Talk Elections

They averted a 2018 Senate Wipeout, got the chance to retake the House and gain greatly at the statewide level and tarred the GOP with Trump. Could Hillary's loss actually be described as a net positive for Dems?

Shouldn't we wait until after Nov. 6th to speculate on that?

Yeah, losing the Supreme Court for a generation in exchange for fleeting electoral victories where they won't be able to accomplish a damn thing due to divided government sure was worth it.

But we get to see more blue on the map or something, so I guess that's enough for Atlas.

Doesn’t feel like it.  In any case, “the best thing ever” seems like a bit of a stretch for a loss.  Will the Trump presidency be a bad thing for the Republicans long-term?  We’ll see, depends on whether or not enough Americans eventually see Trumpism for what it is.

This, and also the millions of people who have suffered or will suffer or even die under Trump's policies.

Look, I got no love for Hillary, but the left coalition winning is always better,
1) because you get to enact left policies
2) because winning makes it easier to win in the moderate and long term, not harder

you can't play some ridiculous three dimensional chess that is impossible to play and never pans out the way you think

Part of me hopes the Democrats fall short this year just so this ridiculous talking point dies.

We have to wait til Justice Thomas retires to take back CRT, so no.

One of the good things to come out of this is that positions like universal health care, free higher education, a livable minimum wage, etc. are now much more popular than 10-20 years ago, and terms like socialism are no longer taboo in the political mainstream. I also believe that Democratic wins down-ballot during the Trump administration will help them rebuild their bench, and that there exists the potential for an FDR-type candidate to emerge and win in 2020.

When you mention the House (if they win it) and avoiding huge losses in the Senate, I think the word you're looking for is "silver lining." As for whether or not it was a net positive, definitely not.

Considering the circumstances, yes.

So what if the Supreme Court goes, it's been a lost cause on balance since 1969 with Fortas anyway.

It's the lower courts and redistricting that need the attention, and those were swamped GOP during Obama's time and likely would've been swamped even more under Hillary. And there's no guarantee Hillary'd be re-elected in 2020...more likely goes the way of 41...and how would that go for redistricting again? Exactly.

But now, Obamacare is actually definitively unmovable at the core, simple donations rather than dark money are coming into the fold, Southern states [besides Virginia] are actually considering voting for black governors...most notable in Florida where every Democrat not named Bill Nelson seems to flounder at the statewide like.

And the Senate map, while unfavorable yes, likely would've become a supermajority.

but will that translate into actual results? There's a natural tendency for public opinion to rebel against the prevailing orthodoxy. Trump happened because people got mad over Obama's policies, and now policies strongly opposed by the Trump administration might be gaining ground as part of a back lash. But as soon as the Dems get back into office who is to say things won't swing back the other way? Or if they don't, who is to say that whoever is in power makes good on their promises?

People seem to forget that Obama ran in 2008 significantly to the left of how he governed; his campaign message was a response to a (correctly) perceived ideological shift in the Overton window after nearly a decade of Bush (and more than 20 years of neoconservatism, when you consider that Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all championed it). When he got into office he governed as more or less a centrist who leaned to the right on economic issues. And yet within two years he had already been constantly put on the defensive for being a "socialist" and "far left".

I would love to be optimistic, but honestly I can't. Maybe it's just my personality, but I don't see Trumpism or its long term consquences simply giving up without quite a fight.

Well see what happens this November.

“Wipeout” some polls I have read have the Republicans gaining seats.

Yeah, but the map would probably look less like ~+1-2 R gains and more like this:
()

I honestly believe the Democrats may have averted a bigger problem in 2020 by losing 2016. If McConnell was serious about holding open Supreme Court seats for the whole presidency (which he probably would have) and if Republicans in the House continued the constant investigation to drag Clinton down (which they definitely would have) and if the Republicans maintained and extended their grip on state government going into the new census (which they might anyways) you might have seen a scenario in 2021 where the Republicans have constitutional amendment levels of power in both chambers and have three or four seats on the Court to fill, including RBG's.

It was definitely one of the best things ever to happen to them.

Only time will tell. I do think losing in 2004 was good thing for the Democrats, and I also think winning 1976 was bad for them.

No, it wasn't, losing Garland was heartwriching

You nailed it.

If they had to lose a race, I think they're more glad they lost 2004.

It was the worst thing to ever happen to the Democrats - and the country.  We were deprived of our savior and now the Democrats will go hard left (crazy).

Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson weren't hard left.

ITT: A bunch of privileged whites who aren't suffering under Trump have no sympathy for the millions of people who are suffering under him, instead caring about their party winning elections in the way people care about their favorite sports team winning games.

The better question is: Was Hillary's nomination the worst thing to happen to the Democrats/country at large?

For people, their life hasn't changed much under either Trump or Obama. Cost of housing is still increasing, rent still unaffordable, housing costs are unaffordable. People are working 3 jobs to support their family. American towns are dying across the country. Racial Discrimination and Racism has remained the same, police deaths and violence still occurs at the same rate.

