Law Hillary 2020? Trump better hope not. - Why Hillary Clinton would be well-positioned to win in a rematch

  • Iniciador del tema Iniciador del tema RG 448
  • Fecha de inicio Fecha de inicio
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
On Oct. 16, 11 months after defeating her, President Trump tweeted another of his regular insults about his 2016 opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. Sandwiched between boasts about his presumed role in the stock market’s rise and his rally in South Carolina, Trump wrote: “I was recently asked if Crooked Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2020? My answer was, ‘I hope so!’”

Putting aside the reckless braggadocio — and blatant sexism — inherent in such a statement, the entire scenario seemed absurd. Most pundits (and most of the American public) discount the idea of Clinton running in 2020, doubtful she could win the Democratic nomination, let alone the election, after her stunning loss to Trump. Clinton herself has stated that her political career is over, that she is more interested in speaking out against Trump as a private citizen.

Nevertheless, Trump should be careful what he wishes for. Clinton might not be a potential candidate now, but the political winds can change quickly. Recent American history is rife with presidential contenders who lost the primary or general election and then went on to become a candidate in subsequent elections. Dissatisfied with the politics of the day, lured by name recognition and preexisting loyalties, the public gave each of these candidates multiple chances at the presidency and handed several the keys to the White House.

Add to that Trump’s abysmally low approval ratings and inability to deliver on signature campaign promises (building a border wall, ending NAFTA and repealing the Affordable Care Act, to name a few), and Clinton could once more emerge as a serious challenger.

Political comebacks — even seemingly impossible ones — are actually regular occurrences in modern American politics. Richard Nixon remains the most (in)famous example. Nixon narrowly lost to John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election — only about 110,000 votes nationwide separated them — then ran for governor of California in 1962, only to lose that election. Nixon told the press after his defeat in 1962 that he was done with politics. “You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” he proclaimed.

But when Lyndon Johnson trounced conservative Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 (LBJ won all but six states), Nixon recast himself as the person best able to unite the factions within the GOP. Nixon’s chances were bolstered by a widespread opposition to the Vietnam War that fueled voters’ desire for a change in the White House. Nixon also courted Southern whites — who traditionally voted Democrat — dismayed over civil rights legislation and urban riots in the 1960s. Nixon ran for president again in 1968, capturing the Republican nomination and then the presidency.

Ronald Reagan shifted the Republican Party back to the right in 1980, but it wasn’t his first bid for the presidency. Reagan vied with Nixon in 1968 during the presidential primaries and at the Republican convention, and then challenged Gerald Ford in 1976 for the Republican nomination, where Reagan won enough key states, including Texas and California, to ensure a contested Republican convention that summer. Ford won the nomination at the convention, but after he lost to Jimmy Carter, Reagan became the favorite among Republicans in 1980. Reagan might have lost in 1980, too, had it not been for “stagflation” and the fall of detente between the United States and Soviet Union. High unemployment, inflation rates and oil prices in the late 1970s convinced many Americans that Reagan was right: Government, or at least President Carter, was the problem.

The Democrats have also had their own share of political rebirths since the 1950s, although their experiences may serve more as a caution to Clinton than an inspiration. Adlai Stevenson was nominated for president twice, and almost a third time. His first chance for the presidency came in 1952 where he lost to Dwight Eisenhower — badly. Stevenson won only 89 electoral votes. His humiliating defeat did not deter Democrats from nominating him again in 1956, but the Korean War was over, the economy was booming and Republicans claimed responsibility for both. The result was Stevenson achieving an even more abysmal showing than he had in 1952 — winning only 73 electoral votes.

After his second loss to Eisenhower, Stevenson (like Clinton) announced publicly he would not run in 1960. His decision did not stop his closest supporters, including Eleanor Roosevelt, from creating a “Draft Stevenson” movement at the 1960 Democratic convention. Many Democrats still believed Stevenson was the sole progressive who appealed to both the left and right wings of the party — to the radicals on workers’ rights and civil rights, as well as to southern Democrats. Stevenson changed his mind, but it was too late. John Kennedy was already the clear favorite among Democratic delegates.

