What if "the wrong person" wins in November?

[Dave Rogers]

This is pretty much the problem with moderates getting the nomination on both sides (and Trump is considered a squish on conservative talk radio). You can't rally the base of either party with half-a-loaf candidates, so you have to sell the notion that the other party's candidate is the second coming of Mao/Hitler.

The problem with that sort of insult inflation is that, when a party does come up with a truly repugnant candidate, there's no linguistic headroom left to the other party to distinguish them from someone they simply disagree with.

Dave

 

[Brainster]

The problem with that sort of insult inflation is that, when a party does come up with a truly repugnant candidate, there's no linguistic headroom left to the other party to distinguish them from someone they simply disagree with.

The lesson that the boy who cried wolf learned too late.

I still remember the horror around here over John McCain and Mitt Romney. Does make the swooning over Trump seem like more of the same.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Presidents previously have used our nuclear strength as a bargaining chip.

 

[eeyore1954]

The wrong person will win in November. And we won't go up in flames.

My feelings exactly.

 

[Spindrift]

Someone should remind these people that Obama was predicted to destroy the country, too, and that prophecy failed to come true. But, like typical doomsayers, "This time it's for real!"

But many of them insist Obama has destroyed America. Ben Stein said it last week. How? I don't know.

The lesson that the boy who cried wolf learned too late.

I still remember the horror around here over John McCain and Mitt Romney. Does make the swooning over Trump seem like more of the same.

That was repugnance after their policies I don't think anyone was seriously saying those two would actually consider starting WWIII.

 

[Brainster]

Donald Trump really is an idiotic, deranged piece of trash.

Eventually Pavlov didn't even have to ring the bell.

 

[Tony Stark]

Eventually Pavlov didn't even have to ring the bell.

Your party nominated by far the worst candidate ever thus proving beyond question what total garbage it is. Simply a fact.

 

[sunmaster14]

It is the constitution that gives the President the power to start WW3. Though the founders obviously didn't consider nuclear weapons. Nor did they consider that a major party would go insane and nominate a deranged idiot.

Of course they did. That's why the Constitution constrains the power of the executive branch through balance of powers and provides a lawful mechanism for the removal of a President by the legislative branch.

Ironically, from the perspective of balance of power, Hillary is a far greater threat to the Constitutional order than Trump. It's really amazing how shallow the analysis is here (or anywhere, frankly) regarding how each hypothetical Presidency will play out. It reminds me of a game of chess where the analysis only looks one move.

I can see Trump actually picking advisers acceptable to the Republican establishment, and I can see him delegating a fair amount of authority to them to negotiate with Congress and the like. He will spend most of his time fighting with the media and entertaining foreign leaders and heads of domestic corporations on his golf courses. He will claim to be doing "deals", but they will amount to small things where he can claim some success with "bringing jobs back to the US." He'll spend a lot of time working on building a wall, or something that can claimed to be a wall, on the Mexican border. And he will probably work on some sort of new detente with Russia and China and probably let Israel do whatever it wants in the Middle East. He will put a stop to most of the social engineering that the Federal government has been doing (e.g. Affirming Furthering Fair Housing), and he'll probably tinker with Obamacare a bit (with roughly equal probabilities of making it better and worse). Finally, he'll appoint conservative justices who probably have a better than even chance of turning out to be moderate to slightly liberal.

Hillary will surround herself with her cronies and run a fairly insular administration, like Obama did. She will have a much better relationship with the Democrats in Congress than Obama did, however, and probably be much more effective in enacting liberal legislation. Despite this, she will still be very aggressive with unilateral executive action, and will probably expand the power of the Presidency materially. Any opposition will be deemed sexist, and she will have the protection of her Democratic allies in Congress, as well as most of the mainstream media. Many of her initiatives, both domestic and foreign (but particularly foreign) will be hidden from the public, as her level of transparency will be even worse than Obama's (and far worse than Trump's would be). There will be much expansion of domestic monitoring for terrorists (both of the Islamic jihadist variety, as well as the right-wing variety, but not the left wing variety). There will be many covert operations abroad, as well as aggressive containment of Russia and China. She will lean heavily on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians as part of her RealPolitik doctrine. She will raise taxes on the wealthy and enact a minimum wage hike. The economy will underperform as a result. She'll try to increase the Obamacare penalty but will fail. Instead, she will push through an expansion of Obamacare subsidies, either through legislation or backdoor executive action.

Generally, neither one will be a disaster. I think Hillary will prove to be worse, and she will have a more negative long-term effect on the power of the executive (increasing a power which is already too large) and our political discourse (more divisive). It is ironic, but I think somebody like Trump has a better chance of healing the political divide than Hillary will. Trump will outperform expectations (how could he not?) and prove to be far more moderate than either side expects. Hillary will be Hillary, and half the country will hate her guts, and half the country will defend her to the death.

