Impact of a Clinton victory in 2016

[Sir Mohamed]

It's far too early to call the 2016 election for Hillary. But if she wins, and the chance for this to happen is more 50%, what an impact is this going to have for the Republican Party? A 2016 defeat of Republicans would mean, that the party only won a single presidential election (Bush's narrow reelection in 2004) in the popular vote since 1988. Is a further move to the right likely or a move toward the middle of the policial spectrum?
A 2016 defeat would, however, make it obvious that the party has a serious problem with the demographic change: The GOP does not appeal to most women, african-americans, lations, jews, asians, muslims or other immigrants.

[Hydera]

If hillary clinton wins then it will be gridlocked as usual but there will be somebody to defend Obamacare, gay rights, Dodd-frank, and the détente with Cuba and Iran.

Im skeptical that the republicans will change, perhaps a four straight democrat victory would cause the republican party to adopt positions from the opposite party just as a 4 in line victory by FDR-Truman caused republicans to adopt new deal policies from Eisenhower until Nixon. And a three straight victory from Reagan-HW bush caused democrats to adopt some of the GOP platform. Usually the longer the years away from the presidency the more it causes the other party to adopt positions from the party in power to regain the presidency.

And id wouldnt be comfortable with thinking that hillary will win easily since there are a lot of democrats already saying they wont vote and its not the usual anti-political circlejerkers(ex:hurrr durr all parties are same, i "dont have time" to vote) or the anti-hillary ones, but passive democrat voters who think everything was fixed by voting once in 2008 and that they dont need to vote.

[Sumner 1868]

I don't really think we're seeing a realignment, because the Democrats have done practically nothing to change the consensus. Not to mention their bad performances in the last two congressional elections.

[bobloblaw]

If hillary clinton wins then it will be gridlocked as usual but there will be somebody to defend Obamacare, gay rights, Dodd-frank, and the détente with Cuba and Iran.

Im skeptical that the republicans will change, perhaps a four straight democrat victory would cause the republican party to adopt positions from the opposite party just as a 4 in line victory by FDR-Truman caused republicans to adopt new deal policies from Eisenhower until Nixon. And a three straight victory from Reagan-HW bush caused democrats to adopt some of the GOP platform. Usually the longer the years away from the presidency the more it causes the other party to adopt positions from the party in power to regain the presidency.

And id wouldnt be comfortable with thinking that hillary will win easily since there are a lot of democrats already saying they wont vote and its not the usual anti-political circlejerkers(ex:hurrr durr all parties are same, i "dont have time" to vote) or the anti-hillary ones, but passive democrat voters who think everything was fixed by voting once in 2008 and that they dont need to vote.

Why should the GOP change? They will control the House, Probsbly pick up one more Gov in MO, will have no worse than 47-48 Senate seats and still hold the majority of state legislatures. Then 2018 comes along.

The left is so eagar for the GOP to "reform" because at their heart, the left hates any dissent and opposition.

The question is what happens to the Dem party when they lose in 2020 after presiding over a deep recession?

[Blair]

If hillary clinton wins then it will be gridlocked as usual but there will be somebody to defend Obamacare, gay rights, Dodd-frank, and the détente with Cuba and Iran.

Im skeptical that the republicans will change, perhaps a four straight democrat victory would cause the republican party to adopt positions from the opposite party just as a 4 in line victory by FDR-Truman caused republicans to adopt new deal policies from Eisenhower until Nixon. And a three straight victory from Reagan-HW bush caused democrats to adopt some of the GOP platform. Usually the longer the years away from the presidency the more it causes the other party to adopt positions from the party in power to regain the presidency.

And id wouldnt be comfortable with thinking that hillary will win easily since there are a lot of democrats already saying they wont vote and its not the usual anti-political circlejerkers(ex:hurrr durr all parties are same, i "dont have time" to vote) or the anti-hillary ones, but passive democrat voters who think everything was fixed by voting once in 2008 and that they dont need to vote.

Why should the GOP change? They will control the House, Probsbly pick up one more Gov in MO, will have no worse than 47-48 Senate seats and still hold the majority of state legislatures. Then 2018 comes along.

The left is so eagar for the GOP to "reform" because at their heart, the left hates any dissent and opposition.

The question is what happens to the Dem party when they lose in 2020 after presiding over a deep recession?

Oh please-the democratic party is not the left. Heck the Labour Party in the UK isn't even the left.

The GOP have only won the popular vote once since 1988, does that put it into view for you?

