Predict what the first term of a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like

[Blue3]

Let's take it as a given (for the premise of this thread) that she wins with at least 53% of the popular vote, and over 360 electoral votes.

Predict what the first term of a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Well she could possibly have 3 supreme court justice picks.

[NeverAgain]

It would depend on what the Senate and House look like. Let's say she has a Dem Sen., but a lean Republican majority in the House. I think she may be able to pass some infrastructure proposals, along with possible immigration reform. I think we'd see an uptick in drone warfare in the Mideast along with some big investments into Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS.

I think she could get some stuff done, but I think we need to look at the legislature (and her Cabinet) to see what type of leader she will govern as.

[Lyin' Steve]

Most of the focus will likely be abroad since that's her wheelhouse and the Freedom Caucus will keep Congress broken.  Bill might be deployed to try to rustle up enough support for some minimal domestic policy achievements, but most of the focus will be on not dying in 2018.

[Xing]

It depends on the make-up of the house and senate. There could still be a certain amount of gridlock, but if the Democrats take back the senate and come close to taking back the house, she could get some legislation involved immigration, background checks, and would pick at least two new justices. Hard to see another health care bill getting through congress, unless this year is a Democratic tsunami at all levels.

[Ogre Mage]

I believe the most likely result is a Hillary Clinton Presidency with Democrats winning back control of the U.S. Senate and making gains but falling short of a takeover in the House.  

Given that, not a great deal will be accomplished legislatively but a modest Senate majority will give President Clinton a decent hand with appointments.  She will focus on making progress through appointment power to federal agencies where they can craft rules to further her agenda, appointments to the federal courts and executive orders.  Under President Obama, the federal agencies are going full bore pumping out (unfinished) rules on everything from climate change to student loans, trying to set things up so there is a smooth transition from Obama to Clinton and she can hit the ground running on Jan. 2017.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-executive-actions-regulations-226535

[Orser67]

I assume Dems win the Senate but not the House.

In the 115th Congress, I expect three very contentious Supreme Court nominations and the end of the filibuster, at least for Supreme Court nominees. Otherwise, I think it'll look a lot like Obama's second term.

[Indy Texas]

I assume Dems win the Senate but not the House.

In the 115th Congress, I expect three very contentious Supreme Court nominations and the end of the filibuster, at least for Supreme Court nominees. Otherwise, I think it'll look a lot like Obama's second term.

January 2017: Garland gets confirmed.

February 2017: Ginsburg announces she's retiring.

April 2017: Anthony Kennedy unexpectedly dies. (OMG!)

[OwlRhetoric]

Brutal if the bull market doesn't hold up another four years. Recession is a real risk to whoever the next President is, especially if it's another bad one.

[Seriously?]

Impeachment charges for quid pro quo ties between Bill Clinton's speeches, Clinton Foundation donations and Hillary Clinton's decisions as SoS.

[egalitt]

The woman is belligerent, she is sure to invade Syria and occupy Iraq. This will cause a serious conflict with Russia,  where she is unanimously despised, local hostilities being very likely. Anti-Russian hysteria will be in full swing, preparing the society for a large scale war. Meanwhile Iran will attack Israel, and the USA will fail to provide any assistance because of the conflict with Russia.
Europe will be flooded with Muslim  migrants who will undertake first chemical attacks and then explode a nuclear bomb. The USA will also be attacked by Muslim terrorists, but  their attacks will be presented as Russian ones,  which will ensue a large scale nuclear war with Russian.
Finally a small group of humans in the Sayan Mountains  will survive. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

She won't get anything of importance done. Republicans win supermajorities in 2018 and she lets them enact part of their insane agenda. Then she goes on to lose to Paul Ryan in 2020 by a clear margin.

[Lachi]

The woman is belligerent, she is sure to invade Syria and occupy Iraq. This will cause a serious conflict with Russia,  where she is unanimously despised, local hostilities being very likely. Anti-Russian hysteria will be in full swing, preparing the society for a large scale war. Meanwhile Iran will attack Israel, and the USA will fail to provide any assistance because of the conflict with Russia.
Europe will be flooded with Muslim  migrants who will undertake first chemical attacks and then explode a nuclear bomb. The USA will also be attacked by Muslim terrorists, but  their attacks will be presented as Russian ones,  which will ensue a large scale nuclear war with Russian.
Finally a small group of humans in the Sayan Mountains  will survive. 

What alternate universe are you living in?

