Since it's most likely going to be Trump and Hillary at this point (with a smaller chance of it being not - trump), what happens now?

For the GOP to collapse, trump would have to lose and congressional races have to go Democrat, and there would need to be record low or high voter turnout.

If trump loses but gop holds most contested seats Congress,i think the GOP would just superficially coopt trumps message.

4/28/2016 12:49:27 PM

More like dumpster fire of a thread tbh.

4/28/2016 12:55:56 PM

My feeling is that the only way we were going to see anything as spectacular as a "collapse" of the GOP would be if Trump were denied the nomination and bolted to a third party. Cruz wouldn't enthusiastically support Trump, but he won't split. Same for Kasich.

IIRC, the Democrats aren't really poised to take the house, but they might retake the Senate. I don't know that Hillary's coat tails are really long enough to bring many people up with her, but Trump might be a big enough albatross around Republican necks to drag them down.

Some are suggesting that the GOP leadership might cut its losses and divert funds from the presidential campaign to congressional races. Certainly it's what I'd do in their shoes. Unless something catastrophic happens, Trump is a sure loser. And even if I were still a diehard Republican, I'm thinking I wouldn't want a President Trump. As a candidate he has done serious damage to the party and some to the country; as a President he would irreparably harm both. Plus, to be honest, I don't have a good feeling about the next few years regardless of who is President. I'm guessing we'll have another (hopefully smaller) economic downturn. There will be more ISIS shenanigans. Europe has a lot working against it. And with Republicans still in charge of the House, a Clinton administration could be seriously hamstrung. So if I'm playing the cynical party hack, I'm thinking, "Let Hillary be President for all this bad shit that's about to happen, and let's keep up our policy of preventing the Democrats from accomplishing anything. After four years, Americans will believe that we were right about her all along, and they'll come crying back to us when we have a good candidate."

4/28/2016 1:33:41 PM

^ good thoughts all around.

I wonder though if Trump/Sanders' success would motivate standing congresspeople to pay more attention to issues of poor/middle class whites, which should theoretically help all poor and middle class people. Maybe it wouldn't be so politically stagnant.

^^

4/28/2016 2:53:23 PM

the democratic primary should show how much young millennials are up for grabs, any young republican would be foolish to not adopt positions that call for a stronger middle class and that are more libertarian on social issues

4/28/2016 2:57:18 PM

grumpy is right and ^ is what i see happening. Republican party rebranding libertarian under a "get government out of everything" motto. To me, a greenie, that would be much better than the current establishment parties.

Reduced foreign aid
non intervention
reduced subsidies
reduced taxes for everyone

I don't agree with that as the way to go but at least its coherent so i can respect it. I much rather keep the money in the hands of the people than funneling it into corporate interest under the disguise of social policy.

4/28/2016 5:45:19 PM

In four years when the GOP has a "good candidate?" What in the hell makes you think they'll have a good candidate then? They haven't had one in over 24 years, at least not come November when it counts, and even that one is debatable. The only thing that's going to change course for the GOP is a complete implosion of the party, and Trump just might be the asshole to make it happen.

4/28/2016 7:57:00 PM

I can't describe how worried I am about a Trump presidency.

I see a potential collapse coming, because there will be a lot of fallout following Hillary's coattails. I think we'll see Republican governors across the country go, we'll see Republican senators go, etc, if and when Hillary wins.

4/28/2016 8:19:38 PM

I would think the midterms would go pretty well for the GOP with a Clinton presidency honestly. It'll fire them up.

However the down ticket carnage that will ensue with Trump will certainly hurt now.

4/28/2016 9:03:25 PM

Quote :

"What in the hell makes you think they'll have a good candidate then?"

It's all relative, isn't it? I didn't say "A candidate aaronburro would like." If you're a Republican bigshot, the kind of person for whom the Republican party is an end rather than a means, then "a good candidate" is just a candidate who can win the election. By this standard, George W. Bush was a good candidate and Donald Trump isn't.

Even if you're just someone with Hillary Derangement Syndrome, I think you have to suck it up and acknowledge that you're gonna lose this one. Unless something really big happens, Clinton will be elected in 2016. Trump is a bad candidate because he allows that to happen. If you cut your losses and divert funding to congressional races, you at least mitigate her legislative influence for four years until you get a good candidate -- and, again, a "good candidate" here is just somebody who could beat Hillary Clinton. It won't be Trump in 2020, either, because after the shit hurricane that is this election he's going to be back firmly in laughingstock territory.

---

To a certain extent I think the "libertarian rebranding" has been going on for a while, at least at the national level. Social issues don't seem to have the prominence that they used to; the gay writing on the marriage wall was visible for years before it finally came to pass, and the Republican response in congress has been relatively tepid. Abortion is on the federal backburner. HB2 is the kind of state-level exception that proves the rule. The backlash against it has been impressive, and hints at why the GOP has been quietly toning down the rhetoric on traditional social issues for a while. And on the issues where they have been louder and more resolute -- by which I mean guns -- their position is fundamentally libertarian.

Unfortunately I disagree with some of the posters in this thread that a result of the Trump meltdown will be to speed up or reinforce the libertarian rebranding. I'm worried that the opposite will happen. That orange son of a bitch has been successful by tapping into a group of voters not previously recognized by most people, typically described as working-class, disaffected white males who have been left behind by global change and a lackluster economic recovery. They're highly susceptible to Trump's proto-fascist rhetoric, which isn't surprising because they're the same kind of voter who who started coalescing around fascist parties in Europe in the 20s and 30s. (And let's not forget that at the same time, leftist parties experienced a surge in popularity from a similar segment of society, and oh, hello, Bernie)

So the Republican Party is contending with a guy who is attracting the attention of these people, however you want to term them -- and I don't know how to, because even if Trump is a proto-fascist I don't think the average Pennsylvania republican is -- and they have to do something to shore up their traditional bastions of support and stop the hemorrhage of voters.

Libertarian policies aren't the answer. The voters in question aren't libertarian; they want restrictions on trade, immigration, and religious liberties, or else they wouldn't be voting for the orange-dyed anus. So the Republican Party can't rebuild itself as the Reasonable Libertarian Party.*

That leaves a few less savory options, like doubling down on religion, anti-Democrat hysteria, "law and order" posturing, and latent racism.

---

*-This isn't strictly true. They could rebuild the party along more libertarian lines, and in fact this is the only way the Republican Party is going to be a serious political entity a decade or two from now. When I say they "can't" I mean institutionally speaking. The Republican leadership is too old, entrenched, and confused by this election to make serious changes, and the only young-ish with any influence are Tea Party dingbats who do not want to take the platform in any sensible direction.

4/29/2016 1:18:55 AM

As a Republican, I'm actually starting to wonder what a Hillary presidency would like like. I think about it for a little while, and I come to the conclusion: "maybe not so bad."

And for me that's awful. I blame the Donald for putting me in this awkward situation.

4/29/2016 8:20:20 AM

Trump isn't the root of your problem, he's just a symptom.

4/29/2016 8:56:43 AM

^^^ that absolutely sums up my thoughts, as well

4/29/2016 12:10:37 PM

Quote :

"As a Republican, I'm actually starting to wonder what a Hillary presidency would like like. I think about it for a little while, and I come to the conclusion: "maybe not so bad." And for me that's awful. I blame the Donald for putting me in this awkward situation. "

This unfortunately

4/29/2016 1:27:38 PM

Hillary has always been a moderate leaning toward Republican ideals. Taking this long for Republicans to even consider her as "not so bad" is nothing but hubris. . . especially when so many are rallying behind Ted Cruz, a completely unlikeable politician cheerfully referred to as a snake by significant portions of their party's politicians. At least Hillary can get Democrats to drink her Kool-Aid.

[Edited on April 29, 2016 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ]

4/29/2016 2:11:39 PM

I've never quite understood Hillary Derangement Syndrome, but then, I wasn't old enough to be very politically conscious in the 1990s, so maybe I missed something.

I can certainly believe that, at her core, she has few principles and has designed her entire career around eventually becoming POTUS. Of course, that isn't ideal. The ideal is the brilliant leader who does not want power but feels forced to accept it for the good of the country. Eisenhower or Washington. But I'm afraid the days of such leaders has passed. The nominating process as it exists now doesn't allow for reluctant leaders, and the last gasp of such an era was Paul Ryan saying "Absolutely not" to the Presidency. Not that I think Paul Ryan is a "brilliant leader," of course.

But a consummate politician like Hillary isn't the worst thing in the world, either. I prefer someone who wants the presidency for its own sake to someone who wants it to push some horrible ideology on us. I prefer it to someone like Cruz, who I honestly think wants to be President so he can rub it in the faces of people he perceives as his bullies. Historically, that's a dangerous motivation. And I prefer it to whatever the fuck Trump is.

I can't really see him as an ideologue, since most of his "ideas" didn't really start to form until he started running for president, and none of them seem like things a bloated plutocrat would really get worked up over. I also don't think he's trying to stick it to the bullies, because he is the bully. He certainly hasn't built his whole career around becoming POTUS like Hillary, or else there would have been a little bit less Gary Busey in his recent past. It goes without saying that he's not the "reluctant leader," nor is he really all that concerned with America's best interests -- not just in the sense that all of his ideas are terrible, but in that he's willing to backtrack so readily on some of them. Maybe he's just a spoiled, entitled brat who decided on a whim that "presidency" was something he wanted. Maybe it's all part of a branding scheme, a way to drum up enormous publicity with a relatively small investment on his part. Or something else entirely. In any case, Trump's motivations are a mystery.

And that's not good. Hillary Clinton is a known quantity -- she wants election, re-election, and a legacy at least as good as her husband's, so by and large she'll try to please the electorate. The Clintons have a well-stocked stable of advisors and supporters built up over decades to moderate any more lunatic ideas she might have. They are, on the whole, a fairly moderate bunch. I don't think President Hillary Clinton will usher in a new American golden age, but I'm also pretty sure she won't cause another Great Depression or World War. (Of course it's silly to think that a president by his or herself could do either thing, but what I mean is she wouldn't facilitate such a catastrophe to a greater extent than any other standard candidate).

The Trump Mystery is the opposite. We don't really know what his game is, his advisors are a hodgepodge of escapees from mental institutions, and to the extent he has elaborated any policy ideas they are all guaranteed to cause massive, immediate, and lasting damage to America. That's the stuff we know. Imagine the horrors to be found in the stuff we don't.

4/29/2016 3:33:17 PM

If you think "Hillary Derangement Syndrome" is accurate for everyone with concerns about the Clintons, you definitely haven't been paying attention.

4/29/2016 3:54:15 PM

I still believe Trump is playing a different game. The media and politically interested people in general have been very slow on the uptake, accepting everything Trump says at face value. So, from that perspective, Trump is clearly a misogynist/racist/bigot and he's going to get demolished by Hillary.

Trump may or may not lose the general, but I don't think it will play out like everyone expects. Trump isn't going to be jamming on variations of "build a wall" from now til November. I think he will build a strategy around full on secular nationalism - "America first" policy. That is a policy that actually appeals to a lot of people, especially when you keep it vague, which Trump will do. The true to form progressives that support Sanders will go green/go apathetic/submit to Shilldog, but the...more simple Sanders supporters will buy into Trump's new, strangely liberal sounding rhetoric that cranks up over the next few months. We've basically already seen the start of this - Trump's comments on transgender bathrooms and taxes on the wealthy are a harbinger of things to come. We already know the "real" Trump - he was a moderate liberal in the 80s and 90s.

4/29/2016 4:27:55 PM

^^^ Yes, my beef with Hillary isn't really policy-oriented, although mine and hers certainly aren't aligned. She is relatively moderate (maybe less so than Bill), but no, she's unlikely to cause any sort of Great Depression or other domestic catastrophe. WWIII? Ehh, that's a little more likely. (not really--there can be no WWIII as long as we are a globally hegemonic hyperpower) but I think she will be excessively heavy-handed in foreign policy)...but we survived the neocons, so I guess we'll survive her.

No, I hate Hillary because she's a fucking snake of Nixon-level proportions.

I don't know why so many have hated her so much ever since she was First Lady, though.

4/29/2016 5:08:36 PM

Quote :

"I don't know why so many have hated her so much ever since she was First Lady, though."

Because she's the first, and maybe only, First Lady who ever attempted to push real policy and insert herself into the law making process like she had been elected to a political office.

Nancy Reagan gave us "just say no" which was just her pumping her pet policy, Michele Obama has all her health initiatives, but has never attempted to insert herself into actual public policy debate. First Ladies shouldn't have any actual clout or input into policy making. That's a tradition, and actually a good tradition, that she ignored. I think a lot of politicians on both sides were angered by that and a lot of right leaning folks in the media decided to attack her very vocally. The fact that she's transparently ambitious and has no noticeable morals or underlying code of any kind just made it easy for them.

She's power hungry and narcissistic. Bill was a politician but I think legitimately wanted to do some good and wasn't really all that different from anybody else who's held the office. Hillary just wants the power and will probably use the office to punish political enemies like no one since Nixon. He's really her best analog.

4/29/2016 6:30:56 PM

Quote :

"but we survived the neocons, so I guess we'll survive her. "

I don't count a trillion dollar fight against al Qaeda/Isis/terrorist as really surviving. we've lost out on enormous opportunities because of neocon policy.

4/29/2016 6:49:37 PM

Come onnnnnnnnnnnnn buddy you can't blame the entire current state of the Middle East on the neocons.

[Edited on April 29, 2016 at 6:52 PM. Reason : Or anti-West islamic extremism for that matter.]

4/29/2016 6:51:02 PM

^^Please, we would have pissed it away in some military adventure or another, or on some unneeded new arms system.

There will never be significant cuts to anything in the military-industrial complex until...well shit, maybe never actually. Think back over the past 25+ years, have we ever not been dipping our toes into conflicts across the globe and occasionally getting involved for no apparent reason? Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, all over central africa in dribs and drabs, etc.

Even though we've seen a consistent drop in troop deployment ("boots on the ground" and troops stationed overseas) generally since Vietnam we've been more active with air strikes, air lifts, enforcing "no fly zones" positioning our navy strategically, etc.

There are too many congressional districts tied to it either via bases or manufacturing for us to just have not spent a bunch of money on military. It was always going to get spent. I suspect that had we not also had the financial crisis in 2007-8 we might have drawn down some of it, but our continuing operations can be viewed for what they really are, sneaky fiscal stimulus with direct benefits for some of the big power brokers.

4/29/2016 7:01:23 PM

Quote :

"If you think "Hillary Derangement Syndrome" is accurate for everyone with concerns about the Clintons, you definitely haven't been paying attention."

I don't think so at all. However, there is a certain kind of person (typically older males in my experience, but with some exceptions) who think she is the fucking devil. And I can't see any good goddamn reason.

I'm completely unsold on the importance of the e-mail thing. Trying to pin Benghazi on her is moronic. The old conspiracy theories about the Clintons having murdered partners in shady deals bear up under scrutiny about as well as the "Obama was born in Kenya" line.

Taking out those things, why all the hate? Well, there's these, which about sum it up:

Quote :

"Because she's the first, and maybe only, First Lady who ever attempted to push real policy and insert herself into the law making process like she had been elected to a political office. "

Quote :

"No, I hate Hillary because she's a fucking snake of Nixon-level proportions."

The first is a fair point. She overreached as First Lady. Still, I don't think it justifies the loathing. She was not the first politically active FL by any stretch. Nothing she did was technically against the rules, she just overestimated her political influence. Edith Wilson, by contrast, straight up ran the executive branch after Woody stroked out. It bypassed the Constitution in a real, tangible way. And people didn't hate Edith Wilson.

The second, I think, is giving her too much credit, but that's mostly because I think that aside from his, er, extracurriculars, Nixon was actually a pretty good President. Being power-hungry and being competent are not mutually exclusive any more than they are sure to go hand in hand.

Quote :

"but I think she will be excessively heavy-handed in foreign policy"

Maybe. I'd like to think the blowback from Libya and Syria would moderate her behavior in that regard. But anyway, it's not like anybody else is putting up a nuanced, well-thought-out, light-touch foreign policy. Cruz is ready to roll out the nukes, Trump wants to murder families of terrorists and effectively destroy our alliances. Obama himself, broker of the Iran deal and rapport-maker with Cuba, is also a huge fan of drone strikes and bombing Libya; his whole foreign policy has been defined by lurching between walking softly and brandishing the big stick.

