Political Roundtable Part X

[doclinkin]

also where's my man Nate these days? I came here for some spicy alt-right conspiracy theories and i'm coming away with very little.

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

lol

Legitimately nobody cares about the Wikileaks stuff outside of the alt-right. There was absolutely nothing revealing or damaging about them at all for Hillary, but I did enjoy the courier font and the HIGHLIGHTING OF TEXT to underscore just how super top TOP secret confidential those LEAKS were.

And don't get me wrong - Hillary is a mediocre candidate at absolute best, and nobody in their right mind should be excited about her. The bigger mistake you're making, though, is how you somehow manage to bracket Trump, Hillary and Obama into the same group.

Aside from being a xenophobic and misogynistic white nationalist, Trump is an imbecile - he's incompetent and not fit to be president. You did correctly point out that he's a liar.

Hillary is a mediocre career politician. Benghazi and EMAILS are mostly republican fan fiction. The emails show some mediocre judgment, but nothing sinister. The average republican dumbass thinks Hillary should be thrown in jail - this is silly and misguided.

Obama has a 55% approval rating and has been a very good president. I'm sure you will disagree with that, but history will be kind to him. You probably think he's a LIAR because he said you could keep your doctor or didn't abide by his line in the sand or whatever, and these are cool talking points, but you should take a step back and think harder about things.

I dislike Hillary and for that reason suggested she'd be a poor candidate for election. And the other side HATES her with an unreasonable passion. In an ordinary year this might motivate people to flood to the polls. Even people who are generally disposed to agree with her find that her public persona is prim, fussy, nitpicky, and overly guarded -- this last rightly so given the history of how the rupugnicans went after Bill.

But even I have to admit she is likely one of the most uniquely over-qualified and experienced candidates ever to run for the office. By all accounts she was one of the most involved first spouses ever in shaping public policy. She has seen presidential decision-making not just from her work in the west wing, but late night advising Bill during times of crisis (I mean the Newt Gingrich-led griminess and shenanigans -- before the impeachment jazz). She helped shape White House policy during a period of great prosperity. Then she moved on to public life, getting elected to the Senate in New York and swiftly rose to high level appointments and committees, earning grudging respect even from people who worked on the other side of the aisle. Then without burning bridges after a difficult failed election bid she carved out a role in the next administration in the most important cabinet position, during a time of world unrest. By accounts of people who are in position to know overseas -- even people politically opposed to the Clintons-- the Clinton Foundation does some remarkable work worldwide, is not strictly a nation building exercise or predatory organization like say the World Bank is often accused of being.

Actually, reading leaked accounts of her private emails I found I liked her better when she was able to drop her careful mask and show her sharp wit. And for someone that so many people hate, she must be damn good at the actual job of politics since she stays constantly relevant at a high level even despite those who actively work to tear her down.

Yes she's too deep in the minutia of policy maybe. Might not have the sort of charisma to lead, or vision or foresight, but she knows how to work the machine of politics and get things done. While she may not be a visionary leader I suspect she could be a very good president. Even if I feel like that lack of charisma might endanger her chance to really do work by landing a second term.

[AFM]

Doc!!!!! Make love to me!!!!

[AFM]

RIP Assange. Wikileaks newest tweets are really pushing it. If he makes it to 60 I'll eat my hat!!!

[montestewart]

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

Don't want to undermine the wonder, but corrupt implies an alteration, whereas congenital implies being present from birth. Were they born that way or were their characters mutated?

PS: As before, I'm not writing off political deception. I just don't know of any president who hasn't done the exact same thing, at least not since the perhaps the Civil War.

In my adult experience, I think Carter, Reagan and both Bushs' were generally honest people. So I don't think you're being fair when you paint them with the same brush as Obama, Trump and Clinton. The latter are proven world class serially liars.

Wow, you don't seem to recall much about the Reagan administration. I guess people recall what they want to recall.