 

[acbytesla]

I listen to talk radio in my car, and that is almost exclusively right wing. I hear one theme repeated over and over. Hillary must lose. If she doesn't, "We won't have a country." or "It's the end of the United States as we know it."

The discussions have a very strong apocalyptic tone to them.

Meanwhile, somebody actually firebombed a Republican headquarters this weekend.

What are people so afraid of? Are some people taking all this a bit too seriously?

My opinion is that, when all is said and done, it's not all that important. I mean, I care and all, but whoever wins, the country will survive. I'd like to hear what other people think is so darned important about preventing "the wrong person" from winning. In doing so, I'd like to hear some sort of justification. In other words, it isn't enough to say what a horrible person the other candidate is. I'd like to hear what you think is so utterly terrible about the other candidate that preventing them from occupying the White House is so critical. I'll even start.

I don't like Donald Trump. I think he is impulsive, narcissistic, and thin skinned. This could lead him to be a bit trigger happy with our armed forces. I don't want that. I don't think it will lead to and end of our country, but I do think it could be a matter of life or death for some of our armed forces, not to mention civilians in the areas where military action could occur. Theoretically, he could start a full scale nuclear war, but how realistic is that, really? It's not something I give more than a passing thought to.

I also think the person of the president is an important factor in maintaining relationships with allies, and his tendency to shoot off his mouth could do great damage there. He yammers about "making them pay their fair share", but I don't see any significant pullback in United States forces after presenting a bill to our allies.

On the domestic front, assuming that the Congress stayed Republican, we might see a repeal of Obamacare, with no real replacement. That would be bad, in my opinion.

Oh, there also might be policies that helped or hurt the economy a little bit one way or the other but, if the truth be told, I think national policy gets too much credit and blame for the state of the economy.

So, to summarize, I think a Donald Trump presidency would be bad, but not apocalyptic.
So, did I miss something that The Donald is likely to do? I mean, I think he'll be an embarrassment on a regular basis, but in terms of really bad things that have really bad consequences, is there something I've overlooked? And on the other side, is there something about Hillary that I've not realized, that would make her a disaster that destroys our country?

While I hope it wouldn't be apocalyptic and chances are it wouldn't, why tempt fate? How many leaders once elected destroyed the very democracy that elected them? Do you really believe that even a third of the Germans that voted for Hitler knew what they are getting themselves into. Trump regularly talks like a man with no respect for the law only one for thirst for idolatry and power. There's no telling if he means what he says, but why would we dismiss his own words he has repeated over and over?

I've heard the hyperbolic nature of right wing radio. They've been talking that way for 20 years although admittedly their insanity has reached a new high. That's what their listeners crave.

Hillary is a centrist, much more so than I would like. It's highly unlikely that she will do anything radical. Virtually none of the Republicans that know her or worked with Hillary really view her as dangerous.

 

[Tony Stark]

Of course they did. That's why the Constitution constrains the power of the executive branch through balance of powers and provides a lawful mechanism for the removal of a President by the legislative branch.

Ironically, from the perspective of balance of power, Hillary is a far greater threat to the Constitutional order than Trump. It's really amazing how shallow the analysis is here (or anywhere, frankly) regarding how each hypothetical Presidency will play out. It reminds me of a game of chess where the analysis only looks one move.

I can see Trump actually picking advisers acceptable to the Republican establishment, and I can see him delegating a fair amount of authority to them to negotiate with Congress and the like. He will spend most of his time fighting with the media and entertaining foreign leaders and heads of domestic corporations on his golf courses. He will claim to be doing "deals", but they will amount to small things where he can claim some success with "bringing jobs back to the US." He'll spend a lot of time working on building a wall, or something that can claimed to be a wall, on the Mexican border. And he will probably work on some sort of new detente with Russia and China and probably let Israel do whatever it wants in the Middle East. He will put a stop to most of the social engineering that the Federal government has been doing (e.g. Affirming Furthering Fair Housing), and he'll probably tinker with Obamacare a bit (with roughly equal probabilities of making it better and worse). Finally, he'll appoint conservative justices who probably have a better than even chance of turning out to be moderate to slightly liberal.

