The US Presidency 2018

[Kirkhill]

A curious turn of events.

From Slate via RCP: "The Supreme Court Is a Historically Regressive and Presently Expendable Institution"

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/supreme-court-bad-history-reform.html

Apparently a real democracy doesn't need a Supreme Court after all.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

'US Presidency 2018'
So the collective administrative and governmental entity that exists around the office of the president  and not just the president IMO.

Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.

I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be a smartass.
Clinton has an opinion like everyone else but she also has a lot more political sway and horsepower than your average American.
She's a former secretary of state and owns the (aledged) pay for play Clinton foundation which gets "donations" from all kinds of political organizations and foreign countries.  I'd say she's very much still relative in the politics scene and can attect the  2018 US presidency even if she isn't in office.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be a smartass.
Clinton has an opinion like everyone else but she also has a lot more political sway and horsepower than your average American.
She's a former secretary of state and owns the (aledged) pay for play Clinton foundation which gets "donations" from all kinds of political organizations and foreign countries.  I'd say she's very much still relative in the politics scene and can attect the  2018 US presidency even if she isn't in office.

Politics absolutely, presidency no. PM me if you want to debate.

 

[tomahawk6]

The US founding fathers would be astounded by the size of the bureaucracy grown up around the President,which I think makes governing difficult maybe impossible. Trump still has to deal with the Democrats embeded in the government which is like a shadow government.In the old days the previous government would resign and the next would staff their own departments.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The title is the US Presidency. Not the US President.  The Presidency contains all the elements affecting the POTUS. That includes the acts of the Democrats and others intent on shortening his term. This thread is not specific to the POTUS only. It's about his Presidency and everything involved in it.
:2c:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. She and Obama are hell bent on trying to get rid of Trump, either through elections or other means. They use their influence to block and oppose as many of his initiatives as possible. She also influences any new potential candidate the Dem might run to oppose Trump. While she has much support from her base, she is a poison pill for those undecided, something the Dems have a hard time seeing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In spite of her "crap" campaign, three million more Americans voted for her than him.

The current result is a Special Counsel investigation.

Except the POTUS position is chosen through a process using the electoral college and she basically ignored that fact and gave up States that they might have been able to swing enough of the college votes to elect her. But they didn't and she decided to live in her own echo chamber. Self sabotage at it's finest.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Self sabotage at it's finest.

So, Trump didn't WIN the election: Clinton LOST it?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's an odd mix, Trump galvanised a delusioned base that was fractured, so he definitely contributed to his win. Hillary, while happily appealing to her base was not appealing to a lot of people outside her base. Hillary could have won had they focused on ensuring they had enough electoral votes, but that would have meant a very hard road campaign and I have to wonder if her managers knew she could not hack such a campaign and major health breakdown would skewer her completely? So perhaps they risked taking the easier route, basically handing those States to Trump. Or it could be that they were living in a bubble where they thought that there was no way for Trump to win and Hillary could glide to an easy victory. Either way, they failed to fight in many of the States and therefore lost the college vote. 

 

[FJAG]

It's an odd mix, Trump galvanised a delusioned base that was fractured, so he definitely contributed to his win. Hillary, while happily appealing to her base was not appealing to a lot of people outside her base. Hillary could have won had they focused on ensuring they had enough electoral votes, but that would have meant a very hard road campaign and I have to wonder if her managers knew she could not hack such a campaign and major health breakdown would skewer her completely? So perhaps they risked taking the easier route, basically handing those States to Trump. Or it could be that they were living in a bubble where they thought that there was no way for Trump to win and Hillary could glide to an easy victory. Either way, they failed to fight in many of the States and therefore lost the college vote.

You had me at the beginning. I agree that Trump galvanized more Republican voters which he did by concentrating on white fears about immigration and lost jobs. Similarly I agree that Hillary's campaign did not galvanize Democrat voters. The proof in the pudding is that Trump had more votes than any recent previous Republican candidate and Hillary had less than her predecessor had generated.

To say that Hillary could have won had she focused on winning the electoral college is erroneous. Everyone--including Democrats and Hillary--knows that the only way that the presidency is won is by way of the electoral college. They focus on winning the college from square one. So did her campaign. The key states that she lost were ones that had been in hand in prior elections and before the vote but then failed to deliver the anticipated numbers on the critical day. The real question is why.

To state that she had health problems and didn't campaign hard enough, or lived in a bubble, or failed to fight in key states is merely repeating arch conservative propaganda.

We'll probably never know the real reason, regardless of the uncounted pundits pontificating on this subject, because the margins were so narrow and the factors effecting the turnout and the vote were so numerous and varied that one can put together just about any argument based on speculation and a few statistics. To put the blame entirely on internal forces within her own campaign while denying the major role that the various other external factors such as Comey, white fear, racism/misogyny, the role of the traditional press, the Russian/Wikileaks/social media campaigns, etc is to ignore key components of the lessons to be learned from this. I personally prefer Tina Fey's explanation of why Hillary lost:

“I have to say, I think the real reason that Hillary lost—and it’s the thing that people are afraid to talk about: not enough celebrity music videos urging people to vote.”

:cheers:

 

[YZT580]

Perhaps it was simply because they didn't believe her promises and she was carrying too much baggage left over from her Sec. of State days.  Add to that 8 years of struggle and poor economy from Obama and people wanted a change.  Just as people here voted anyone but Harper people in the states voted anyone but a democrat. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

FJAG I recall Dem bloggers talking about her being absent in many key places, it was not just conservatives talking about it. As I understand it, the number of seats taken in a State influences the number of Electoral College votes they have up to a certain number per state. It was clear she also seem to be struggling with health issues. I think YZT580 is also correct about baggage and the desire for change, Obama allowed expectations for him to grow far beyond what he could deliver or wanted to. I suspect the handling of Bernie did not help internally either.

 

[QV]

When some people complain of unchecked illegal immigration and the loss of jobs and the response is "white fear, racism/misogyny," ... Well then I suggest the Democrats can expect more electoral losses and the mid terms will be a victory for Trump and the Republicans.       

 

 

[Journeyman]

When some people complain of unchecked illegal immigration and the loss of jobs and the response is "white fear, racism/misogyny," ... Well then I suggest the Democrats can expect more electoral losses and the mid terms will be a victory for Trump and the Republicans.

???    Why would anyone respond to immigration and employment concerns with "misogyny"?

 

[dimsum]

???    Why would anyone respond to immigration and employment concerns with "misogyny"?

Ye olde "shotgun" method?  Hurl a bunch of accusations and see what sticks?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So, Trump didn't WIN the election: Clinton LOST it?

It's reasonable to look at it that way.  I recall reading articles in which it was noted that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama noticed trouble in the "blue wall" states, which the campaign ignored (the "data crunchers" were the court favourites, and they - as it turned out - were wrong about those states).  That mistake was compounded byHillary's choice to go for the landslide win, which saw her in the late stages spending irrecoverable campaigning time trying to win unlikely states (an opportunity cost).

 

[Cloud Cover]

Either way, there still does not appear to be a lot of deep thinking on the part of the US electorate in terms of what the consequences are of assuming the Presidency.  People do seem exhausted, perhaps even exasperated and consequently uninterested so long as their lot is not immediately affected. 
One thing that Trump has repeated several times that appears to resonate with broad appeal with unintended consequences: "I was elected to be President of the United States, not President of the World", and he's making good progress on that one.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. She and Obama are hell bent on trying to get rid of Trump, either through elections or other means. They use their influence to block and oppose as many of his initiatives as possible. She also influences any new potential candidate the Dem might run to oppose Trump. While she has much support from her base, she is a poison pill for those undecided, something the Dems have a hard time seeing.

So the opposition is opposing? The same could be said for the conservatives in Canada who appear to be bent on getting rid of Trudeau or one Donald J. Trump who went around the US accusing Obama of not being a US citizen. The Republicans also spent a majority of their time blocking Obama's initiatives same as the Liberals attempted to do with Harper in minority situations. It's the nature of the beast.

For the rest, she would be better to leave politics and will likely influence the democrats process. Whether that's a "poison pill" is yet to be seen as many had said that Trump was the ultimate poison pill.

For the comments about how Clinton lost/Trump won, 12 states/voting districts were won by a margin of less than 5%, which represented 102 college votes for Trump and 31 for Clinton. As opposed to broad statements claiming she lost/he won for any one or two reasons, the reality is that those 12 districts swayed the election. The real story then is what it was in those voting blocks that caused them to go one way or the other. Its doubtful the reason for Michigan and New Hampshire (both under .5%, going to each party) are the same, so understanding the dynamics in each state is key and more important than broad statements.

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting infographic attempting to piece together the activities of the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies surrounding the election. Certainly the way these agencies have behaved is less than inspiring of confidence in their activities, but I suspect it will be a long time before their actions will be fully unravelled and understood.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html

Once again, since all the information is still not available, this should only be taken as a working hypothesis.