Well, I'll give Reagan credit, after promising to shrink government, he actually grew government, spending, and the deficit, and military spending was so out of control that it resulted in multiple bid-rigging scandals and ridiculously expensive purchases that were directly opposed by the military. Somehow, some people still credit Reagan with the fall of the Soviet Union, even though evidence that emerged after the fall shows that his ridiculous spending spree only perhaps slightly accelerated the inevitable. The failed invasion of Afghanistan, the chronically stagnant and insular Soviet economy, and the growing nationalism of satellites were all much more significant factors in that downfall.

That was the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra, S&L scandal, HUD bid rigging, etc.) viewed up close. Much lying, much corruption. And Nancy was always complaining about the accommodations ("We need new china"). The Imperial Presidency, and virtually every press outlet gave him and his administration repeated passes, which has greatly contributed to the distorted view of Reagan. Those of us paying attention learned that any politician who sells himself as an outsider probably just really wants to be an insider. The only way Reagan avoids the stink is if he was never really in charge (a puppet, weak, naive, senile, etc.), and some variation of that defense might apply to Carter and George W. It doesn't exactly speak very highly for any of those presidencies.

But, putting their serial lying aside, pretend you are on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and you must choose between Reagan and Obama as a lifeline. If the category is anything but (maybe) B&W movies, there's only one answer. Next!

D's were fired and had to quit their jobs because the truth came out.

That happened to Republicans in the Reagan administration a lot too.

[popper]

Don't want to undermine the wonder, but corrupt implies an alteration, whereas congenital implies being present from birth. Were they born that way or were their characters mutated?

PS: As before, I'm not writing off political deception. I just don't know of any president who hasn't done the exact same thing, at least not since the perhaps the Civil War.

In my adult experience, I think Carter, Reagan and both Bushs' were generally honest people. So I don't think you're being fair when you paint them with the same brush as Obama, Trump and Clinton. The latter are proven world class serially liars.

Wow, you don't seem to recall much about the Reagan administration. I guess people recall what they want to recall.

Well, I'll give Reagan credit, after promising to shrink government, he actually grew government, spending, and the deficit, and military spending was so out of control that it resulted in multiple bid-rigging scandals and ridiculously expensive purchases that were directly opposed by the military. Somehow, some people still credit Reagan with the fall of the Soviet Union, even though evidence that emerged after the fall shows that his ridiculous spending spree only perhaps slightly accelerated the inevitable. The failed invasion of Afghanistan, the chronically stagnant and insular Soviet economy, and the growing nationalism of satellites were all much more significant factors in that downfall.

That was the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra, S&L scandal, HUD bid rigging, etc.) viewed up close. Much lying, much corruption. And Nancy was always complaining about the accommodations ("We need new china"). The Imperial Presidency, and virtually every press outlet gave him and his administration repeated passes, which has greatly contributed to the distorted view of Reagan. Those of us paying attention learned that any politician who sells himself as an outsider probably just really wants to be an insider. The only way Reagan avoids the stink is if he was never really in charge (a puppet, weak, naive, senile, etc.), and some variation of that defense might apply to Carter and George W. It doesn't exactly speak very highly for any of those presidencies.

But, putting their serial lying aside, pretend you are on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and you must choose between Reagan and Obama as a lifeline. If the category is anything but (maybe) B&W movies, there's only one answer. Next!

D's were fired and had to quit their jobs because the truth came out.

That happened to Republicans in the Reagan administration a lot too.

I recall some things Monte but there's the fog of old age that makes me want to verify what I think I know. I will dissect your assertions in detail in the next few day as they don't comport with my memories. If your recollections are accurate I will sing your praise for correcting the record. If not, maybe we can both learn something from the effort.

[payitforward]

Am I to believe that some number of you actually believe that US Presidential elections -- any of them -- have been "rigged"? If so, congratulations: you're completely nuts. Off your rocker. And I do understand that it's not easy to get into that state; it takes work!

Or am I to believe that some number of you believe that this election is, will be, or could be "rigged"? Is that what you think? If so, again, you are mad as a hatter.

Probably the saddest part of a misconception of this kind is thinking that power and control in this country depends in a major way or is exercised in a decisive way based on Presidential elections. If anything, rigging elections would sabotage the people's belief that (at least to some degree) sovereign power is connected to at least some kind of expression of sovereignty by the people. No one who exercises power and control in this country wants that to happen, as it undermines the possibility of any kind of civil government.

A famous marketing story poses this scenario: someone has an ice cream stand on a long stretch of beach - lets say a 2-mile stretch of beach. Guy's doing a heck of a lot of business, and the lines are long, so you think -- "hey there's room in this market (i.e. on this beach) for a second ice cream stand; I'm going to start it."

The question is: where do you put your ice cream stand on that 2-mile beach? Where's the best place to locate it? I assume everyone knows the answer, but I'll put it behind a spoiler anyway:

Spoiler:

right next to the first ice cream stand - right next to the other guy -- and that's how American politics works as well. And I assume its relevance to "Republican vs. Democrat" is obvious.

If you have any quotes where someone claimed an election was "rigged" feel free to share. I won't hold my breath.

What has been stated is that voter fraud is common. People are (and have in the past) tried to used illegal means to influence elections. Their success, or lack thereof, is debatable.

You're right, sorry; I shouldn't have given the impression that I thought someone might have claimed an election was actually rigged.

Your 2d para, however: there's a difference between "voter fraud is common" and "People... try to use illegal means to influence elections." For sure the second sentence is correct -- present, past and no doubt future too. People try everything.

But that doesn't mean "voter fraud is common." Are you claiming it is common?

[montestewart]

In my adult experience, I think Carter, Reagan and both Bushs' were generally honest people. So I don't think you're being fair when you paint them with the same brush as Obama, Trump and Clinton. The latter are proven world class serially liars.

Wow, you don't seem to recall much about the Reagan administration. I guess people recall what they want to recall.

Well, I'll give Reagan credit, after promising to shrink government, he actually grew government, spending, and the deficit, and military spending was so out of control that it resulted in multiple bid-rigging scandals and ridiculously expensive purchases that were directly opposed by the military. Somehow, some people still credit Reagan with the fall of the Soviet Union, even though evidence that emerged after the fall shows that his ridiculous spending spree only perhaps slightly accelerated the inevitable. The failed invasion of Afghanistan, the chronically stagnant and insular Soviet economy, and the growing nationalism of satellites were all much more significant factors in that downfall.

That was the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra, S&L scandal, HUD bid rigging, etc.) viewed up close. Much lying, much corruption. And Nancy was always complaining about the accommodations ("We need new china"). The Imperial Presidency, and virtually every press outlet gave him and his administration repeated passes, which has greatly contributed to the distorted view of Reagan. Those of us paying attention learned that any politician who sells himself as an outsider probably just really wants to be an insider. The only way Reagan avoids the stink is if he was never really in charge (a puppet, weak, naive, senile, etc.), and some variation of that defense might apply to Carter and George W. It doesn't exactly speak very highly for any of those presidencies.

But, putting their serial lying aside, pretend you are on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and you must choose between Reagan and Obama as a lifeline. If the category is anything but (maybe) B&W movies, there's only one answer. Next!

D's were fired and had to quit their jobs because the truth came out.

That happened to Republicans in the Reagan administration a lot too.

I recall some things Monte but there's the fog of old age that makes me want to verify what I think I know. I will dissect your assertions in detail in the next few day as they don't comport with my memories. If your recollections are accurate I will sing your praise for correcting the record. If not, maybe we can both learn something from the effort.

