The current situation, or President Hillary with emails/Benghazi hearings?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:37:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The current situation, or President Hillary with emails/Benghazi hearings?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which would you rather have?
#1
The current situation with President Trump (D)
 
#2
President Hillary, and more hearings on Benghazi and emails (D)
 
#3
The current situation with President Trump (R)
 
#4
President Hillary, and more hearings on Benghazi and emails (R)
 
#5
The current situation with President Trump (I/O)
 
#6
President Hillary, and more hearings on Benghazi and emails (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 57

Author Topic: The current situation, or President Hillary with emails/Benghazi hearings?  (Read 1456 times)
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 19, 2017, 09:27:43 PM »

Your choice?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2017, 09:31:37 PM »

Obviously the Justice Garland scenario.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 09:34:32 PM »

Obviously the Justice Garland scenario.
Logged
Inmate Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,022


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2017, 09:51:03 PM »

At least President Hillary wouldn't be whining on twitter every five seconds.

Nor did she collude with a foreign power to win the election, so there's that.

And she is BY FAR way more presidential than Trump.

And if she's removed from office, then we have Kaine, who is less crazy than Pence.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,935
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2017, 10:00:47 PM »

I'm glad that Hillary didn't win, because Democrats are in a better position to gain seats in Congress next year.
Logged
Hermit For Peace
hermit
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2017, 10:17:05 PM »


I'm not much into "what if" stuff.

Dealing with reality today, Trump is the King of the throne and he's the one we need to focus on.

He's rather entertaining.

I am tired of having to defend Hillary, so in that sense I'm glad she's not the President. I was bored to tears with the way the other party was treating her.

It's refreshing to be on the offense now, bashing Trumpster right and left. So I'd rather have him in office. I don't think he'll be able to ruin the country because there are too many checks and balances stopping him.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2017, 12:25:19 AM »

^ On the Garland thing, I'm not sure what would have happened. Chuck Grassley, who has control over who gets a hearing in his committee, was very clear that he wouldn't treat a hypothetical President Hillary the same way he treated the outgoing President Obama on the issue. Obviously if Hillary put up, say, Ketanji Brown Jackson, it would be ignored, but Garland would likelier than not have been allowed a hearing. As far as how a hypothetical committee vote would go, democrats would need two republicans to approve the nomination to pass it by the minimum margin, 11-9 (no one on the committee was in a close race last year, so the committee would be the same people with Hillary + R senate) - so all they would need would be the two relative moderates - Graham and Flake. Doesn't sound terribly difficult. It looks bad if you're the Chairman and vote against what the majority of the committee wants, so if Graham and Flake were going to vote to advance the nomination, so would Grassley - so it passes 12-8. Then we come to the Senate Floor. Let's assume that McConnell doesn't just let the nomination take up space on the executive calendar for the next four years and holds a vote. Obviously he would keep the 60 vote rule intact in this scenario, but there is the question of whether the majority is still 52-48 R, or whether it is 51-49 R or 50+Pence-50 R - Depending on what it is, Democrats would need 10 to 12 republican votes. To scrounge up that much, one of two things would have needed to happen - either Hillary's image recovers greatly, like it did when she was SOS, and the party feels they have to staff the court to save Heller/Flake in '18, or Ginsburg/Breyer would have to leave the court, creating the scenario for a "great compromise" situation where Garland and some conservative are jointly confirmed.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2017, 12:30:23 AM »

Maybe Democrats should consider this scenario: Hillary wins, but Republicans control the Senate. You think McConnell lets Garland through knowing that he'll suffer zero electoral consequences if he doesn't? Hell no. Hillary would be a lame duck likely to inflict extreme downballot damage in the party in the midterms. With Trump, Democrats also have a chance of getting family leave through and at making significant inroads downballot, where there would've been a zero chance under President Hillary. And with President Hillary, they'd have been screwed for redistricting and thus out of the House for another decade. So, is the chance that you MIGHT get Garland really worth it? It's not like Trump has been able to do anything that significant anyway.