Hillary's loss was (more accurately put Trump's win) was a tragedy and his economic decision will fix none of the economic issues in America and only serves to exacerbate it. With Obama, the problems would have been slightly mitigated, with Trump you are a stabbing a wound. The long-term economic and supreme court consequences of a Trump presidency would be disastrous but people are still suffering the same problems as before and people aren't suffering because of Trump, they were suffering before him (indefinitely for black people) and since the 1980's for whites that are working or middle class.

A partial list of things that have been worse for Democrats than HRC's nomination, in which I do my best to offend all:

• Humphrey's nomination
• The McGovern–Fraser Commission
• McGovern's nomination
• Carter's nomination
• Cardigans
• Mondale's nomination
• Bill Clinton's nomination
• Welfare "reform"
• Bill Clinton's p****
• Rise of 24-hour cable news
• 9/11
• Kerry's nomination
• The Great Recession
• The ACA
• Expiration of the payroll tax cut
• Infatuation with Bowles-Simpson (IBS)
• State-level right-to-work legislation
• State-level voter suppression legislation
• Obama's entire second term

McGovern-Fraser is an unacknowledged villain throughout all of this. Both parties have immense problems with their presidential nomination process over the past several decades, and the modern primary cluster has a great deal to do with this.

Democrats in particular have consistently selected nominees who make for either poor general election campaigners or poor presidents. It would be difficult to design a process that produced worse results and created more enmity.

Wow, look, more 'progressives' smearing people who think beyond their slogans as privileged and out of touch. This is why I'm not a Democrat. Do you really think it's so unambiguous? How much better off would the average American be if the GOP expanded their control of the House, got their 60 seats in the Senate, further monopolized local government, gained near-total control over 2020 redistricting and then got a president in in 2020 who has the same agenda as Trump but is much more competent at enacting it?

I'm not saying that it is definitely a good thing that Clinton lost, since we can never know what might have happened, but to brush the question off like this is ridiculous.

We'll have a definitive answer on Nov. 6. If Dems get at or above 240 house seats, it was definitely worth it.

On the Supreme Court: Liberals never really had it in recent times. Kennedy wasn't really that Liberal, it's just that the media over-obsessed whenever he didn't vote conservative. Same goes for O'Connor. And as much as some Atlasians treat Garland like the second coming of Christ, remember that many progressives see him as a squishy moderate who might just be a slightly more liberal Kennedy.

And then on the Circuit Courts, Dems right now still hold a majority on 8 of the 13 appeals courts, and a 9th court is tied. Even if Trump filled all 15 announced vacancies tomorrow, Dems would still hold a majority on 7 of the 13, with 2 of the 13 tied. So Liberals still have the circuit courts, even after 2 years of Trump.

Even if Trump becomes the Dems Carter , it still wont be the best thing to ever happen to the Democrats.


That undoubtedly has to be the 1932 election

No, it's not, holding Congress just means you can write legislation. Roberts Crt has judicial review and can strike down extreme legislation like amnesty for immigrants. It's a silver lining and Pelosi Congress will give Dems some governance, since Dems have lost 16/20 elections overall, it's just a check on the GOP.

yes it is, but they did not use it. clintonite wing of the party is still in charge and thats why they not gonna get senate majority.

Hmm...

1. Democrats are still struggling how to deal with the post-2016 political reality.
2. Trump filled two seats on the Court, with more openings (of crucial seats) possibly to come, which would mean establishing a firm conservative majority for the next generation.
3. Democrats are likely to suffer Senate losses, despite the conventional wisdom, that midterms equals gains for the opposition.

Who cares? At least that nasty neocon corporate $hill is not the President :) :) :)

I wouldn't say best thing ever. But I would say it was better for them than any of their post 1992 results, which is funny because it was their worst electoral post 1992 result

I want to add to my original post also that our planet is going to be destroyed and literally millions will die prematurely because of it, and while Hillary is evil overall and weak on climate issues, like virtually all American politicians, there is an ocean of difference between her and our climate denier in chief, and Hillary would have worked with the international community to combat or curb climate change at least to some extent, not turn the presidency into a platform for lethally pernicious nonsense and further destroy our world.

This issue without a doubt effects everyone; unfortunately some people were too childish to realize that being an adult means making the meaningful, correct choice between the lesser of two evils in order to make some gains and prevent further losses, not blow up the world because you don't have someone inspiring or morally pure to vote for and identify with.

L0L. "Evil overall."

1. They've done nothing but struggle since 1968 anyway
2. Hillary would've been blocked of those chances anyway
3. So you're saying there'd have been a BlueWave after a bunch of IceSpear's and DeplorableHaters and BLMers got together and managed to smash the pithy Deplorables in their anger?

Oh who cares, at least that orange cheeto saying mean things on Twitter isn't president!

