Election predictions

Clinton

9 (69.2%)

Trump

4 (30.8%)

Hung college

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[James Clark]

No question it was rigged, Robert. People in just about every "swing" state were pushing the Trump button and having the ballot show a vote for Hillary.

Those newfangled voting machines are hard for old folks to manage - I get.

[thierrylegros396]

The real winner is "Dictatorship of Money".

And if Hillary had won, the real winner would have been the same !

[pegelli]

When Obama came in office 8 years ago there was a great hope and expectation for "change", 8 years later the reality is a lot less was achieved then was hoped for.

Now Donald Trump comes into office and again there's high hopes for change (albeit a different kind of change), let's see in 4 and 8 years how it turns out.

I don't think there will be too much disaster and shock despite some negative reactions around the world, even the stock markets and the dollar are picking up, so I think we're pretty soon back to business as usual.

[RSL]

We're not quite back to business as usual, Pieter. There'll be a huge fight over the Supreme Court vacancy, and I'd expect at least one more vacancy before long. The future of the Court is far more important than who's president for the next four years. We just saved the US from becoming Europeanized and becoming unable to prop up Europe. That may save Western civilization for a few more years, but unless westerners get into bed and start producing more children the salvation will be short-lived.

[pegelli]

I agree the supreme court is hugely important, but don't you think the "fight" for the next available seats have become easier? With the republicans having the presidency, the house and the senate it would seem it's easier to get a candidate accepted. Or am I missing something?

And btw, we did our job, we have 3 kids but are currently and in the future unable to produce more 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I know. All those liberal militias, just lining up to plant IEDs 'n' shit

As I said:

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/11/09/anti-trump-protests-break-los-angeles-seattle/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[RSL]

I agree the supreme court is hugely important, but don't you think the "fight" for the next available seats have become easier? With the republicans having the presidency, the house and the senate it would seem it's easier to get a candidate accepted. Or am I missing something?

The problem's going to be the filibuster. The Republicans were able to stop a vote on Obama's Supreme Court pick by refusing to bring the matter up on the Senate floor. But once they bring up Trump's appointee the Democrats probably will filibuster. They have enough votes in the Senate to stop confirmation of an appointee cold. Then the Senate Majority Leader is going to be faced with a dilemma.

He could do what Harry Reid did and change the rules to eliminate the filibuster. Reid eliminated it for confirmation of judges below the Supreme Court, but supposedly left it in place for the Supremes. If McConnell (assuming he's still majority leader) eliminates the filibuster for the Supremes there's going to be a gigantic outcry from the people who were just fine with Harry's change. I doubt McConnell has the guts to do it.

He could punt and wait for a different appointee. That could go on for four years.

Or, he could change the rules so the guy doing a filibuster actually has to stand up and talk. That's the way it used to be, but the Democrats managed to get the rules changed so a vote of three-fifths of the Senate can enforce a filibuster without anybody having to stand up with a motorman's helper strapped on and talk for a couple days.

It's gonna be an interesting two years until the next election for Congress. The Republicans had better hit the floor running.

[pegelli]

Thanks for the explanation of these filibuster subtleties, although it doesn't seem to be a subtle process.

The problem with changing the rules is that the next time it can be used against you. When the democrats are back in power (one day it will happen) t hey could do the same back.

So it might actually be better to find a candidate that's acceptable for both sides but given the current climate that's not an easy task. 

[RSL]

You're absolutely right, Pieter. Eliminating the filibuster can come back and bite you. The Democrats are going to find that out during confirmations of lower federal judges now that a Republican is in the White House. On the other hand, it's very clear that had the Democrats been in the majority after Scalia died, Harry Reid would quickly have done away with the filibuster for the Supremes. If I were McConnell at this point I'd have a hard time deciding whether to punt or run. On the other hand, making the change I suggested would cut way down on filibusters. It ain't easy to stand up there and talk for days. And I don't think they're going to be able to find a candidate acceptable to both sides. I'm glad I'm not McConnell.

[Telecaster]

Given that my basic attitude toward politics is one of contempt, I tuned out this whole farrago months ago. In fact I took myself off-continent to get even further away from it. (I can currently see from my hotel room window a pod of dolphins frolicking no more than 70–80 meters off-shore. I'd get up and grab my camera but really I'd rather just keep watching.) Culture warrior circle-jerking is not a pretty sight.

IMO the one thing the US right gets that the left does not is Islamism. That is, fundamentalist political Islam. Takes one to know one. Mind you, I have little confidence in their capability to develop a rational strategy for dealing with it. But maybe there are some cooler, more analytical heads there that I'm unaware of. We shall see…

And that concludes my comments on US politics. Off to the beach! 