4/29/2016 7:39:36 PM

Quote :

"I'm completely unsold on the importance of the e-mail thing. Trying to pin Benghazi on her is moronic. The old conspiracy theories about the Clintons having murdered partners in shady deals bear up under scrutiny about as well as the "Obama was born in Kenya" line. Taking out those things, why all the hate? "

I think the email thing is huge. I would have been in prison if I'd done a fraction of that shit when my TS/SCI was active.

Quote :

"that aside from his, er, extracurriculars, Nixon was actually a pretty good President. Being power-hungry and being competent are not mutually exclusive any more than they are sure to go hand in hand. "

He had moderate policies and did some good things, and was in most ways competent, but he was a total, disgusting snake of a human being.

...and no, neither Trump nor Cruz offer restraint or thoughtful consideration in foreign policy, but Hillary is tremendously hawkish.

Obama is much more restrained, and I think tries to take a constructive, cerebral, well-considered approach, albeit with a lot of SOF raids and drone strikes. There's also a wide gulf between drone striking the shit out of militant islamists all over the place, and overthrowing governments. Obama's foreign policy approach is not terribly dissimilar to mine--probably closer than any other major figure I can think of (maybe Bill Clinton?)...I'd prob be a little more restrained with the drone strikes, but not so damned and determined to avoid conflict as to aggravate situations by refusing to take meaningful action until things are way out of hand (ISIS, Assad...and I goddamn well would not have drawn a hard-line on chemical weapons, announcing to the whole world that the long dick of American power would be brought to bear if it was crossed, and then turned around and totally sat on my hands when ignored.)

[Edited on April 29, 2016 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ]

4/29/2016 9:20:10 PM

Quote :

"Taking out those things, why all the hate?"

There's plenty more. The Clinton Foundation is probably the worst of it all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4h4l82/clintons_fbi_woes_tie_back_to_bill_clinton_and/

4/30/2016 4:53:20 PM

says the bro who brought up Hilary following a post about Dennis Hastert being a serial child
molestor

5/1/2016 12:55:18 AM

you're drunk, go to sleep

5/1/2016 2:25:48 AM

Quote :

"Come onnnnnnnnnnnnn buddy you can't blame the entire current state of the Middle East on the neocons. "

The entire state? no. The majority? yes.

Bush's and America's response to 9/11 was atrocious, in nearly every dimension. It's impossible to say definitively Gore would have done better, but Gore doing anything differently would likely have been a better outcome, even if it was inaction. The reality is that a few hundred votes in Florida very probably changed the course of American history.

5/4/2016 6:35:51 PM

Quote :

"Trump may or may not lose the general, but I don't think it will play out like everyone expects. Trump isn't going to be jamming on variations of "build a wall" from now til November. I think he will build a strategy around full on secular nationalism - "America first" policy. That is a policy that actually appeals to a lot of people, especially when you keep it vague, which Trump will do. The true to form progressives that support Sanders will go green/go apathetic/submit to Shilldog, but the...more simple Sanders supporters will buy into Trump's new, strangely liberal sounding rhetoric that cranks up over the next few months. We've basically already seen the start of this - Trump's comments on transgender bathrooms and taxes on the wealthy are a harbinger of things to come. We already know the "real" Trump - he was a moderate liberal in the 80s and 90s."

I don't know that I am a big fan of his, but I honestly think he would do at least an ok job if both parties would cooperate with him. Cruz was too right and Sanders too left. We need someone fresh in there who will hopefully get rid of Obamacare and tighten up the borders, but not be way right wing on social issues like transgender restrooms, and gay marriage. The problem is the left and its followers do a great job at making him out to be a racist who hates women, and any other group they can think of mentioning.

5/7/2016 12:05:03 PM

5/7/2016 12:54:26 PM

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article76273277.html
Supposedly McCain thinks Trump is going to ruin the Republican party.

5/7/2016 7:07:22 PM

Sounds like a good to reason to endorse support Trump.