You could start with a Wikipedia page and follow their sources. I only listed some scandals off the top of my head, there are certainly more. I lived in Washington DC through the Reagan administration, and I remember it very well. While researching an only vaguely related military topic around 2002, I first encountered documents from the former Soviet Union ( and related texts and analysis) which painted a picture regarding the demise of USSR much different from the one the Republican party, federal government, and press have foisted on the nation.

On the plus side, Reagan the person has been spoken of very warmly by a wide range of liberals, from Tip O'Niell to Norman Lear. In addition to being charismatic, he was apparently a pretty friendly fellow.

Corruption and being a nice guy aren't mutually exclusive. Carter and George W. seem like pretty nice guys too, and according to both of them, so too is Obama. Friendly isn't necessarily a good gauge for "free of taint," as I would imagine some people who are cold and distant might be extremely ethical, and others who seem very nice might be serial killers. Among the best con men, some probably succeed exactly because they seem so nice.

[tontoz]

You're right, sorry; I shouldn't have given the impression that I thought someone might have claimed an election was actually rigged.

Your 2d para, however: there's a difference between "voter fraud is common" and "People... try to use illegal means to influence elections." For sure the second sentence is correct -- present, past and no doubt future too. People try everything.

But that doesn't mean "voter fraud is common." Are you claiming it is common?

When i say common i mean that i think it happens in pretty much every presidential election. It isn't something that just started in recent years. Obviously it is still going to be just a small percentage of votes that aren't legit.

If should be noted that when Trump complains about a "rigged" election he is also complaining about the mass media bias. The media has leaned left for as long as i can remember. It isn't some new barrier that Trump has to overcome.

[dckingsfan]

Wow, you don't seem to recall much about the Reagan administration. I guess people recall what they want to recall.

I recall coming out of the Carter administration and losing a business due to runaway inflation. I remember Iran. I remember the cold war. Reagan had his negative moments as well - as has Obama (Syria, Solyndra). But on balance - I would rather have him now that either of these candidates.

Well, I'll give Reagan credit, after promising to shrink government, he actually grew government, spending, and the deficit, and military spending was so out of control that it resulted in multiple bid-rigging scandals and ridiculously expensive purchases that were directly opposed by the military.

You do remember the negotiations with Tip, right? There was supposed to be cuts down the road - but Tip never let those cuts go through.

It was the classic, I will up Military spending if you let me up Entitlements. Entitlement spending has continued to eat a larger and larger part of the Federal Budget. He screwed that one up. But Tip would never have let military spending go up to end the cold war without getting what he wanted.

Don't get me wrong - he could have done things better... But, I watch the machine that is trying to take down Hillary. The machine that was trying to take down Reagan was much larger and better organized. They were on continuous gotcha mode and failed.

[montestewart]

Wow, you don't seem to recall much about the Reagan administration. I guess people recall what they want to recall.

I recall coming out of the Carter administration and losing a business due to runaway inflation. I remember Iran. I remember the cold war. Reagan had his negative moments as well - as has Obama (Syria, Solyndra). But on balance - I would rather have him now that either of these candidates.

Well, I'll give Reagan credit, after promising to shrink government, he actually grew government, spending, and the deficit, and military spending was so out of control that it resulted in multiple bid-rigging scandals and ridiculously expensive purchases that were directly opposed by the military.

You do remember the negotiations with Tip, right? There was supposed to be cuts down the road - but Tip never let those cuts go through.

It was the classic, I will up Military spending if you let me up Entitlements. Entitlement spending has continued to eat a larger and larger part of the Federal Budget. He screwed that one up. But Tip would never have let military spending go up to end the cold war without getting what he wanted.

Don't get me wrong - he could have done things better... But, I watch the machine that is trying to take down Hillary. The machine that was trying to take down Reagan was much larger and better organized. They were on continuous gotcha mode and failed.

