Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will be interesting to see the real shorter/longer term impact of 2016. 1992 giving us the start of a 2 term Clinton would look great until you see that he lost both houses of Congress for basically a decade and ruled by triangulation to the point that he hallowed out much of the parties support. 2002 and 2004 were R sweeps and then it all went down the tubes in 2006 and 2008.
I also think it has to be acknowledged Clinton was a bad candidate and while unpopular, Trump was able to inspire enough enthusiasm in his own voters to get them to the polls. It was a tightrope and he walked. Give or take FBI interference and DNC email hacks that were also unforced errors on the part of Team Hillary.
The end result of this election revealed that most Americans aren't happy with the direction of the country. The Democrats lost big everywhere away from the coastal areas.
The last 8 years of Obama's Administration has been a huge disaster for the middle class Americans because one of the Democrat's top goals has been to open the flood gates of immigration and in hopes to populate the Democrat's voting base and help the big companies stifle income growth. The democrats were hoping that with 8 years of Obama Presidency can inject another 8-15 million immigrants into the voting pool.
With the recent change of power, the country under Trump & GOP will need to reform Immigration in order to stay in power and keep the democrat's voting pool from expanding.
If Hillary Clinton had won, the flood gates will be open for her to issue citizenship like lollipop in order to flood the voting pool with immigrants and outcome the Republican party's control of government.
Wow really? First of all BO was called the deporter in chief by many in the latino community and presided over a bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate. However, the House refused to act because they didn't want to give BO a victory on immigration and a bill that would have solved the problem, and by the way included border security. So that puts your claim to bed.
In addition the majority of the country in terms of popular vote favored HC and not DT so neither he nor the repubs have any sort of a mandate. If in fact they try to govern like they have a mandate 2020 will be a very blue year up and down the ballot for President, Senate and House.
The end result of this election revealed that most Americans aren't happy with the direction of the country. The Democrats lost big everywhere away from the coastal areas.
The last 8 years of Obama's Administration has been a huge disaster for the middle class Americans because one of the Democrat's top goals has been to open the flood gates of immigration and in hopes to populate the Democrat's voting base and help the big companies stifle income growth. The democrats were hoping that with 8 years of Obama Presidency can inject another 8-15 million immigrants into the voting pool.
With the recent change of power, the country under Trump & GOP will need to reform Immigration in order to stay in power and keep the democrat's voting pool from expanding.
If Hillary Clinton had won, the flood gates will be open for her to issue citizenship like lollipop in order to flood the voting pool with immigrants and outcome the Republican party's control of government.
In the General Election, Democrats received more VOTES than the Republicans! The media is saying it's "time for panic" for the Democrats, I DON'T agree!
but immigration from mexico was much higher under bush than obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002
Which just goes to show that these private associations referred to as political parties are mostly a smokescreen to obfuscate one and the same thing, really a single establishment party behind whom real powerful people make real policy.
Having said that, the pendulum swings both ways, the electorate splits its ticket, so to speak, quite regularly, checks and balances still work as well as can be expected.
This time around, the electorate clearly wanted a change from the 30-year Bush/Clinton cabal; Obama was a slight step away, certainly better than the three previous administrations, but the cabal was still there, for a good part of the time in first person.
So now there is a further step away from the establishment at the top, but, for example, the so-called democrats still have filibuster power in the Senate, no small power, and the establishment can still, and most likely will, come in through the back door again, e.g. Bill Clinton's wife as Secretary of State then, possibly Mitt Romney as Secretary of State now.
In short, it is hard to get away and I don't expect the demise of either branch of the establishment party anytime in the foreseeable future.
The only real change occurs when powerful people decide to make real changes to real policies; front-stage theater doesn't really matter that much except as entertainment for drama queens.
Totally agree with you Bale. Many people believe that "their" political party is good and the other one is evil but more and more of us are realizing that these parties are run by politicians who are in it for their personal gain.
There really is not much difference between a Clinton and a Bush.
Btw, I agree that Obama was a slight improvement over the last 3 Presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush). But that is not saying much.
In the General Election, Democrats received more VOTES than the Republicans! The media is saying it's "time for panic" for the Democrats, I DON'T agree!
Lol Freak, a good one.
Tillman, the supposedly crowned establishment candidates of first the Republican party (Jeb Bush) and then the Democratic Party (Hillary Clinton) were beaten by a political outsider named Donald Trump, who was in many ways a deeply flawed candidate who normally would never have gotten elected.
Now imagine if the same outsider message was taken up by someone without the flaws of Donald Trump. That candidate would almost certainly have done even better.
This revolution against the establishment has been a long time coming. You can see the roots of it with Ross Perot back in the early 90s. Then the election of Obama in 2008 against Clinton and McCain. Now this year with Donald Trump and also Bernie Sanders.
Party-labels don't matter. Policy matters. If the Republicans aim to attract erstwhile Democratic voters by becoming more secular; if they reassure legal immigrants, Green Card holders and naturalized US citizens that they're safe from harassment or marginalization; if they offer a mix of tax-cuts, moderate spending decreases, and infrastructure-investment; if they promote a foreign-policy that eschews meddling in other countries' affairs, while strongly supporting NATO and our various allies, safeguarding international waters and opposing nuclear proliferation… if they achieve all of these things, then the Republicans will have become a true centrist party. Such a new party would indeed deal a crippling blow to the Democrats. But that's OK, because then this new party's policy would subsume what are already be better ideas promulgated by Democrats.
On the other hand, if the Republicans aim to propitiate their social conservatism by appealing with populist pandering to Heartland blue-collar voters, it seems to me that their long-term prospects are bleak. This hands the advantage to the Democrats.
The end result of this election revealed that most Americans aren't happy with the direction of the country. The Democrats lost big everywhere away from the coastal areas. The last 8 years of Obama's Administration has been a huge disaster for the middle class Americans because one of the Democrat's top goals has been to open the flood gates of immigration and in hopes to populate the Democrat's voting base and help the big companies stifle income growth. The democrats were hoping that with 8 years of Obama Presidency can inject another 8-15 million immigrants into the voting pool. With the recent change of power, the country under Trump & GOP will need to reform Immigration in order to stay in power and keep the democrat's voting pool from expanding. If Hillary Clinton had won, the flood gates will be open for her to issue citizenship like lollipop in order to flood the voting pool with immigrants and outcome the Republican party's control of government.
It's always interesting to see partisans trying to define what the opposition ought to/will be doing.
Wow really? First of all BO was called the deporter in chief by many in the latino community and presided over a bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate. However, the House refused to act because they didn't want to give BO a victory on immigration and a bill that would have solved the problem, and by the way included border security. So that puts your claim to bed.
In addition the majority of the country in terms of popular vote favored HC and not DT so neither he nor the repubs have any sort of a mandate. If in fact they try to govern like they have a mandate 2020 will be a very blue year up and down the ballot for President, Senate and House.
So if bringing the poor of Latin America into the country isn't the Democrats' long-term election strategy, what is, exactly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