Under a Clinton presidency, the GOP would've likely kept the House (whether or not they make gains is another story) and I could definitely see them making major gains in the Senate this year. Governorships and state legislatures also wouldn't look good for the Democrats either. The Republicans would've found some way to block Hillary's SCOTUS pick(s) anyway, just like they did under Obama with Garland. By 2020, Clinton would have likely lost reelection anyway. The silver lining in this scenario for Democrats probably won't be visible until the 2021-2022 elections.

Not sure if Hillary presidency would've been much better than Trump's presidency at all.

McGovern-Fraser set the stage for the social issue-identity politics that dominates the Democratic Party today.  It's what set the stage for the decline of Organized Labor as a force in our politics.

I was a young teenage liberal from a Democratic family (at least my Mom and Grandma were, and my late father was) during McGovern's run for office.  I had hoped that McGovern would work a miracle and beat Nixon because I wanted the Vietnam War to end, but I also remember thinking that there was something wrong with the AFL-CIO actually remaining neutral.  Weren't Democrats "The Party of the People"?  I watched their convention in 1972, and all I could think of while watching a bunch of longhairs, blacks with huge Afros, and radical Women's Libbers was how this wasn't going to go down well at all with the adults I knew.  Yet all these people were delegates, in part because of the fact that they were McGovern loyalists (and he was, after all, the winner), and in part because of the rules set forth my McGovern-Fraser.  Lawfully-elected delegations were unseated over challenges, and unelected delegates who were deemed more representative took their place.

Rep. Wayne Hays (D-Ohio) said it best:  "They reformed us out of a Presidency in 1968, and now, they're going to reform us out of a party!"  Hays was a ruthless scumbag in many ways, but he was entirely correct here; people who were VESTED in the Democratic Party were being pushed aside by people who were not vested in the Democratic Party; they were vested in their particular movements, and their presence in the Democratic Party over time has made the Democratic Party subject to the movements of Radical Feminism, movements like BLM, LGBT, and the Open Borders crowd.  Maybe that's why the GOP wins; in the GOP camp, the tail doesn't wag the dog.  You don't see the Religious Right giving ultimatums to the GOP in the way many of the leaders of the mass constituencies of the Democratic Party do to THEIR party.

That's more astute.  There is never such a thing as a "good loss".

John McCain promised that Republicans would be united against any Hillary appointee to the Supreme Court. So there would be a lot of 4-4 rulings for now, but the Republican elected in 2020 would restore the court to 5 right-wingers.

If the wave is full blown Dems win all three branches and get to 30 governors and the senate as well as the House, it would be a blessing and Dems can expand the Crts to 11 Appellate Jurisdictions.

No, because the Democratic Party is in ASHES.

Watch The Young Turks' election night 2016 video...they said it themselves!

No because we got trump.

Would Hillary's SCOTUS pick have been given a hearing by the GOP-controlled Senate, though? I would think Yes because the GOP said that the winner of 2016 should decide who gets to fill Scalia's seat, but given that the GOP would have suspected that it would have gotten an even larger Senate majority after 2018, might it have decided to leave this seat unfilled for four years?

I suspect that what might have transpired is that the Senate would consent to holding hearings (remember that Grassley stated that he wouldn't refuse hearings simply because the nominee was picked by Clinton), but following the hearings, Republican Senators would unite to vote down her nominees if they weren't conservative enough. I don't think Republican Senators would have continued to refuse holding hearings because that would probably have provided ammunition for Democratic Senate candidates to use against them in 2018.

Would the GOP have been able to maintain a united front? After all, Sotomayor and Kagan both got some Republican votes.

If the Republican party was more popular than the Democratic party overall, then probably yes.

What about Losing in 1928?

And the biggest House swing since Watergate and gubernatorial gains greater than even 2006 definitely suggest that answer is yes.

1. It kept the Republicans from getting a 58-42 split in the Senate.
2, It has allowed Democrats to get a House majority.
3. It allowed Democrats to win some critical gubernatorial elections.
5. It may have prevented a successful Hard Right 2020 landslide win for Republicans (let us say Walker-Toomey)
5. Republicans would have resisted any Clinton nominee for the Supreme Court before 2021, after which they would quickly come up with an 8-1 Republican majority in the Supreme Court that might decide that wealth has rights and people do not.
6. I can imagine a right-wing America in which the Walker Administration promises a Bill of Rights for Capital that includes abolition of unions, the minimum wage and hours laws, elimination of controls on pollution, and effective means of stifling criticism of powerful people. Employers might get control over employees' votes. That is a Corporate State as designed in Mussolini's Italy.
7. We would have huge, expensive border walls intended to keep Americans in -- with a border as deadly as the Berlin Wall with guards ordered to shoot to kill anyone trying to cross into Canada or Mexico.


Donald Trump is the most incompetent President since Johnson -- Andrew Johnson, that is. He is far more corrupt than Harding. He is more unethical than Nixon.    If you think him bad, then consider someone similarly cruel, unscrupulous, ruthless, and corrupt... but competent!