If Dems won a trifecta in 2016?

[Sir Mohamed]

It's widely assumed HRC as prez would have be unpopular now, if she was elected. I think this assumption is mostly based on the (reasonable) belief, the GOP would have kept congress and blocked legislation and haunted her presidency through stupid investigations. But what if 2016 turned out to be the landslide some of us and pundits expected in summer 2016? What if HRC had been elected with a 2008-style landslide and Dems not just won the senate, but also a narrow House majority?

What legislation would have been passed? How would 2018 have turned out? And how would things now stand in the 2020 race? I think the midterms wouldn't have been nearly as disastrous as 2010, because the economy would still be doing well. Possibly even better due more certainty on the markets and no trade war.

What are your takes?

[Kingpoleon]

- Public option in healthcare
- $12 minimum wage
- serious support for Syrian Kurds, likely leading to multiple strikes on Assad until he agrees to negotiate
- universal preschool(maybe)

*(this is all assuming they have the votes outside those who wouldn’t vote for this; Manchin, Heitkamp, McCaskill, and Donnelly can’t afford to vote for it)

Clinton, like Trump, would need more than a slight Senate majority. At minimum, 53 seats, probably 54, to get half of this through.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Which causes this? Even if Clinton had won, the GOP was in a strong position to keep both houses of Congress. There was no mood for any trifecta in 2016. Trump only lucked into one because of the general expectation that Clinton would get the White House. If Trump's victory had been widely expected, the Dems might have flipped the Senate in 2016.

[The Mikado]

There was a decent chance Dems could retake the Senate, or at least move it to 50-50. Retaking the House? Wasn't going to happen. Dems might have netted 12 or 15 rather than 6 like they actually did, but netting the 30 they needed wasn't on the table.

[Lord Halifax]

There was a decent chance Dems could retake the Senate, or at least move it to 50-50. Retaking the House? Wasn't going to happen. Dems might have netted 12 or 15 rather than 6 like they actually did, but netting the 30 they needed wasn't on the table.

No need to play Captain Obvious. We all know it's not a realistic scenario, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting to discuss what would have happened.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There was a decent chance Dems could retake the Senate, or at least move it to 50-50. Retaking the House? Wasn't going to happen. Dems might have netted 12 or 15 rather than 6 like they actually did, but netting the 30 they needed wasn't on the table.

No need to play Captain Obvious. We all know it's not a realistic scenario, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting to discuss what would have happened.

Politics is not simply a box score.  Without an explanation for how an event might happen, especially one that as you just admitted could hot have happened by random chance alone, there's nothing worth discussing about potential effects of that event,

[Del Tachi]

- Public option in healthcare
- $12 minimum wage
- serious support for Syrian Kurds, likely leading to multiple strikes on Assad until he agrees to negotiate
- universal preschool(maybe)

*(this is all assuming they have the votes outside those who wouldn’t vote for this; Manchin, Heitkamp, McCaskill, and Donnelly can’t afford to vote for it)

Clinton, like Trump, would need more than a slight Senate majority. At minimum, 53 seats, probably 54, to get half of this through.

Lmao no