start.  It should be fairly stable after that, barring unexpected events, until the debates, if they happen.

Right now, if nothing changes, it looks more or less like a repeat of 2012 where Clinton wins, but Republicans hold the Senate.  However, I have faith in The Donald.  I think when the dust settles it will be closer to the 2008 outcome, Clinton will win easily and Dems will just eke out a Senate majority.

I’m not into conspiracy theories, but the folks who say Trump has been in cahoots with Clinton from the start are looking less crazy.  I still think they are certainly wrong, but I won’t think of them as loons anymore.

I can understand the appeal of "DT is putting in the fix for HRC."

However, Occam tells me he's what he appears to be - a self centered loon with White Nationalist tendencies who has marshaled a subset of "the volk" to undertake a putsch against a major political party hoping for a sort of national putsch in November. Granted this is an attempt at a "soft" putsch given no mass violence (thus far).

Trump is a classic sociopath, which is not the evil mastermind of popular imagination but an impulsive monster.

[pbrower2a]

(08-05-2016, 10:01 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 07:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 06:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:40 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: First let me say that I highly doubt she will be elected.  Her post convention bump was far lower than Trump's, and her unfavorablity is growing, also it is quite likely she will not fare well in the debates.  Seriously Grouchy Commie Grandpa (Sanders) trounced her on a regular basis and he wasn't even really trying to hurt her.  Trump won't be nearly as nice, and HRC's reputation as being a hard as nails political animal negates her gynocentric advantage.

Furthermore she's been running as Obama's third term thus far.  As such it is likely that in the unlikely event that she is elected she will be an unsuccessful one term president.  That of course assumes she isn't forced out for corruption, high crimes and misdemeanors (and the GOP Congress will be looking to take her out...Hillary Hunting is their pastime) impeachment or even health factors.

All of that said in over 200 years of having presidents only one has resigned, and two impeached (both unsuccessfully) and as such I doubt that would resign unless there was a Nixion level scandal (though she does make her own drama and reaps that karma) or she has a stroke or something on national TV.

That said I think it is telling that she's not had a press conference in 243/4 days....not good....not good at all.

She will be elected President. The only question is now actuarial. The most likely entity to stop her from succeeding Barack Obama as President is the Grim Reaper.

At this point she is on par with where Barack Obama was on Election night, 2008. I'm not saying that she will win Indiana, but maybe she ends up with Arizona or Missouri instead. As late as early September 2008 the Presidential race looked close to even.  

Obama won Florida by just under 4% in 2008 and just under 1% in 2012. Up 6%? Bill Clinton did that in 1996 when Ross Perot siphoned off lots of usual R voters. Maybe that happens this year. Carter won Florida by about 5%... when he won every former Confederate state except Virginia.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have not voted for a Republican Presidential nominee since at least 1988. You need remember that Hillary Clinton was shown up 11% in Pennsylvania, probably the shakiest of those states Michigan is up 9%. Those states and the District of Columbia hold 243 electoral votes between them. Florida has 20. 270 wins. Do the math.

The material for the negative campaigns is already in place. If you got sick of the "Willie Horton" ads in 1988, don't worry. The Clinton campaign has a variety this time. Negative ads work.  He has bad business dealings, bankruptcies, and preferential hiring of foreigners (even if they come on H1B visas to be hotel staff). He has stiffed contractors. He has shown admiration of nasty dictators -- like Satan Hussein.

...As for Congress taking her out -- one pollster has the generic ballot for Congress at 49-41. Because of gerrymandering, Democrats need to win about 54-46 in House elections overall to win back the House. Republicans have lots of brittle targets in the Senate.

Democrats solved almost all their problems in their Convention. Republicans got through a formality and otherwise solved nothing.

You're forgetting several factors:

1.  The Greens while not on the ballot in every state are on the ballot in most states.  The only third party that can claim more states are the Libertarians and honestly they never get more than 1% and are unlikely to get 2% if all the #NeverTrump clowns try to flood into that party.  There simply isn't enough of them, were there, they would have won the GOP primaries.

2.  Negative ads do work.  Trump has more than enough material for his own, and he has more than enough of his own money and donations to roll out his own ads.  That said, negative ads work by supressing the vote, which historically does NOT favor Democrats.  Given the hundreds of scandals HRC has been in, and the relatively little dirt there is on Daddy (cause seriously were there real dirt they'd used it by now--hell the Establishment GOP would have used it) I hope HRC goes negative she'd end up shooting herself in the foot that way.

3.  At current some 20% of Sanders supporters are lining up behind Trump.  If we can get this up to 25% or even 30% the Obama coalition would start to break apart.  The cracks are already showing seeing as the Dems had to fix their own primaries with the help of MSM acting as their do-boys to block Sanders (and under normal conditions he shouldn't have had a snowball's chance in Hades).