Hillary will surround herself with her cronies and run a fairly insular administration, like Obama did. She will have a much better relationship with the Democrats in Congress than Obama did, however, and probably be much more effective in enacting liberal legislation. Despite this, she will still be very aggressive with unilateral executive action, and will probably expand the power of the Presidency materially. Any opposition will be deemed sexist, and she will have the protection of her Democratic allies in Congress, as well as most of the mainstream media. Many of her initiatives, both domestic and foreign (but particularly foreign) will be hidden from the public, as her level of transparency will be even worse than Obama's (and far worse than Trump's would be). There will be much expansion of domestic monitoring for terrorists (both of the Islamic jihadist variety, as well as the right-wing variety, but not the left wing variety). There will be many covert operations abroad, as well as aggressive containment of Russia and China. She will lean heavily on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians as part of her RealPolitik doctrine. She will raise taxes on the wealthy and enact a minimum wage hike. The economy will underperform as a result. She'll try to increase the Obamacare penalty but will fail. Instead, she will push through an expansion of Obamacare subsidies, either through legislation or backdoor executive action.

Generally, neither one will be a disaster. I think Hillary will prove to be worse, and she will have a more negative long-term effect on the power of the executive (increasing a power which is already too large) and our political discourse (more divisive). It is ironic, but I think somebody like Trump has a better chance of healing the political divide than Hillary will. Trump will outperform expectations (how could he not?) and prove to be far more moderate than either side expects. Hillary will be Hillary, and half the country will hate her guts, and half the country will defend her to the death.

Are you trying to convince me why Hillary will be a great President?

 

[Bikewer]

I recall hearing exactly the same rhetoric over Obama. I got into my police car one morning and whoever had been on the night shift had been listening to Glen Beck. The guy was literally sobbing... "We have to take our country back from Obama!"
That was just prior to the last election...And they didn't.

This is the kind of stuff these people spew all the time....It's what their fans want to hear.

 

[sunmaster14]

Are you trying to convince me why Hillary would be a great President?

I'm just giving my honest take. If that's what you want, then you are right to support Hillary. I prefer Trump, although I hardly dread a Hillary Presidency.

 

[seayakin]

But as an additional note, if you think that having the wrong person as president will be apocalyptic, then the obvious logical conclusion is that the presidency has far too much power. Funny how few of the chicken littles can put 2 and 2 together on that note.

I think this is an important point with which I agree. I do have concerns that Bush and Obama have been too quick to use executive orders.

I would actually give Trump about a 1% chance of starting WWWIII. However, I do give him about a 90% of making a mess of US relations with almost every other country and pushing our economy into the toilet if Congress were to approves his supposed tax policies and protectionist policies. I also agree that Hillary will be largely a continuation of Obama's policies. However, she will be more hawkish on the international stage. I just wonder how much her administration will be hobbled by continued Congressional investigations. I suppose that depends on who controls congress after the election.

The apocalyptic descriptions of either main party candidate seems to amp up all hyperbole.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm just giving my honest take. If that's what you want, then you are right to support Hillary. I prefer Trump, although I hardly dread a Hillary Presidency.

I don't know why you think you can predict what Trump will do. He's an idiot with a severe personality disorder. An unacceptable risk.

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't know why you think you can predict what Trump will do. He's an idiot with a severe personality disorder. An unacceptable risk.

Because he has a lot less freedom to act than most Presidents. He doesn't have much political support in Congress, or from the political establishment. Also, simpletons, even those with personality disorders, can be far easier to predict than experienced, shrewd, and corrupt politicians who have an extensive and secretive network of supporters built over decades.

Who's going to be afraid of criticizing a Trump administration? He even loses his power to intimidate would-be critics through the use of lawsuits for libel. The worst thing that would happen is he tweets something nasty at 3am.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't know why you think you can predict what Trump will do. He's an idiot with a severe personality disorder. An unacceptable risk.

Clinton has no risk. Bad person, bad policies, bad judgement. An unacceptable fact.

 

[Tony Stark]

Because he has a lot less freedom to act than most Presidents. He doesn't have much political support in Congress, or from the political establishment. Also, simpletons, even those with personality disorders, can be far easier to predict than experienced, shrewd, and corrupt politicians who have an extensive and secretive network of supporters built over decades.

Who's going to be afraid of criticizing a Trump administration? He even loses his power to intimidate would-be critics through the use of lawsuits for libel. The worst thing that would happen is he tweets something nasty at 3am.

The notion that Republicans in Congress would stand up to him is absurd and there are all kinds of things he could do without consulting them or anyone.

 

[sunmaster14]

The notion that Republicans in Congress would stand up to him is absurd and there are all kinds of things he could do without consulting them or anyone.

Like what for instance?

 

[Brainster]

That was repugnance after their policies I don't think anyone was seriously saying those two would actually consider starting WWIII.

When you've blown your credibility with half the population by nattering on about a war on women, you can't get it back by sputtering, "But, but, World War III!"

 

[uke2se]

When you've blown your credibility with half the population by nattering on about a war on women, you can't get it back by sputtering, "But, but, World War III!"

The war on women is a useful shorthand for exactly the type of thing Donald Trump so elegantly described in that famous bus.