-Dave-

[Alan Klein]

I agree the supreme court is hugely important, but don't you think the "fight" for the next available seats have become easier? With the republicans having the presidency, the house and the senate it would seem it's easier to get a candidate accepted. Or am I missing something?

And btw, we did our job, we have 3 kids but are currently and in the future unable to produce more 

Fortunately, only filibusters in the Senate are what the President has to deal with when appointing Supreme Court justices.    Constitutionally, only the the Senate provides "advice and consent."  Like international treaties, the House of Representatives is not involved.

[Zorki5]

I can currently see from my hotel room window a pod of dolphins frolicking no more than 70–80 meters off-shore.

...

Off to the beach! 

Lucky you! Looking from my window in Moscow, I almost expect to see frolicking penguins.

Come on, weather, it's not even winter, goddamnit!

Maybe Trump bailing our of Paris Agreement will help things a bit... He's our last hope 

[RSL]

Fortunately, only filibusters in the Senate are what the President has to deal with when appointing Supreme Court justices.    Constitutionally, only the the Senate provides "advice and consent."  Like international treaties, the House of Representatives is not involved.

Thanks, Alan, for pointing that out. I sometimes forget that most people, especially outside the US don't know the ins and outs of the Constitution. I think Pieter is more informed than most, and I forgot to point out that the whole thing hinges on the Senate.

[N80]

I'm a conservative. Very very conservative. And pretty well versed in the political history and political science of conservatism in the US. I have developed my views over many years of reading, studying and observing. I'm not going to claim that I'm right about everything, but I have done my homework in regard to my world view.

Having said that, I did not and would not ever vote for Trump. I think he is a 'deplorable' person. I think he has a measurable lack of character. Most people who voted for him will agree. But we seem to be missing the implication here............he was more attractive as a candidate than Hillary Clinton. This speaks volumes about her character and the people she has surrounded herself with for decades. Her's is a sordid history of corruption, cover ups, unbridled pragmatism, unbridled nepotism and self interest..............and she was beaten by this petty little liar of a man. THAT is an indictment of HER.

But the real big story here is one of two parties who did not recognize their constituencies. The middle/working class was forgotten by the Democrats who spent so much time focusing on the fringes like transgender bathroom issues and extremes (at least for the US ) of socialism. The Old Republicans never even knew these same people were feeling disenfranchised and ignored by the Democrats who historically fought for them. Trump appealed to them even as the GOP was rejecting Trump. Unbelievable. Well, that is the group that spoke the loudest last night. Their mandate is change. The liberal left ignored them too long, the blinkered rank and file right only got them because of Trump brought them with him.

The other referendum: Obamacare. America has spoken. It was ineffective and steeped in socialist agenda. It is failing on its own accord (I've witnessed it first hand as a physician and how it has harmed whole communities. Feel free to email if you're interested in a first hand example.) The ACA polarized Americans and they have now rejected it. Can the Republicans get rid of it? Probably not. Can they hobble it indefinitely? Probably. But even that may be too little too late for the harm the ACA has done to medicine in the US. (You would be shocked to know the extent to which Clinton cronies have inserted themselves into the bureaucracy of the ACA and have made millions of dollars in personal wealth in doing so. Again, P.M. me if you are interested in this sordid chapter in the history of US medicine.)

[RSL]

Given that my basic attitude toward politics is one of contempt. . .
-Dave-

Hi Dave, Here's some advice I gave my kids and grandkids. I won't charge you for it: ". . .though you may not be interested in politics, politics is always interested in you." It's worth keeping that in mind.

[mecrox]

When Obama came in office 8 years ago there was a great hope and expectation for "change", 8 years later the reality is a lot less was achieved then was hoped for.

Now Donald Trump comes into office and again there's high hopes for change (albeit a different kind of change), let's see in 4 and 8 years how it turns out.

I don't think there will be too much disaster and shock despite some negative reactions around the world, even the stock markets and the dollar are picking up, so I think we're pretty soon back to business as usual.

Good point. Four years can pass in a flash for any of us: unexpected events take over, your opponents wear you down, snafus have to be rectified, etc, etc. It's hard to get much done in such a short time. Perhaps one can't do much more than pick the very best people one can to run the key policy areas and let them get in with it. That was Reagan's secret, I think. Remember his election all those years ago? I do. Same wailing and moaning but it all worked out OK and no one crashed the economy or the world. Nothing repeats in exactly the same way but let's look on the brighter side of life. Talking of which I going to spend all day tomorrow doing what I love which is taking photographs.

[James Clark]

I'm a conservative. Very very conservative. And pretty well versed in the political history and political science of conservatism in the US. I have developed my views over many years of reading, studying and observing. I'm not going to claim that I'm right about everything, but I have done my homework in regard to my world view.