I think you can see from my posts that I generally disagree with this characterization. O'Neill left office before Reagan, with the military and other spending in place. With the demise of the Cold War, military spending declined, though that decline was a bit delayed by the relatively pointless and dishonest Persian Gulf War (under Honest George the 1st). House Republicans forced Clinton's hand under his administration, but under Bush the 2nd, everyone fell in line again and once more a ridiculous amount of money was spent on foreign adventurism and clumsy world policing.

While liberal critics of Reagan are a dime a dozen, it's not that hard to find conservative economic analysts openly critical of his administration and its failures. There is, however, a mainstream awe of him, even among Democrats and liberals, that I don't share. He was basically a handsome actor who never really could carry a movie, his best movie role being his final one (The Killers remake in 1964) where he played a brutal db, and his political career was an extension of a largely mediocre acting career. He and Kennedy established the model for telegenic charisma of a low order mesmerizing voters.



There really was no organized machine at all trying to take down Reagan in any way comparable to the anti-Clintons or Obama machines. The guy was Teflon and the press repeatedly failed to do its job, as if anything wrong couldn't really be his fault. Maybe the clumsy liberal bias so routinely on display now (why can't Erin Burnette let a conservative finish a sentence?) is some sort of penance for dropping the ball during Nixon and Reagan. Or maybe Trump is just an easier target than Clinton for lazy journalists.

[montestewart]

PS: Tip O'Neill anecdote...in the 80s, I was a bike messenger, flying down a sidewalk on 19th St, just south of Dupont, when a large man in a large overcoat stepped out onto the sidewalk from a rowhouse yard, without looking to see whether there was a bike messenger flying down the sidewalk. Good thing my reflexes were better back then; a quick swerve avoided him, I continued without slowing, looking back over my shoulder to see I'd narrowly missed a now very confused looking Tip O'Neill.

[dckingsfan]

PS: Tip O'Neill anecdote...in the 80s, I was a bike messenger, flying down a sidewalk on 19th St, just south of Dupont, when a large man in a large overcoat stepped out onto the sidewalk from a rowhouse yard, without looking to see whether there was a bike messenger flying down the sidewalk. Good thing my reflexes were better back then; a quick swerve avoided him, I continued without slowing, looking back over my shoulder to see I'd narrowly missed a now very confused looking Tip O'Neill.

Nice!

I was riding my MTB with a couple of my friends - we always took a short-cut through Reagan's Encino ranch. Often we were chased off by security. One time we were riding through and Security started doing their thing - then we heard a loud bellow - "Leave the kids be..." and security left us alone. And Reagan went back to chopping wood

We don't agree on the history of Reagan - let's agree to disagree and move on

[cammac]

As a outsider I look at 2 flawed candidates both have significant baggage and neither should be running to become President of the USA. That said Hillary is by far the only choice in this election but I also hope she is a one term President with a Democrat rival challenging her in 2020.

The Republican Party is in crux they are non competitive with growing areas of the American demographics and the Trump candidacy has set back any outreach by 10 years. Right now the Republican party is divided in 3 groups Tea Party, Evangelists and pragmatic right of center Conservatives. The Tea Party will follow the red meat slightly crazy conspiracy theory political agenda of Trump and Fox News. The Evangelists are a interesting group and right now they are a very united constituency for the Republican Party but that can change. In Canada we had that version for many years in Quebec with the Catholic Church where the priests would basically dictate on how the flock should vote and obviously this was in the more rural areas of the Province. That changed people began to look at there circumstances and began to vote what was best for them rather than the clergy. The Catholic Church was slowly disassembled in the Province to a shadow of it's former glory and in fact Quebec has a low rate of Christians in the Province.

The USA has a higher percentage of religious followers (all religions) than most Western Democracies and that trend will reach the USA in due time.

If the Republican Party loses even 5% of its target constituency they become the 21st Century equivalent to the Whig Party.

[bsilver]

As a outsider I look at 2 flawed candidates both have significant baggage and neither should be running to become President of the USA. That said Hillary is by far the only choice in this election but I also hope she is a one term President with a Democrat rival challenging her in 2020.