4.  At present Trump's got the Panhandle and Miami locked in for FL.  Only the I-4 makes FL a contention state, and we are putting a lot of effort in down here.  DC is going to be blue, but PA and OH are likely to turn red this time round.  IN won't be going blue--2008 was a fluke due to the October Surprise that happened that year (which wasn't really a surprise to anyone who was actually watching the economy).  Further HRC's VP pick was purposely done to retain VA as a blue state....unfortunately for her Kaine is pretty much hated in VA.

5.  The only polls that matter are the ones that open in November.  Goldenboy of '08 and '12 Nate Silver has been making a lot of wrong predictions this year.  Methinks  he is an inverse indicator this year.  That is to say that his track record this cycle has been so consistently bad that betting against his prediction is the more prudent course.

Gad, this fact-free horseshXt is simply hilarious -20% of Sanders voters going to Trump; Clinton scandals that mean anything to normal people; Trump has a shot at FL, OH, PA; Kaine is hated in VA (this is the most bizarre)???

We actually have our very own "The Donald" on this forum!  Maybe a moniker change? The K-Trump or maybe K-Dump?

Or maybe you can be "The Donald's Brain" and on election day you can mutter around about how Clinton's win just can't be true because the polls are skewed?  You sure you're not "JustPassingThrough?"

1. I see polls with the Libertarians getting 10% or more of the vote. Many of those voters are not hard-core Libertarians; they are orthodox Republicans. Millions of orthodox Republicans find Donald Trump a demagogue and dangerous for that. They may disagree with me on what the best alternative is, but they know that Donald Trump is untrustworthy.

In many states such will allow Hillary Clinton to win with 45% or so of the vote. This could throw Hillary a bunch of states that just do not vote for Democratic nominees for President. Donald Trump is a horrible match for states whose people don't like flamboyance. I have seen that pattern in Utah.

Gary Johnson and William Weld have political assets that no pair of third-party or independent nominees have had since 1912: they both have held one of the two usual penultimate  elective offices for an elected President: Governor of a state. (the other is US Senator). Both Johnson and Weld have far more experience in elective office than does Donald Trump.

2. The Democrats gave copious material for negative ads against Donald Trump -- and against anyone who chooses to support him. That could be a double-whammy for many incumbent Republicans. Unlike the case with the "Willie Horton" ads the Democrats can rotate ads so that people don't get sick of them. Yes, negative ads work -- and Democrats have them to use if necessary.

3. Disgruntled Sanders supporters will go to Jill Stein and her Green Party. Donald Trump has little to offer them.

4. I have never been in Florida, so I can't refute you directly on that.  Deny the significance of polls if you wish -- but in the years in which I have followed statewide polls they have told a story that held up. There have been bad pollsters, but see enough and you see patterns.

Hillary Clinton can win without Florida. At this point I see no evidence that Hillary Clinton will not win all seventeen states (CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, ME, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, and WI) and the District of Columbia. Those states account for 243 electoral votes.

A composite of Presidential elections, 1976 and 1992-2012:



 
Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race. 243
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race. 15
White -- always went with the winner 23
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all election, but in that exception went for the Republican 38
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic 13
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green) 38/48
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race. 58
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race. 98

NE-02 is the middle box in Nebraska even if the district is Greater Omaha.

Mass dissatisfaction with the Republican party is strong outside core GOP areas. Republicans will need either a catastrophic failure of the Obama Administration or a quickly-forming cultural trend (like a right-wing religious revival) in most Blue (Atlas Red) states to create an opportunity. (comment: That seems not to be happening. The Millennial Generation is not amenable to religious revivals). The political cultures that make Republican wins of those states is well entrenched.

OK, one might trade Nevada for Iowa... but that leaves the Republican nominee with several must-win states (Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina), none of which will be certain. The states

The winner of the Democratic nomination gets the Obama campaign apparatus intact. 

... Hillary Clinton has plenty of ways to win. With 29 electoral votes Florida puts Hillary Clinton over the top even if she gets no other state outside the Blue (here Red as this map comes from a source that still uses red for Democrats and blue for Democrats. I make no waves there over that). The Blue Firewall (on my map maroon) and Florida put Hillary Clinton over the top at 272.

If she wins all three of the states that have gone no more than once for a Republican nominee for President, then with this she is at 258 electoral votes. At that point, Colorado and Nevada put her at 272 electoral votes. Virginia has her at 271. Ohio puts her at 276.

So why don't I discuss Arizona? Because she is not going to win Arizona without also winning Colorado and Nevada. North Carolina? She's not going to win North Carolina without also winning Virginia. Georgia? Not without also winning Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina. Indiana? Not without also winning Ohio.

5. The argument that the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day? I have typically heard that from electoral losers. Good politicians do not play up polling results because complacency creates losses.

Why do you think politicians campaign actively? Bad polling results indicate that something is very wrong with the politician or his campaign.

[Anthony '58]

The key will be the 2018 midterm elections - after two years of everything Hillary proposes ending up dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House, assuming the Democrats even get a majority in the Senate this November - hardly a given.