Yeah, Republicans were already planning on blocking any nominee from a very unpopular President Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/whats-the-opposite-of-court-packing/506081/
Logged
Angrie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2017, 12:37:12 AM »

I think at this point the current situation is probably better for Democrats/left-of-center politics over the longer term, but it would be a heck of a lot better for the country (and the world) to have a sane/normal President without this chaos, and the small but real risk of Trump attacking North Korea to distract from certain other things, etc.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2017, 01:07:06 AM »

Ask me after 2018.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2017, 05:37:40 AM »
« Edited: May 20, 2017, 09:25:33 AM by President Johnson »

Still Hilldog with all her baggage
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2017, 11:06:09 AM »

The e-mail scandal was basically a technical glitch that could be rectified quickly and decisively. President (in a better world) Hillary Clinton learns her lesson and we all concern ourselves with other matters. "Benghazi"? Show that the diplomat tried to do something heroic and died in the process. Heroism isn't always the safest choice of action.

...With President Trump we have someone unwilling to recognize a blunder or an affront for what it is.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2017, 12:17:09 PM »

Which would you rather have? A headache or a rash?

Neither. I'd rather have President Johnson and Vice President Weld, and incipient talk of a "consistent freedom ethic" and how it compares/contrasts with some of the Christian Left's "consistent life ethic", especially at universities.
Logged
Illiniwek
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,866
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2017, 12:48:24 PM »

Hilldawg, but I would probably want to jump from a building after 4 more years of MUH EMAILS.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2017, 01:18:23 PM »

I'd rather President Hillary with email/Benghazi hearings and not for political reasons, tbh.  Sometimes you have to put your country ahead of the interests of your political party.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2017, 02:15:49 PM »

I'm glad that Hillary didn't win, because Democrats are in a better position to gain seats in Congress next year.
So you'd rather have a situation where US national security is compromised by Trump and his staff and decisions, because it might mean we win a few seats? Country before party.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2017, 02:42:00 PM »

Maybe Democrats should consider this scenario: Hillary wins, but Republicans control the Senate. You think McConnell lets Garland through knowing that he'll suffer zero electoral consequences if he doesn't? Hell no. Hillary would be a lame duck likely to inflict extreme downballot damage in the party in the midterms. With Trump, Democrats also have a chance of getting family leave through and at making significant inroads downballot, where there would've been a zero chance under President Hillary. And with President Hillary, they'd have been screwed for redistricting and thus out of the House for another decade. So, is the chance that you MIGHT get Garland really worth it? It's not like Trump has been able to do anything that significant anyway.

Yeah, Republicans were already planning on blocking any nominee from a very unpopular President Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/whats-the-opposite-of-court-packing/506081/

And there's a good chance Hillary never would've gotten the chance to replace Breyer and Ginsburg before 2020. What, especially with an increased R Senate majority after 2018. In that scenario, I think it's likely that they would be replaced by whichever R would've won in 2020 (I stand by both Hillary and Trump being one-term presidents under about any scenario).

If Clinton won PA, she probably pulled McGinty across the line with her, but that's still a GOP majority unless Kander also gets swept in.  Even then, the Dem majority through VP Kaine could be gone as soon as Nov. 2017 with the special in VA.  Beyond McGinty and Kander, there almost surely wouldn't be any more Dem pickups if the presidential race was still close.

Garland almost surely would get through even with a 51-53 seat GOP senate, but there's no way the next vacancy gets filled by someone as liberal as Garland.  If there was a Dem senate, both Ginsburg and Breyer would have to retire in the summer of 2017 to ensure a long run left wing SCOTUS majority and the backlash would likely turn the VA senate special into a repeat of the MA 2010 special. 

It really comes down to whether at least 2 of Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer are still on the Court in 2021.  If they are, then Dems are no worse off than with a narrow Clinton win, and if they are still on the Court in 2023, then they are likely better off, even if Trump/Pence is still president.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2017, 03:24:26 PM »

Democrats must love the current set up. Nothing major is being done, the Republicans get all the blame, and they aren't saddled by the Obama/Clinton baggage. Legislation is at a standstill and the Republican agenda is on hold pending Mueller's investigation (or will be limited).
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2017, 03:31:10 PM »

Democrats must love the current set up. Nothing major is being done, the Republicans get all the blame, and they aren't saddled by the Obama/Clinton baggage. Legislation is at a standstill and the Republican agenda is on hold pending Mueller's investigation (or will be limited).

If most of Obamacare survives and none of Ginsburg/Breyer/Kennedy get replaced by someone right of Kennedy by the end of 2020, I would completely agree with that assessment.  Bonus points for Dems if paid family leave actually happens under Trump.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 14 queries.