DiscussMormonism.com

Fine, give the GOP four years: The liberal case for either Bernie Sanders, or electing a Republican president

Losing in 2016 might make more strategic sense than losing in 2020

The 2020 election is one Democrats cannot afford to lose. It is a census year, which means the future of the House will be determined for the next decade. It is also highly possible that at least two (or three) seats will open on the Supreme Court, given the ages of the justices—more than are likely to open between 2016 and 2020. If the Democrats do not win, the GOP will have a solid hold on government for at least another 10 years.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/17/fine_gi ... president/

I wonder if Hillary even gives a f***? I doubt Hillary can win re-election in 2020! I have a gut feeling that Bernie would be like 20+ points head in the polls right now.

I think ceding a Supreme Court seat or two to Trump would be disastrous for this country. Combined with a President's influence over foreign policy I don't believe giving him the Presidency is a prudent thing to do. Also, his domestic agenda would be disastrous. Also, his economic policies would be disastrous. crap, is there even an upside to a Drumpfian presidency?

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I think ceding a Supreme Court seat or two to Trump would be disastrous for this country. Combined with a President's influence over foreign policy I don't believe giving him the Presidency is a prudent thing to do. Also, his domestic agenda would be disastrous. Also, his economic policies would be disastrous. ****, is there even an upside to a Drumpfian presidency?

- Doc

I agree a Trump presidency would be a disaster, but in the short run. What about the long run?
Two supreme courts seats will be available in 2021, imagine if Ted Cruz defeats Clinton?

Ted Cruz is worst than Donald Trump!

That's assuming we'd survive as a country through a Trump presidency.
SEE https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpa ... h=69db3ebe

DoubtingThomas wrote:I wonder if Hillary even gives a f***? I doubt Hillary can win re-election in 2020! I have a gut feeling that Bernie would be like 20+ points head in the polls right now.

You can't predict the future. If we're in the middle of an economic boom in 2020, Hillary will get re-elected. If Trump leads his followers to secede from the nation and form the Trump Confederacy, and we're in the middle of another Civil War, Clinton will probably get re-elected. If we fall into a recession, Clinton will be vulnerable.

Let's give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt before assuming she will be so ineffective, incompetent and/or unpopular as President that she will fail to win reelection. If her qualifications prove to be as high as her stoutest supporters claim, and she doesn't make any foolish mistakes or policy decisions, why wouldn't she win reelection? One thing she surely has going for her is the idiocy of the present GOP leadership.

DoubtingThomas wrote:I agree a Trump presidency would be a disaster, but in the short run. What about the long run?Two supreme courts seats will be available in 2021, imagine if Ted Cruz defeats Clinton?

Ted Cruz is worst than Donald Trump!

Thinking about the next four years as a platform for the next election is sort of like saying we put the government of the country on hold for 4 years.

It sounds like what you're saying is that it might be worth it in the long run to have 4 years of a Trump presidency in the short run.

Except that the health care, education and civil rights of millions of Americans will be impacted after 4 years of a Trump Presidency. That might be a long term gain for the party, but you can't sacrifice the short term.

No one knows how long the justices will live. I assume Ginsberg and Kennedy will be stepping down in the next 4 years. Bryer is 78, and I've heard he would like to leave if the circumstances were right. The next oldest justice is Clarence Thomas, who is 68. I've heard he doesn't take great care of himself. It's conceivable that he would leave the Court between 2020 and 2024.

But rolling the dice on the next four years for speculative supreme court nominees seems to be a strategy akin to taking points off the board in football. I don't think that's a good strategy in politics.

Republican groups are already indicating they plan on obstructing Clinton as much as they can in a continuation of their strategy on Obama. Conservative judicial groups are already laying the ground work to continue to block Supreme Court nominations, which is incredible. A lot is going to depend on the makeup of Congress after 2016. After 2018, the government is almost certainly going to grind to a halt unless there is a disruptive force we haven't seen on the horizon yet.

The longer a party holds the presidency after 8 years, the harder it is for them to retain it. There's decent research supporting this hypothesis. It forms the basic principle behind Alan Abramowitz's "Time for Change" model of presidential forecasting that does a decent job. There's a lot of other factors still yet to be decided by 2020. If the economy is gangbusters, Clinton's probably getting reelected. All things being equal, Clinton's in a hole at the start of 2020. But there's enough uncertainty that we have to take a wait and see approach right now.

Assuming Garland doesn't go through in the lame duck or in the next few weeks because Trump is toast, the next president gets one Supreme Court nom right there. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is basically a living corpse already and could easily retire in the next 4 years under a Democrat even though she seems bent on dying in office. That's a good shot at 2 noms. It's hard to predict when the other justices will die off. Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. He could retire or die within 2 years or 10 for all we know. Breyer is not far behind. And while Thomas is a comparatively young 68, that's well within the age that people start randomly being unable to do their job.

This is hard to predict. The next president, if Democrat, probably has a mode of 2 Supreme nods. That's enough to determine the liberal/conservative split of the court.

There's a reverse side to this as well. If Trump gets 4 years, he could plausibly get 8. Yes, Trump is a nightmare in every conceivable regard, but most people don't vote based on things like policy or consequences of those policies. That's why Trump is able to be as close to Clinton as he is despite being so obviously unfit and dangerous a candidate. If Trump benefits from positive conditions during his presidency, he could get 8 years to tear down our institutions that safeguard against autocrats.

Gunnar wrote:. If her qualifications prove to be as high as her stoutest supporters claim, and she doesn't make any foolish mistakes or policy decisions, why wouldn't she win reelection? One thing she surely has going for her is the idiocy of the present GOP leadership.

That is true, but I am still very concerned about the long-run.