[Marypoza]

(08-04-2016, 03:16 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:10 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: What will happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president? I made this poll just like its parallel thread: "What would happen if Trump is elected president", with the same options.

1.  More wars of choice.
2. Lots of shitty trade deals like TPP, TPIP, etc. get enacted.
3. She and Bubba will get even more rich from more political connections.
4. The White House becomes another tryst site for Bubba.

What Rags said.

 As for your options I can't decide between impeachment or the coup. Maybe both if, as Kinser has pointed out, the impeachment is unsuccessful. There may also be widespread rioting in the streets @ some point 
 
Repugs will further consolidate their stranglehold on Congress in 2018. A wingnut will become Prez in 2020

[Marypoza]

(08-07-2016, 03:48 PM)Anthony Wrote: The key will be the 2018 midterm elections - after two years of everything Hillary proposes ending up dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House, assuming the Democrats even get a majority in the Senate this November - hardly a given.

Highly unlikely. Voter turnout will be low, which favors repugs. If the Dems really wanted Congress back they would of ran Bernie, instead of stacking the primaries against him

[Anthony '58]

Diane Keaton and Al Pacino were going on about the immediate political future the other night, in the event Hillary wins the election:

"There will be no way, Michael (Pacino played Michael Corleone in the Godfather movies, Keaton his wife), no way the Democrats will get control of the House back until 2022 at the earliest - not with this gerrymandering thing that's been going on for ..."

Whereupon Pacino slapped her hard across the face.

[Eric the Green]

(08-21-2016, 08:46 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 03:16 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:10 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: What will happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president? I made this poll just like its parallel thread: "What would happen if Trump is elected president", with the same options.

1.  More wars of choice.
2. Lots of shitty trade deals like TPP, TPIP, etc. get enacted.
3. She and Bubba will get even more rich from more political connections.
4. The White House becomes another tryst site for Bubba.

What Rags said.

 As for your options I can't decide between impeachment or the coup. Maybe both if, as Kinser has pointed out, the impeachment is unsuccessful. There may also be widespread rioting in the streets @ some point 
 
Repugs will further consolidate their stranglehold on Congress in 2018. A wingnut will become Prez in 2020

Bernie was better, but Hillary is much, much better than you give her credit for.

None of the things Rags said will happen, except #3.

[Eric the Green]

(08-21-2016, 08:48 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 03:48 PM)Anthony Wrote: The key will be the 2018 midterm elections - after two years of everything Hillary proposes ending up dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House, assuming the Democrats even get a majority in the Senate this November - hardly a given.

Highly unlikely. Voter turnout will be low, which favors repugs. If the Dems really wanted Congress back they would of ran Bernie, instead of stacking the primaries against him

We are going to keep chugging along, not going very far, until the people wise up and vote, and vote the Republicans out, and progressive Democrats or others in. It's up to the people. Bernie winning would not have changed a whole lot. Hillary winning will not change a whole lot. Down ballot voting, and peoples' activism, will determine how things go.

[Marypoza]

(08-21-2016, 06:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-21-2016, 08:46 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 03:16 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:10 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: What will happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president? I made this poll just like its parallel thread: "What would happen if Trump is elected president", with the same options.

1.  More wars of choice.
2. Lots of shitty trade deals like TPP, TPIP, etc. get enacted.
3. She and Bubba will get even more rich from more political connections.
4. The White House becomes another tryst site for Bubba.

What Rags said.

 As for your options I can't decide between impeachment or the coup. Maybe both if, as Kinser has pointed out, the impeachment is unsuccessful. There may also be widespread rioting in the streets @ some point 
 
Repugs will further consolidate their stranglehold on Congress in 2018. A wingnut will become Prez in 2020

Bernie was better, but Hillary is much, much better than you give her credit for.

None of the things Rags said will happen, except #3.

-- wrong! I don't give that cheating skanky thief any credit

[Odin]

(08-22-2016, 05:42 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- wrong! I don't give that cheating skanky thief any credit

Jesus fucking Christ, you sound just like the PUMAs in 2008.

[Eric the Green]

(08-22-2016, 05:42 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(08-21-2016, 06:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-21-2016, 08:46 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 03:16 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:10 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: What will happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president? I made this poll just like its parallel thread: "What would happen if Trump is elected president", with the same options.

1.  More wars of choice.
2. Lots of shitty trade deals like TPP, TPIP, etc. get enacted.
3. She and Bubba will get even more rich from more political connections.
4. The White House becomes another tryst site for Bubba.

What Rags said.

 As for your options I can't decide between impeachment or the coup. Maybe both if, as Kinser has pointed out, the impeachment is unsuccessful. There may also be widespread rioting in the streets @ some point 
 
Repugs will further consolidate their stranglehold on Congress in 2018. A wingnut will become Prez in 2020

Bernie was better, but Hillary is much, much better than you give her credit for.

None of the things Rags said will happen, except #3.

-- wrong! I don't give that cheating skanky thief any credit

Maybe you won't, but it doesn't mean any of the charges against her are right.