[Good Habit]

The woman is belligerent, she is sure to invade Syria and occupy Iraq. This will cause a serious conflict with Russia,  where she is unanimously despised, local hostilities being very likely. Anti-Russian hysteria will be in full swing, preparing the society for a large scale war. Meanwhile Iran will attack Israel, and the USA will fail to provide any assistance because of the conflict with Russia.
Europe will be flooded with Muslim  migrants who will undertake first chemical attacks and then explode a nuclear bomb. The USA will also be attacked by Muslim terrorists, but  their attacks will be presented as Russian ones,  which will ensue a large scale nuclear war with Russian.
Finally a small group of humans in the Sayan Mountains  will survive. 

Details might vary, but yes, unfortunately, I would rate the probability of global nuclear war in the first term of a Hillary Presidency somewhere near 30 %. With Trump, this possibility exists as well, but it's much more difficult to estimate. But there would be a fair chance that it's actually lower....

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Either Clinton or Trump will likely be 1 term presidents. We're very likely to go into a recession at some point (expansions don't last forever), and the next president will take the blame for it.

[Kalimantan]

The woman is belligerent, she is sure to invade Syria and occupy Iraq. This will cause a serious conflict with Russia,  where she is unanimously despised, local hostilities being very likely. Anti-Russian hysteria will be in full swing, preparing the society for a large scale war. Meanwhile Iran will attack Israel, and the USA will fail to provide any assistance because of the conflict with Russia.
Europe will be flooded with Muslim  migrants who will undertake first chemical attacks and then explode a nuclear bomb. The USA will also be attacked by Muslim terrorists, but  their attacks will be presented as Russian ones,  which will ensue a large scale nuclear war with Russian.
Finally a small group of humans in the Sayan Mountains  will survive. 

Details might vary, but yes, unfortunately, I would rate the probability of global nuclear war in the first term of a Hillary Presidency somewhere near 30 %. With Trump, this possibility exists as well, but it's much more difficult to estimate. But there would be a fair chance that it's actually lower....

Good first post, predicting nuclear war. Where can you go from here?

[egalitt]

Either Clinton or Trump will likely be 1 term presidents. We're very likely to go into a recession at some point (expansions don't last forever), and the next president will take the blame for it.

Either Trump or Clinton will be the last president of the superpower. Either of them will inevitably ruin the country.

[Wiz in Wis]

Either Clinton or Trump will likely be 1 term presidents. We're very likely to go into a recession at some point (expansions don't last forever), and the next president will take the blame for it.

Either Trump or Clinton will be the last president of the superpower. Either of them will inevitably ruin the country.

I will admit, if anyone understands "ruining a superpower" it would be a Russian.

[RI]

I don't think a Dem Senate should necessarily be assumed, even with a Hillary victory. They would have to net four seats. Wisconsin and Indiana seem likely. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Illinois are all possible, but hardly guaranteed and all require taking down incumbents. Nevada could flip to the GOP, negating one of the above. Florida no longer seems to be within the Dems' reach.

[egalitt]

Either Clinton or Trump will likely be 1 term presidents. We're very likely to go into a recession at some point (expansions don't last forever), and the next president will take the blame for it.

Either Trump or Clinton will be the last president of the superpower. Either of them will inevitably ruin the country.

I will admit, if anyone understands "ruining a superpower" it would be a Russian.

The point is that I am an unwitting Russian.

[Good Habit]

Details might vary, but yes, unfortunately, I would rate the probability of global nuclear war in the first term of a Hillary Presidency somewhere near 30 %. With Trump, this possibility exists as well, but it's much more difficult to estimate. But there would be a fair chance that it's actually lower....

Good first post, predicting nuclear war. Where can you go from here?

Well - of course i might have to elaborate a bit...

The risk of war is always highest, when there is a geo-strategic shift, that is a shift  in the relative strength of leading powers. While the US was on it's economic high-point in 1945, it only came close to global political hegemony after the end of the cold war, the implosion of the USSR. At that time, however, the economic strength - relative to other nations, had already much declined - so the logical outcome would have been a multi-polar world order.

In the meantine, China has gotten much stronger, an Russia has somewhat recovered. Both expect to be treated as equals by the US. Will Hillary be able to accept that?

A good foreign policy would have to try a careful and intelligent retrenchment - allowing other powers more influence and gradual shift to a true multipolar order.  Unfortunately, I can't see Hillary following this approach (my guess - 10 % chance at max).

So much more likely is a policy trying to assure continued US-dominance, pushing back other powers. This will cause major tensions with (at least) Russia, Iran, China, often at the brink of war. If we are lucky, the brink will not be crossed... (but again - my guess - 30 % chance at max).

The most likely, at least once, those tension will get out of hand, and a major war will escalate. Non nuclear resources will be stretched thin. So, while at war with power A - powers B + C will see an opportunity to enhance their position. They might propose "friendly neutrality" towards to US, at the price that the US sells down between 50 - 80 % of its Allies (think a Hitler-Stalin or Yalta deal.)

If the US declines, it will find itself at war with several powers at the same time.
Possible outcomes:
1.) Utter defeat, reduction of  the US to a regional power confined to North-America.
2.) Full scale nuclear escalation - to avoid 1..
3.) Prolonged - (phony war) - with an autoritarian emergency regime at home (think "1984").
Among those, I fear that Hillary might choose option 2.

If there is a big power deal, the US might actually "win" against power A). Although - depending on the circumstances - power A). might try nuclear escalation to avoid defeat...
Even if nuclear escalation is avoided, there will be at least 2 - 3 superpowers, and the remaining us Allies will have learnt that they are likely to be sold down the road....

So, almost all bad options.

Theire migth actually be one way out... If the war seems to go wrong, and nuclear war close, a coup by the military-inustrial complex - more or less at the same time in the US and  it's main opponents - might avoid the nuclear holocaust, an instead install a global corporate dictatorship, in transition to a new world order.... (meh...)

[Ogre Mage]

I don't think a Dem Senate should necessarily be assumed, even with a Hillary victory. They would have to net four seats. Wisconsin and Indiana seem likely. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Illinois are all possible, but hardly guaranteed and all require taking down incumbents. Nevada could flip to the GOP, negating one of the above. Florida no longer seems to be within the Dems' reach.

I would rate Illinois as a likely pickup and the majority of political prognosticators would agree.  Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana puts us at 3.  That means only one more is required (assuming Clinton wins) and there are many targets.

We should also not forget the catastrophic albatross at the top of the Republican ticket that all Republican senators are lashed to.

[Badger]

The woman is belligerent, she is sure to invade Syria and occupy Iraq. This will cause a serious conflict with Russia,  where she is unanimously despised, local hostilities being very likely. Anti-Russian hysteria will be in full swing, preparing the society for a large scale war. Meanwhile Iran will attack Israel, and the USA will fail to provide any assistance because of the conflict with Russia.
Europe will be flooded with Muslim  migrants who will undertake first chemical attacks and then explode a nuclear bomb. The USA will also be attacked by Muslim terrorists, but  their attacks will be presented as Russian ones,  which will ensue a large scale nuclear war with Russian.
Finally a small group of humans in the Sayan Mountains  will survive. 

Does Putin pay you for posts on a ruble to word ratio, or do you earn based on the grade of hackery produced?

[Good Habit]

With Trump, this possibility (of global nuclear war) exists as well, but it's much more difficult to estimate. But there would be a fair chance that it's actually lower....

Now - Trump. Trump's vision (if we want it to call that..) is making "America great again" by making immigration difficult, and on-shoring industrial production, by destroying international trade relations. (This creates domestic industrial jobs for "legal" US-Workers).

So he would probably get along well with Putin, supporting joint actions in the Mideast. (Against ISIS etc.), and care nothing at all about Ukraine.

More difficult is China. The default approach would be to get Congress to ban imports of US-Brands (like I-phones), if they are made in China - or elsewhere outside the US. If China retaliates by declaring a no-fly zone over the east- and south-china sea, all the better. (Trump might now ban trade with China as "sanctions", but actually say that it's not a problem the US should remove (the no-fly zone) - this is a questions for China's neighbours.

If he can't get Congress to pass severe anti-corporate and anti-free-trade laws, things get more dangerous. He might actually try to provoke China in to military action. After that, he could proclaim a trade ban an "sanctions". So, Apple has to produce in the US... - and the US-allies in Asia would still be screwed...

Worst case: Minor provocations don't work. So he has to go big - and attack Chinese military bases. Unfortunately -the Chinese retaliate with air-strikes that sink a significant part of the US-Pacific fleet, and after that, Congress - and the US-public - will not accept a "total trade ban" as sufficient.

So, of course, even with Trump we might get a major war, that might go nuclear - but not out of intent to preserve US-military dominance - but of a "failed" intent to destroy international trade.

So, I hope that my US-friends either elect Jill Stein or Gary Johnson president...

[ShadowRocket]

I expect that she'll be dealing with a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate and a reduced GOP majority in the House. In that case, I think she may be able to get some kind legislation passed dealing with infrastructure, jobs, and college affordability/student debt. Unless the Dems manage to somehow take back the House this year, I'm skeptical that anything dealing with immigration, climate change, or equal pay will happen. She'll probably have to resort executive orders for those. The economy may hit a bump. I think she'll do fine in foreign policy. She'll probably escalate the campaign against ISIS and have some success there. Though I expect relations with Russia will get worse. He obviously wont invade, but I could see Putin trying to pull some shenanigans in the Baltic countries in some weird attempt to test her.

The Republicans will likely have a strong midterm in 2018, but I think she'll otherwise have a solid term with her reelection chances depending on the state of the economy and whether or not the GOP nominate a sane candidate next time.