[Del Tachi]

If Jeb Bush - the favorite of the GOP establishment and neoconservative intelligentsia - loses to Hillary Clinton in 2016 in a similar fashion as Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012 (that is, not only does he perform abysmally among minorities and young voters, but he also fails to win-over traditionally Republican-leaning suburban White voters in places like Loudoun County, VA or Jefferson County, CO) then it is strongly indicative of the fact that the Republican brand, thanks to presence of the ultraconservative Tea Party, has been permanently damaged among educated, cosmopolitan White voters.  In fact, this is the true story of the realignment that Obama ushered-in in 2008 - not that he got minorities and young people to turnout in record numbers (although that certainly did pad his margin), but that professionally-educated, White voters in placed like Montgomery County, MD are no longer Republicans like they were during the Nixonian 1970s or even the Clintonian 1990s. 

What happens when the GOP establishment - the Wall Street financiers and Northern Virginian defense contracting giants - realize that they are now in-cahoots with a party that simply cannot win a national election because of how much its conservative wing has damaged its standing among the White, wealthy suburban class?  Easy: become Democrats (which to same extent has already happened).

So, the neoliberal, "anti-progressive" wing of the Democratic Party will continue to grow in influence as the old GOP financiers flock to Hillary Clinton and her policies; whereas, the Republicans will be isolated to electoral victories in the South and Mountain West as the Tea Party gains ascendancy over a thinning GOP establishment.


TL;DR - Democrats become the GOP establishment and the GOP becomes a South-only party that's locked-out of the White House for another generation or two.   

 

   

[Skill and Chance]

If Jeb Bush - the favorite of the GOP establishment and neoconservative intelligentsia - loses to Hillary Clinton in 2016 in a similar fashion as Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012 (that is, not only does he perform abysmally among minorities and young voters, but he also fails to win-over traditionally Republican-leaning suburban White voters in places like Loudoun County, VA or Jefferson County, CO) then it is strongly indicative of the fact that the Republican brand, thanks to presence of the ultraconservative Tea Party, has been permanently damaged among educated, cosmopolitan White voters.  In fact, this is the true story of the realignment that Obama ushered-in in 2008 - not that he got minorities and young people to turnout in record numbers (although that certainly did pad his margin), but that professionally-educated, White voters in placed like Montgomery County, MD are no longer Republicans like they were during the Nixonian 1970s or even the Clintonian 1990s. 

What happens when the GOP establishment - the Wall Street financiers and Northern Virginian defense contracting giants - realize that they are now in-cahoots with a party that simply cannot win a national election because of how much its conservative wing has damaged its standing among the White, wealthy suburban class?  Easy: become Democrats (which to same extent has already happened).

So, the neoliberal, "anti-progressive" wing of the Democratic Party will continue to grow in influence as the old GOP financiers flock to Hillary Clinton and her policies; whereas, the Republicans will be isolated to electoral victories in the South and Mountain West as the Tea Party gains ascendancy over a thinning GOP establishment.


TL;DR - Democrats become the GOP establishment and the GOP becomes a South-only party that's locked-out of the White House for another generation or two.   

 

   

I basically agree, but that last statement is strong.  The other component of this to keep in mind is that the odds of a rural populist candidate breaking through the GOP primary only keep going up.  Imagine what would happen in Jefferson/Fairfax/Berks if the Republican nominee is Huckabee.

[President Johnson]

I think that two factors are very important: Who is the Republican nominee? Is it a moderate from the party estabishment like Jeb or Christie or is it a Tea-Party guy like Cruz or Rubio. And second, will Republicans continue to control the congress?

[bobloblaw]

This will happen:

So the party that controls everything EXCEPT the WH will be dead?

[bobloblaw]

If Jeb Bush - the favorite of the GOP establishment and neoconservative intelligentsia - loses to Hillary Clinton in 2016 in a similar fashion as Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012 (that is, not only does he perform abysmally among minorities and young voters, but he also fails to win-over traditionally Republican-leaning suburban White voters in places like Loudoun County, VA or Jefferson County, CO) then it is strongly indicative of the fact that the Republican brand, thanks to presence of the ultraconservative Tea Party, has been permanently damaged among educated, cosmopolitan White voters.  In fact, this is the true story of the realignment that Obama ushered-in in 2008 - not that he got minorities and young people to turnout in record numbers (although that certainly did pad his margin), but that professionally-educated, White voters in placed like Montgomery County, MD are no longer Republicans like they were during the Nixonian 1970s or even the Clintonian 1990s. 

What happens when the GOP establishment - the Wall Street financiers and Northern Virginian defense contracting giants - realize that they are now in-cahoots with a party that simply cannot win a national election because of how much its conservative wing has damaged its standing among the White, wealthy suburban class?  Easy: become Democrats (which to same extent has already happened).

So, the neoliberal, "anti-progressive" wing of the Democratic Party will continue to grow in influence as the old GOP financiers flock to Hillary Clinton and her policies; whereas, the Republicans will be isolated to electoral victories in the South and Mountain West as the Tea Party gains ascendancy over a thinning GOP establishment.


TL;DR - Democrats become the GOP establishment and the GOP becomes a South-only party that's locked-out of the White House for another generation or two.   

 

   

So who becomes the Dems? And you think the "new" GOP Establishment has any support?

And what happens to the Dem party when the new coalition includes Wall Street and Defense Contractors? Id say a rupture in the party in 2020. Dem voters dont want a party that includes Wall Street and anti-progressives.

Your analysis leaves out tens of millions of leftist voters. Your prediction all but guarantees three parties in 2020.

[bobloblaw]

I think that two factors are very important: Who is the Republican nominee? Is it a moderate from the party estabishment like Jeb or Christie or is it a Tea-Party guy like Cruz or Rubio. And second, will Republicans continue to control the congress

The truth is the popular vote difference between any of the GOP candidates wont be more than a couple of percentage points. The idea that Bush would win but Cruz would lose by 20 is absurd.

[Skill and Chance]

I think that two factors are very important: Who is the Republican nominee? Is it a moderate from the party estabishment like Jeb or Christie or is it a Tea-Party guy like Cruz or Rubio. And second, will Republicans continue to control the congress

The truth is the popular vote difference between any of the GOP candidates wont be more than a couple of percentage points. The idea that Bush would win but Cruz would lose by 20 is absurd.

I disagree.  With Generic D instead of McGovern, 1972 should have been a close 2012 style reelection for Nixon in a middling economy.  With Generic (pro-civil rights act) R instead of Goldwater, LBJ would probably have had a standard 10-15% good economy incumbent win. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's far too early to call the 2016 election for Hillary. But if she wins, and the chance for this to happen is more 50%, what an impact is this going to have for the Republican Party? A 2016 defeat of Republicans would mean, that the party only won a single presidential election (Bush's narrow reelection in 2004) in the popular vote since 1988. Is a further move to the right likely or a move toward the middle of the policial spectrum?
A 2016 defeat would, however, make it obvious that the party has a serious problem with the demographic change: The GOP does not appeal to most women, african-americans, lations, jews, asians, muslims or other immigrants.

Since no economic expansion in US history has gone longer then 10 years we cane expect the US to be a recession by 2018-2020. This will be blamed on the Dems even if it is a minor one and the Dems will suffer a 1992 type defeat in 2020 by a "New Republican" creating a coalition for the Repubs like 1992 created for the Dems

[Del Tachi]

If Jeb Bush - the favorite of the GOP establishment and neoconservative intelligentsia - loses to Hillary Clinton in 2016 in a similar fashion as Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012 (that is, not only does he perform abysmally among minorities and young voters, but he also fails to win-over traditionally Republican-leaning suburban White voters in places like Loudoun County, VA or Jefferson County, CO) then it is strongly indicative of the fact that the Republican brand, thanks to presence of the ultraconservative Tea Party, has been permanently damaged among educated, cosmopolitan White voters.  In fact, this is the true story of the realignment that Obama ushered-in in 2008 - not that he got minorities and young people to turnout in record numbers (although that certainly did pad his margin), but that professionally-educated, White voters in placed like Montgomery County, MD are no longer Republicans like they were during the Nixonian 1970s or even the Clintonian 1990s. 

What happens when the GOP establishment - the Wall Street financiers and Northern Virginian defense contracting giants - realize that they are now in-cahoots with a party that simply cannot win a national election because of how much its conservative wing has damaged its standing among the White, wealthy suburban class?  Easy: become Democrats (which to same extent has already happened).

So, the neoliberal, "anti-progressive" wing of the Democratic Party will continue to grow in influence as the old GOP financiers flock to Hillary Clinton and her policies; whereas, the Republicans will be isolated to electoral victories in the South and Mountain West as the Tea Party gains ascendancy over a thinning GOP establishment.


TL;DR - Democrats become the GOP establishment and the GOP becomes a South-only party that's locked-out of the White House for another generation or two.   

 

   

So who becomes the Dems? And you think the "new" GOP Establishment has any support?

And what happens to the Dem party when the new coalition includes Wall Street and Defense Contractors? Id say a rupture in the party in 2020. Dem voters dont want a party that includes Wall Street and anti-progressives.

Your analysis leaves out tens of millions of leftist voters. Your prediction all but guarantees three parties in 2020.

Really?  Because where are they?  I certainly don't see them electing candidates or controlling party apparatuses. 

The "old left" (labor unions, WWC, etc.) is dead in this country, and has been replaced by a liberal majority that is actually more professional, more educated and more cosmopolitan than the country as a whole and that is completely comfortable with a Democratic Party run by corporate giants as long as it pays lip service to issues like gay marriage or reproductive rights.

What hurts the Republicans in places like Jefferson/Fairfax/Berks are not their economic policies, but rather a insistence to hold steadfast to the issues of the 1990s culture war when everywhere except the Deep South has moved-on.

[Lincoln Republican]

This will happen:

The GOP didn't die in 1932
The GOP didn't die in 1936
The GOP didn't die in 1964

Nor will the GOP die in 2016, no matter what the results

[Sumner 1868]

It would be the first time Democrats had three consecutive victories since 1940.

[Simfan34]

TL;DR - Democrats become the GOP establishment and the GOP becomes a South-only party that's locked-out of the White House for another generation or two. 

You consider it possible for the GOP to lose another 4-10 presidential elections?

[Ebsy]

The Republicans will ignore every indication that they are shooting themselves in the foot by tying themselves more and more to disgruntled baby boomers.

[Sumner 1868]

The Republicans will ignore every indication that they are shooting themselves in the foot by tying themselves more and more to disgruntled baby boomers.

Actually, it's the Silent Generation they're tying themselves to (and quite well).

[bobloblaw]

The Republicans will ignore every indication that they are shooting themselves in the foot by tying themselves more and more to disgruntled baby boomers.

you mean the largest generation and the generation most likely to vote

[Ebsy]

The Republicans will ignore every indication that they are shooting themselves in the foot by tying themselves more and more to disgruntled baby boomers.

you mean the largest generation and the generation most likely to vote

Wasn't enough to win the past two presidential elections, probably won't be enough to win the next one. They'll obviously eventually win a presidential election; Democrats can't hold the White House forever. But an electoral coalition that is almost entirely white baby boomers will atrophy every election, and dooming themselves among Millennials and the nascent generation that hasn't yet formed isn't going to help them in the long term.

[bobloblaw]

I think that two factors are very important: Who is the Republican nominee? Is it a moderate from the party estabishment like Jeb or Christie or is it a Tea-Party guy like Cruz or Rubio. And second, will Republicans continue to control the congress

The truth is the popular vote difference between any of the GOP candidates wont be more than a couple of percentage points. The idea that Bush would win but Cruz would lose by 20 is absurd.

I disagree.  With Generic D instead of McGovern, 1972 should have been a close 2012 style reelection for Nixon in a middling economy.  With Generic (pro-civil rights act) R instead of Goldwater, LBJ would probably have had a standard 10-15% good economy incumbent win. 

1972 had 5% GNP growth will tame inflation. Nixon had a 56% approval rating. Against a better Dem, Nixon would have gotten 56%.

[bobloblaw]

Dem Senate, massive Dem gains in the House. ACA restructuring and the possibility of a public option. Disgruntled GOP - moderate vs. not conservative enough - eventually leading the RNC to push for moderate Reps again in the near to long term.

Continuation of liberal policies, possibility of a liberal Court.

The GOP isnt going to lose the House in 2016 and will lose at most 4-6 in the Senate which they will easily win back in 2018.

[bobloblaw]

The Republicans will ignore every indication that they are shooting themselves in the foot by tying themselves more and more to disgruntled baby boomers.

you mean the largest generation and the generation most likely to vote

Wasn't enough to win the past two presidential elections, probably won't be enough to win the next one. They'll obviously eventually win a presidential election; Democrats can't hold the White House forever. But an electoral coalition that is almost entirely white baby boomers will atrophy every election, and dooming themselves among Millennials and the nascent generation that hasn't yet formed isn't going to help them in the long term.

News Flash: Boomers voted for Nixon by a 52-48 margin in 1972. This notion that generations vote one way forever is rubbish. Gen-X was the most GOP gen in 1984 and 1988. Now they are 50/50.

[Ebsy]

I don't think you really contradicted anything I said. The Early Boomers were liberal draft dodger hippies, but the later, larger wave of Boomers are much more reactionary. Starting with Nixon, the Boomers voted remarkably Republican for a young generation, and have continued to vote Republican since, much to the detriment of the country, if you look at the presidents they chosen or would have chosen. They're really one of the objectively worst generations we've ever had the misfortune to produce in this nation, so it is no surprise that they vote heavily Republican.