Another Democratic candidate in 1960, Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey, was considered by members of his party to be “too liberal” for the presidency. Humphrey lost to the more moderate Kennedy in the 1960 primary, where he was outmatched by Kennedy’s money and political swagger. However, by 1968, now-Vice President Humphrey was the nominee.

Humphrey lost in 1968 for the same reason Nixon won: Vietnam. Voters viewed Humphrey as a patsy of Johnson and the war he (and Democrats) made. Humphrey went from the leading liberal to the liberals’ worst problem in eight short years. Humphrey ran again in 1972, but the 1968 election (and the chaos at the Democratic convention in Chicago that year) cast a pall over his liberal legacy, and the more left-wing George McGovern received the nomination

These are just a few examples from postwar American history. If Americans, including Trump, looked back further, they would find William Jennings Bryan, who was nominated three times for the Democratic ticket (1896, 1900 and 1908), or Democrat Al Smith, who lost the nomination in 1924 but won it in 1928 — and overcame white nationalist, anti-Catholic sentiments in the process. Not to mention Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912 after leaving politics in 1909.

Clinton could easily be counted among this distinguished group (in fact, she already is, having lost the Democratic nomination in 2008). Clinton still retains significant support within her party, and Democrats currently have no clear front-runner to replace her. Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have numerous financial backers willing to support her campaign, and the former nominee has a vibrant, large, motivated base of supporters angry at Trump, Russian interference in the election and former FBI director James B. Comey — in their minds, the collective robbers of Clinton’s presidency. Moreover, as Trump hates to be reminded, Clinton won the popular vote.

While Trump welcomes a Clinton challenge in 2020, he may find himself regretting it if voters come to believe they made a mistake and look to Clinton to rectify the wrong. Like Nixon and Reagan, Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures. If Trump pulls Americans into a new economic recession or an unpopular war or fails to follow through on his rhetoric (which looks likely), Hillary Clinton’s time out of office might prove temporary.

It would not be the first time in American history.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trump-better-hope-not/?utm_term=.4f147f6475ab
 
Not sure I agree that outsourcing is some brutalization of the American core. Markets don't really care about patriotic feelings, and nor should they. You are trying to twist capitalism into something it is not.

Trump has a point in regards to unfair trade deals. He is going about the problem in the wrong way.

What should capitalism be? In it's purest form it's nothing more that a corporate dictatorship where the population are nothing more than a human resource. If the market was completely free to do what it wanted, then you would get your house broken into so someone could knock you out, harvest your organs to sell to medical companies, sell your wife and children into sex slavery. Market demand and all. The freer the market, the freer the people, right?
 
Not sure I agree that outsourcing is some brutalization of the American core. Markets don't really care about patriotic feelings, and nor should they. You are trying to twist capitalism into something it is not.

Trump has a point in regards to unfair trade deals. He is going about the problem in the wrong way.
Outsource and brutalize. Not outsource to brutalize. There's much more nuance to it than that, but that's distinctly not what I said.
 
I don't want them playing the moral card either, that's how you get "Woke" companies telling consumers they have to be "this" good to buy their services, or not get summarily banned from them for alleged TOS violations from unaccountable moderating robots.

I can live with corporate greed much longer than I can corporate progressive moralism.

Robber Barons will leave you alone if you're broke, ideologues won't rest until they've controlled your very thoughts.
 
I don't want them playing the moral card either, that's how you get "Woke" companies telling consumers they have to be "this" good to buy their services, or not get summarily banned from them for alleged TOS violations from unaccountable moderating robots.

I can live with corporate greed much longer than I can corporate progressive moralism.

Robber Barons will leave you alone if you're broke, ideologues won't rest until they've controlled your very thoughts.
Someone's remembering their C.S. Lewis, I see.

C.S. Lewis dijo:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
 
In theory, a free market should be open competition and pro-consumer ideas to get products they need or want. Unfortunately in America, businesses don't always play the moral card and if possible, will shortcut and rip off the consumer to increase their bottom line.