5/7/2016 7:27:01 PM

^^^^He literally said we should ban Muslims. How much more bigoted does he need to be before it's real?

5/7/2016 10:08:53 PM

Quote :

"Supposedly McCain thinks Trump is going to ruin the Republican party."

Any time one of these old guard GOP guys (McCain, Romney, Bush I'm sure will get in line as well) come out against Trump, I wonder if it hurts or helps. The GOP brand is in such a shitty state. Could it be shitty enough to where the standard bearers for the party have negative clout?

5/8/2016 9:26:36 AM

Once he gets going, I think it will be easy enough for the Republicans to get distanced from Trump. Because he will not be representing traditional Republican values.

5/8/2016 9:38:21 AM

Quote :

"Any time one of these old guard GOP guys (McCain, Romney, Bush I'm sure will get in line as well) come out against Trump, I wonder if it hurts or helps. The GOP brand is in such a shitty state. Could it be shitty enough to where the standard bearers for the party have negative clout?"

This is what I was thinking. One big reason that Trump won is because people are so sick of the old guard GOP members. When I hear that W isn't attending the convention or he won't endorse Trump that doesn't make me see Trump in a more negative light.

5/8/2016 10:36:38 AM

Quote :

"^^^^He literally said we should ban Muslims. How much more bigoted does he need to be before it's real?"

What's wrong with shutting down entrance to America from the terror states in the Middle East? After the Paris attacks he said he wouldn't allow Muslims into the country until we figure out what's going on. I don't think he would ban them forever. France didn't let anyone in or out of the country for a little while after Paris was attacked. I guess that makes them racist bigots?

5/8/2016 1:25:39 PM

Have you been in an airport recently? Do you realize how many muslims travel every single day without issue? It's completely idiotic to ban muslims from travel, they aren't the problem. And youre an idiot for thinking this is good or viable policy.

It's funny when I talk to Trump supporters, some seem to think the Muslim ban is good policy, others just laugh it off saying Trump isn't really going to ban muslims... strange how he can have it both ways...


[Edited on May 8, 2016 at 1:51 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2016 1:51:29 PM

^I know there were loop holes, but we did a pretty good job of not allowing travel to Cuba for many decades.

5/8/2016 2:15:16 PM

just stop, man

5/8/2016 5:30:43 PM

Cuba is a religion? Trump did not say anything about country. He said Muslim .. The religion of a billion people, all in different countries.

5/8/2016 9:01:45 PM

also notice how the ban was on travel TO cuba. not travel TO the us.

5/8/2016 10:25:01 PM

What if his entire campaign so far has just been one big giant troll on America.

I'd lol.

5/8/2016 10:59:37 PM

1.65 billion!

I would really like to see how that would be implemented! Will US visa forms start having a field for religion? While passports of many Muslim countries have a religion field, what about Muslims from the ~150 non-Muslim countries? Where will they have to identify their religion? What about citizens of countries who can enter the US visa-free?

5/8/2016 11:06:03 PM

what about undocumented mexican muslim women who aborted their anchor baby

[Edited on May 8, 2016 at 11:29 PM. Reason : thats where it starts to get confusing]

5/8/2016 11:28:17 PM

undocumented black mexican muslim women who aborted their anchor baby

5/9/2016 7:22:05 AM

I assume that even Trump knows that a "ban on Muslims" is never going to be implemented, no matter how temporary. I suspect he wouldn't even try for that. If anything, he'd go for a ban on visas to people who hold passports from Muslim-majority countries.

I think he also probably knows that you couldn't round up all the illegal immigrants and deport them. Best guess, he'd either keep deportations at their current (already high) rates, or increase them slightly, then announce that he was working on it but of course the process couldn't be finished overnight. Everyone in the US with an IQ higher than their shoe size will roll their eyes, and everyone who voted for him will be smugly satisfied that soon all the Mexicans will be gone.

5/9/2016 10:24:54 AM

trump proves voting is broken, people cant be trusted to make wise choices. our best strategy now should be to actually enforce the constitution so that the winner of the election wont have much power over us

5/10/2016 10:09:05 AM

We should just make me dictator

5/10/2016 11:05:41 AM