The Republican Party is in crux they are non competitive with growing areas of the American demographics and the Trump candidacy has set back any outreach by 10 years. Right now the Republican party is divided in 3 groups Tea Party, Evangelists and pragmatic right of center Conservatives. The Tea Party will follow the red meat slightly crazy conspiracy theory political agenda of Trump and Fox News. The Evangelists are a interesting group and right now they are a very united constituency for the Republican Party but that can change. In Canada we had that version for many years in Quebec with the Catholic Church where the priests would basically dictate on how the flock should vote and obviously this was in the more rural areas of the Province. That changed people began to look at there circumstances and began to vote what was best for them rather than the clergy. The Catholic Church was slowly disassembled in the Province to a shadow of it's former glory and in fact Quebec has a low rate of Christians in the Province.

The USA has a higher percentage of religious followers (all religions) than most Western Democracies and that trend will reach the USA in due time.

If the Republican Party loses even 5% of its target constituency they become the 21st Century equivalent to the Whig Party.

With this election you really have to add the 4th group that is behind the Trump candidacy, the "aggrieved white". They may overlap with the Tea Party, but probably should be considered separately. Assuming Trump loses, I wonder if any 2020 candidate will go after this group, or if Trump will be their only champion.

[cammac]

As a outsider I look at 2 flawed candidates both have significant baggage and neither should be running to become President of the USA. That said Hillary is by far the only choice in this election but I also hope she is a one term President with a Democrat rival challenging her in 2020.

The Republican Party is in crux they are non competitive with growing areas of the American demographics and the Trump candidacy has set back any outreach by 10 years. Right now the Republican party is divided in 3 groups Tea Party, Evangelists and pragmatic right of center Conservatives. The Tea Party will follow the red meat slightly crazy conspiracy theory political agenda of Trump and Fox News. The Evangelists are a interesting group and right now they are a very united constituency for the Republican Party but that can change. In Canada we had that version for many years in Quebec with the Catholic Church where the priests would basically dictate on how the flock should vote and obviously this was in the more rural areas of the Province. That changed people began to look at there circumstances and began to vote what was best for them rather than the clergy. The Catholic Church was slowly disassembled in the Province to a shadow of it's former glory and in fact Quebec has a low rate of Christians in the Province.

The USA has a higher percentage of religious followers (all religions) than most Western Democracies and that trend will reach the USA in due time.

If the Republican Party loses even 5% of its target constituency they become the 21st Century equivalent to the Whig Party.

With this election you really have to add the 4th group that is behind the Trump candidacy, the "aggrieved white". They may overlap with the Tea Party, but probably should be considered separately. Assuming Trump loses, I wonder if any 2020 candidate will go after this group, or if Trump will be their only champion.

Fair point but see a huge overlap with the Tea Party but overall the Trump poorly educated white voters are more coattail followers than a serious movement. A view of a isolationist America is a oxymoron of rational political thinking and the voter who might vote for him would be stunned and befuddled with the consequences. Retail pricing would increase exponentially the Walmart society would no longer exist. A perfect example is China where Chinese manufactured goods are a minimum of 25% higher in China than when exported to USA. Really can't see the Trump supporters being happy with that especially when he still backs the status quo in minimum wages and the "right to work" States.

[verbal8]

How can he be mad at Alec Baldwin when he feeds Baldwin line after line. "No, you're a puppet!" "You're such a nasty woman!" "Ill keep you in suspense." How did our country get to a place where something like this could be a serious candidate for president? For every vote Trump gets, there's a person who should look in the mirror and consider what the bleep they were thinking.

That wasn't Alec Baldwin in the 3rd debate?

[verbal8]

Rubio? Nah.

He looks the part but when you delve deeper, there's not a lot of substance.

Now Kasich otoh, not saying he definitely would have defeated Clinton but it would have been competitive.

IMO, Kasich we have one handily.

Kasich was the Repub I thought had the best chance of beating Hillary. But I doubt that Kasich would have won handily. He would have had a hard time energizing the Repub conservative base. He's too moderate for many of them. I actually think Jeb Bush may have been the Repubs best chance to win on Nov. 8--but I (and probably many other Americans) would have hated a Bush-Clinton matchup given that both families have already held the presidency.

Trump's supporters are getting just what they deserve for nominating a man who doesn't have the temperament, intelligence or character to be President of the US. Trump and his supporters railed against the so-called Repub establishment. But there's a reason they're called the "establishment," and it's primarily because they know how to run and win elections. Trump doesn't have a clue as to how to do either of those things.

D. Trump is about to get an old-fashioned a**-whippin' on Nov. 8.

I agree Kasich was probably the Republican's best chance in terms of "electibility". Both of these candidates have very high negative ratings, so a "generic" moderate from the other party would likely have a very good chance. I think a random VA democrat - say Tim Kaine(assuming he didn't treat the whole campaign like the VP debate) would be blowing out Trump even worse that optimistic projections for Clinton.

I wonder if there was some hope among the Republicans in the primaries that Trump might truly be able to extend the Republican parties base with his unorthodox views(if he really has any).

[Kanyewest]

In regards to the Kasich/Hillary, Kasich isn't really that moderate at the end of the day. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/john-kasich-no-moderate

Plus I imagine the media would have dug up more dirt on Kasich as governor and when he was part of the board of directors at Lehman Brothers.

I also don't think someone like Kasich can win the Republican primary unless the ultra-conservatives vote is split. It looks like Trump has moved the Republican party to the right; much like Huntsman in 2012 who would have had a decent chance of beating Obama- I think it is unlikely that Kasich gets nominated.

[Kanyewest]

As a outsider I look at 2 flawed candidates both have significant baggage and neither should be running to become President of the USA. That said Hillary is by far the only choice in this election but I also hope she is a one term President with a Democrat rival challenging her in 2020.

The Republican Party is in crux they are non competitive with growing areas of the American demographics and the Trump candidacy has set back any outreach by 10 years. Right now the Republican party is divided in 3 groups Tea Party, Evangelists and pragmatic right of center Conservatives. The Tea Party will follow the red meat slightly crazy conspiracy theory political agenda of Trump and Fox News. The Evangelists are a interesting group and right now they are a very united constituency for the Republican Party but that can change. In Canada we had that version for many years in Quebec with the Catholic Church where the priests would basically dictate on how the flock should vote and obviously this was in the more rural areas of the Province. That changed people began to look at there circumstances and began to vote what was best for them rather than the clergy. The Catholic Church was slowly disassembled in the Province to a shadow of it's former glory and in fact Quebec has a low rate of Christians in the Province.

The USA has a higher percentage of religious followers (all religions) than most Western Democracies and that trend will reach the USA in due time.

If the Republican Party loses even 5% of its target constituency they become the 21st Century equivalent to the Whig Party.

I agree that the US could do better than Hillary but I see it as unlikely unless Hillary decides not to run for a second term. It will be an uphill battle in 2020 especially considering how the DNC ran things in the primaries this time around.

[verbal8]

I agree that the US could do better than Hillary but I see it as unlikely unless Hillary decides not to run for a second term. It will be an uphill battle in 2020 especially considering how the DNC ran things in the primaries this time around.

I could see a scenario where Trump would be challenged within the Republican party if he won. A lot of the down ticket Republicans are trying to distance Trump from the "true Republicans". The discontent with Trump would likely only increase if he was president for a term.

There are a lot of negatives with Hillary, but not being a "true Democrat" isn't one of them. I guess something like health/scandal/etc could lead to Clinton not seeking a re-election. However short of that, the outcomes would be a Republican or Hillary in 2020 to follow Hillary winning this election.