I don't think it's just in America. In theory the free market sounds good, just like in theory, communism sounds good. But when you add the human element to it, they will not play by the rules, they will lie and cheat and steal to make sure they win the game.

People thinking one simple policy or ideology being a magic bullet are thinking as if Humans are robots that will simply follow the rules. History has taught us anything but. It's why the founding fathers had the separation of powers.
 
I can't shake the suspicion that the whole concept of "natural monopolies" is just a scam to convince people that mercantilism is compatible with a free society if the right people are in charge of it. yeah yeah I know, railroads, standard oil, etc. Still the phrase gets used so much for so many different things I find it suspect. I mean I've seen people say twitter is a natural monopoly and the fucking thing has never even turned a profit.

Of course most of the language regarding markets came from people that hated free markets. I mean the term capitalism reached it's current level of popularity because of Karl Marx, even though it was occasionally used before his writings.
 
I don't want them playing the moral card either, that's how you get "Woke" companies telling consumers they have to be "this" good to buy their services, or not get summarily banned from them for alleged TOS violations from unaccountable moderating robots.

Good point, but I also don't want companies that choose product over quality or skimping their employees from a fair wage while the CEOs get golden parachutes even when the company fails and others may have to find other jobs to support their families or livelihood. That's as "woke" as I want. The rest, you make a good point.
 
For all the flaws, I still think Democratic Capitalism is a better option than Socialist Communism.

Because I'm a big proponent of the "Asshole Theory" of government: assholes will always manage to get into power and act like assholes, so any government should be set up with the full expectation that assholes, not scholars or men of honor, will be running the show.

Capitalism at least limits how much of an asshole you can be or makes it impossible to ever get full control since you'll always be fighting for market share with all the other assholes, Communism lets the assholes own EVERYTHING and imprison anyone they don't like, which is everyone who isn't them, because they're assholes.
 
he didn't even win the popular vote.

Just gonna remind you, Clinton won the popular vote in the entire United States of America by a margin of 2.8 million votes.

This is also, coincidentally, a number VERY close to the margin she won the popular vote in Los Angeles County alone.

Hillary Clinton didn't win the U.S. popular vote. She won the Bay Area popular vote.

You saying "he didn't win the popular vote" demonstrates the whole reason the electoral college exists.

EDIT: So after some quick math, if you combine the vote margins of LA County, San Diego County, Orange, Riverside, Santa Clara and Alameda, you arrive at a popular vote margin of 2.84 million votes.

Let's drive this point home. Hillary's entire popular vote win margin can be tallied in SIX COUNTIES in a single state out of a total of fifty-eight counties in that state alone.
 
Última edición:
Good point, but I also don't want companies that choose product over quality or skimping their employees from a fair wage while the CEOs get golden parachutes even when the company fails and others may have to find other jobs to support their families or livelihood. That's as "woke" as I want. The rest, you make a good point.

Why wouldn't companies do that though? Workers are cheap and numerous. CEO's who bring in record breaking growth are the things you want. Workers are a dime a dozen. Especially if you are using foreign countries for manafacturing. If your quality suffers, then spend more on marketing. It's cheaper than increasing workers wages in the long run. It's all cost benefit analysis and risk management. Remember in the stock market, you are not the customer, you are the consumer. As long as they can fool the majority to stick with them, or monopolize to the point where you have to use them, they are fine.

I mean just look at Apple for example, people line up around the block for phones made by a company that pays people probably five cents an hour an live in dorms next to the factory. They don't give a shit. If they could get away with enslaving people to make them, they would.
 
Última edición:
Good point, but I also don't want companies that choose product over quality or skimping their employees from a fair wage while the CEOs get golden parachutes even when the company fails and others may have to find other jobs to support their families or livelihood. That's as "woke" as I want. The rest, you make a good point.
This is best handled I think by the one good idea Marx had. Workers need to organize so as to better push for their own interests. A company can't exist without consumers or employees.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo