The Clinton Thread: All things Hillary

[Lois]

Democracy, even such a democracy as we have, is inherently fragile.  To me, it appears that the country has slid into an oligarchy of the wealthy that retains the form of a constitutional republic, much as Rome maintained a powerless senate long after it had an emperor. But that is hardly the worst thing, as the lessons of Weimar Germany and the death of other democracies would demonstrate.

Yet while I am concerned with the aspects of oligarchy that has encroached into our democratic republic, I still have hope that that there are idealists in our government, and voters, that seek to correct the problem.  I do not believe all politicians are bad, and there are still faithful public servants who care about America and its people in their ranks.

There are those who think that because of American exceptionalism we are exempt from the fate of other democracies in history. We believe in our Constitution as if it were gospel, and yet when the very form of government founded by the Constitution is viewed with hostility and distrust, the Constitution itself is under attack.

Those who cheer thinking Trump will destroy the GOP are in some ways the same as Trump voters who proclaim the reason they support him is that he will "shake things up." Be careful what you wish for. "Shaking up" a political system where the people have lost faith their form of government is a risky proposition, and more things can go wrong than might come out right.

[watcher1]

Read an article in today's paper where the GOP is thinking of going with 8 Supreme Court justices and stall any appointment of a ninth justice.  Wonder what will happen when one or two other justices decide to retire and Hillary is the president?  Ugh.

[Meatbot]

We are much closer to an authoritarian change than we have been in many decades. While I don't think Trump would actually usher in an authoritarian government, his concept of the executive branch seems to be based upon such a system.

Trumps damage would benin the area of foreign policy, and economic destruction of the nation. As a business man and as a political leader l, Trump has the most debilitating and massive deficiencies in understanding and skill this side of the 6th grade.

You're worried about Trump? I'm way more worried about Hillary. Everything about her screams "Authoritative." If I see anybody being the dictator of this country, it'd have to be her.

'bot

[Lois]

I disagree.  Trump has prised authoritarian strongmen like Putin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-un.

He said that Saddam Hussein knew how to deal with terrorists.  Like gassing the Kurds. He also reminisced about the good old days when protesters, exercising their constitutional rights could be beaten and carried out on stretchers.

Now who is the likely authoritarian?

Trump is a bully, and he would dearly like to be a dictatorial strongman.

What has Hillary done or said that compares to any of this?

[MissBarbara]

Democracy, even such a democracy as we have, is inherently fragile.  To me, it appears that the country has slid into an oligarchy of the wealthy that retains the form of a constitutional republic, much as Rome maintained a powerless senate long after it had an emperor. But that is hardly the worst thing, as the lessons of Weimar Germany and the death of other democracies would demonstrate.

History has proven the exact opposite of what you assert here. The democracy that we have -- which is only a democracy in metaphorical terms -- is sui generis in the history of the world, and bears no comparison to other democracies that have existed throughout world history. Our history has clearly demonstrated that our democracy is the exact opposite of "inherently fragile." To take the most obvious example, our democracy endured a civil war that rent the country asunder and resulted in the deaths of 700,000 Americans -- and yet our democracy endured. We have never witnessed in our history anything other than a smooth transition of power, we've never even come close to enduring a coup d'etat, by neither the military nor any other junta, and we've never had a political leader who attempted to abrogate, or even circumvent, the U.S. Constitution.

One could make an argument that there once was a period in U.S. history when it "appeared that the country has slid into an oligarchy of the wealthy." But that was at the end of the 19th century, well over a century ago, and history has demonstrated that that slide never caused any fundamental -- or Constitutional -- changes for the worse. In fact, one of the direct results of that "oligarchy of the wealthy" were the "Progressive Amendments" -- which included things like direct election of senators and women's suffrage -- which both strengthened our democracy and weakened the power of the wealthy.

But, again, one might make an argument that "the oligarchy of the wealthy" is again hugely influencing our political process. And that is the way in which political contributions, from corporations and individuals, are dictating if not the outcomes, then at least the candidates in our major elections. One plain fact that I find absolutely outrageous -- and quite sickening -- and that few people seem even slightly bothered by is the fact that Hillary Clinton has raised more than $1 billion -- $1 billion! -- to support her bid for the White House. The list of people she is beholden to is about a mile long, and a war chest like that precludes anyone else from even coming close to challenging for the presidency.

Yet while I am concerned with the aspects of oligarchy that has encroached into our democratic republic, I still have hope that that there are idealists in our government, and voters, that seek to correct the problem.  I do not believe all politicians are bad, and there are still faithful public servants who care about America and its people in their ranks.

There are those who think that because of American exceptionalism we are exempt from the fate of other democracies in history. We believe in our Constitution as if it were gospel, and yet when the very form of government founded by the Constitution is viewed with hostility and distrust, the Constitution itself is under attack.

I share your beliefs, and your hopes. Like you (and unlike, it seems, the majority of Americans today), I believe that there are good politicians, and that there are dedicated public servants who care about this country and its people, and are willing to make the needed sacrifices to ensure the future.

But I disagree that the majority of Americans "believe in our Constitution as if it were gospel" -- the framers of the Constitution certainly did not believe that! -- and I strongly disagree that "the Constitution itself is under attack." Except for the massive influence of a $1 billion campaign war chest (which really has nothing to do with the precepts of the U.S. Constitution), in what ways do you believe that "the Constitution itself is under attack"?

Those who cheer thinking Trump will destroy the GOP are in some ways the same as Trump voters who proclaim the reason they support him is that he will "shake things up." Be careful what you wish for. "Shaking up" a political system where the people have lost faith their form of government is a risky proposition, and more things can go wrong than might come out right.

Again, I agree with you. We've heard a steady drumbeat of cheering (and how's that for a mixed metaphor?) from the Left for the ways in which Trump seems to be destroying the GOP, and I agree that this does not bode well. There have been periods in our history where the "destruction" of one party and the dominance of the other party has led to a string of mediocrities inhabiting the White House (e.g. Pierce and Buchanan in the 1850s, Hayes and Harrison in the 1880s).

Add to that, the situation in which we find ourselves today (literally), with neither presidential candidate holding any much outside the core of their supporters, does not bode well for the future, despite who wins next Tuesday. I fearlessly predict a shockingly low turnout next week.

[watcher1]

WOO!  Well stated, MissB.  As usual.  But nice to read today that Bernie Sanders said that he will do everything in his power to make sure that Clinton, if elected, will not appoint any Wall Street people to her administration, like Obama has. Wanna take bets on Sanders influencing Clinton after the election?

[ChirpingGirl]

A big party with plenty of spirits and... cooking.

[MissBarbara]

I fearlessly predict a shockingly low turnout next week.

There will be a record turnout in numbers, and a surprisingly high percentage turn out by modern standards. Early voting already assures this.  And Trump will lose by a landslide proportion.

Though I stand by my prediction, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

What do you consider a landslide? I would argue that the popular vote % difference should be in the double digits. Does that definition work for you?

[Lois]

From:  http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Electoral-College/a/How-Much-Is-A-Landslide.htm


Defining a Landslide

One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent.

There are variations of the 15-point landslide definition. The online political-news source Politico has defined a landslide election as being on in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points, for example. And the well known political blogger Nate Silver, of The New York Times, has defined a landslide district as being one in which a presidential vote margin deviated by at least 20 percentage points from the national result. Political scientists Hill and Kathleen Thompson Hill and say a landslide occurs when on candidate is able to win 60 percent of the popular vote.


Electoral College Landslide

Of course, the United States does not elect its presidents by popular vote. It instead uses the Electoral College system. There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs in a presidential race, so how many would a candidate have to win to achieve a landslide?

Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election. But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years. One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.

[MintJulie]

Using Lois's definitions, I don't see a landslide.   

And, as has been said before, mentions of 'sure thing' and 'landslide', leaves some too comfortable........comfortable enough to not go out and vote.     All the talk of HC having this in the bag, has me thinking voter turnout will be lower than expected.

[ChirpingGirl]

4 years of this evil witch. If she lives that long. Then it'll be her spoiled brat.

 

[Katiebee]

Chirpinggirl, your obsession in this is truly amazing.

[ChirpingGirl]

Chirpinggirl, your obsession in this is truly amazing.

Your obsession with me is truly stalkery.

[Katiebee]

You are incorrect. Willful ignorance, stupidity, and trolling like yours deserves all the crap it attracts.

[Lois]

4 years of this evil witch. If she lives that long. Then it'll be her spoiled brat.

 

You are going to change your mind and come to love Hillary.  She will fund the NIH and find cures for many diseases.  You will live forever and watch your children flourish!

[Hoss]

4 years of this evil witch. If she lives that long. Then it'll be her spoiled brat.

 

The alternative is fuckin scary.....from the rest of the world's perspective. . (..and I do not follow general Democrat philosophy )

[ChirpingGirl]

You are incorrect. Willful ignorance, stupidity, and trolling like yours deserves all the crap it attracts.

You just called yourself crap. Thanks for saving me the time.

[MissBarbara]

From:  http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Electoral-College/a/How-Much-Is-A-Landslide.htm


Defining a Landslide

One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent.

There are variations of the 15-point landslide definition. The online political-news source Politico has defined a landslide election as being on in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points, for example. And the well known political blogger Nate Silver, of The New York Times, has defined a landslide district as being one in which a presidential vote margin deviated by at least 20 percentage points from the national result. Political scientists Hill and Kathleen Thompson Hill and say a landslide occurs when on candidate is able to win 60 percent of the popular vote.


Electoral College Landslide

Of course, the United States does not elect its presidents by popular vote. It instead uses the Electoral College system. There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs in a presidential race, so how many would a candidate have to win to achieve a landslide?

Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election. But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years. One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.

Thanks for the info, Lois!

Following either definition for a popular vote landslide, we haven't had one since 1984 (Reagan vs. Mondale, where Reagan won by close to 20 % points).

[Lois]

Well, like the article says, there is no legal definition of a landslide victory, but other sources say it simply has to be a 10% spread in the popular vote.

Personally, I hope Trump is defeated by a landslide.  The GOP really needs to wake up and become functional again.  Alienating the USA's largest growing demographic is not smart politics.  Ask California's GOP about the effects of Governor Wilson's perceived attacks upon the Latino community.  The Republicans used to be a thriving part of California's political landscape, and now they are all but dead.

It is interesting to note that following Ronald Reagan's amnesty program, the GOP enjoyed widespread Latino support.

I suppose part of the problem is that less than 50% of eligible Latino voters usually bother going to the polls.  I know Wilson woke them up in California.  The question is did Trump wake them up, too?  If he did, it could be a landslide for Clinton.

[MissBarbara]

Well, like the article says, there is no legal definition of a landslide victory, but other sources say it simply has to be a 10% spread in the popular vote.

Personally, I hope Trump is defeated by a landslide.  The GOP really needs to wake up and become functional again.  Alienating the USA's largest growing demographic is not smart politics.  Ask California's GOP about the effects of Governor Wilson's perceived attacks upon the Latino community.  The Republicans used to be a thriving part of California's political landscape, and now they are all but dead.

It is interesting to note that following Ronald Reagan's amnesty program, the GOP enjoyed widespread Latino support.

I suppose part of the problem is that less than 50% of eligible Latino voters usually bother going to the polls.  I know Wilson woke them up in California.  The question is did Trump wake them up, too?  If he did, it could be a landslide for Clinton.

You're right, there's no official definition, but a 10-point popular vote difference feels right to me.

And you're also right, the margin of victory, if not the victory itself, might very well hinge on turnout by various blocs.

But history has shown that the annihilation of one party in a presidential election has led to the resurgence and domination of that party a few years down the road. For example, Johnson beat Goldwater by 23 points, and won the electoral vote 486 to 52. But just a few years later, Nixon beat McGovern by 23 points, and won the electoral vote 520 to 17. And a few years after that, Reagan beat Mondale by 20 points, and won the electoral vote 525 to 13.

So, I suppose, be careful what you wish for...