Having said that, I did not and would not ever vote for Trump. I think he is a 'deplorable' person. I think he has a measurable lack of character. Most people who voted for him will agree. But we seem to be missing the implication here............he was more attractive as a candidate than Hillary Clinton. This speaks volumes about her character and the people she has surrounded herself with for decades. Her's is a sordid history of corruption, cover ups, unbridled pragmatism, unbridled nepotism and self interest..............and she was beaten by this petty little liar of a man. THAT is an indictment of HER.

But the real big story here is one of two parties who did not recognize their constituencies. The middle/working class was forgotten by the Democrats who spent so much time focusing on the fringes like transgender bathroom issues and extremes (at least for the US ) of socialism. The Old Republicans never even knew these same people were feeling disenfranchised and ignored by the Democrats who historically fought for them. Trump appealed to them even as the GOP was rejecting Trump. Unbelievable. Well, that is the group that spoke the loudest last night. Their mandate is change. The liberal left ignored them too long, the blinkered rank and file right only got them because of Trump brought them with him.

The other referendum: Obamacare. America has spoken. It was ineffective and steeped in socialist agenda. It is failing on its own accord (I've witnessed it first hand as a physician and how it has harmed whole communities. Feel free to email if you're interested in a first hand example.) The ACA polarized Americans and they have now rejected it. Can the Republicans get rid of it? Probably not. Can they hobble it indefinitely? Probably. But even that may be too little too late for the harm the ACA has done to medicine in the US. (You would be shocked to know the extent to which Clinton cronies have inserted themselves into the bureaucracy of the ACA and have made millions of dollars in personal wealth in doing so. Again, P.M. me if you are interested in this sordid chapter in the history of US medicine.)

I'd be careful about assuming a conservative mandate when the popular vote isn't reflective of the electoral outcome.

Besides, on things like Obamacare, people are pretty fond of things like having their preexisting conditions covered and a lack of lifetime benefit caps, not to mention extend coverage for their sons and daughters.  (While I'm not a physician, I am an employer and have dealt with this stuff for over 15 years now, so I have a decent perspective on the way plans have transitioned and what people like/want.)

I'll concede that the implementation has been somewhat borked, and no doubt there have been winners and losers, but the law has done a lot of good for a lot of people that would otherwise lack insurance, and let's not ignore the fact that at least some portion of the lack of success has been due to deliberate efforts to undermine the uptake.

Ideally, now that they pretty much have carte blanche, hopefully they're smart enough not to gut it altogether, but to replace it with a market-driven solution that still has allowances for the aforementioned protections that actually help people. 

All that said, I think your analysis of what happened is pretty spot-on, with the exception that you're excusing the fact that HRC's shortcomings as a candidate were grossly amplified by the right wing sound machine (which isn't to excuse in turn the very real shortcomings she does have).  And I'd list "unbridled pragmatism" as an asset, not a shortcoming

[Telecaster]

". . .though you may not be interested in politics, politics is always interested in you."

Sounds to me more like a threat than anything helpful. You can tell politics to keep its interest to itself.

Edit: this brings up a broader issue I've been thinking about for over 30 years now. Namely that I see us as living in a time of decadence, moral and cultural. Trump and Clinton both are current expressions of this. By "decadence" I mean that the values we claim to respect & live by and those we do respect & live by are not the same. "Political correctness" is another expression of it: the overconcern with what people say and underconcern with what they do. And another example: if Trump, essentially pagan in his outlook and conduct, has done anything good thus far in his political life it's been to expose the Christian right, via its enthusiastic support for him, as a collective of spiritually hollow nationalists fronted by a veneer of religiosity. That is to say, decadent.

IMO this goes back at least as far as the Vietnam War, with its vast disconnect between stated goals and actual conduct.

When I say I'm contemptuous of politics, it's politics played on this particular debased field I'm talking about. A more honest politics with a recovered moral compass, one less driven by rhetoric & emotion and more informed by data & rational analysis…I'd be down with that.

I could write much more, but for here this is plenty. Over and out.

-Dave-

[Alan Klein]

I disagree Trump does not have a mandate.  A win is a win.  The people have given the Republicans control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives just like they gave the Democrats the same in 2008.  Obama and a democrat Congress ran with it and created Obamacare with only the votes of the Democrats.  They wrote the whole thing and passed the legislation unilaterally so you cannot blame the Republicans for obstruction.  The Republicans were not even invited to help construct it or even sit in meetings when the law was discussed.  They were locked out of the meeting rooms.  Not one republican vote was given.  The democrats own it completely.  If it a mess, and it is, it's the Democrats fault.

So now the Republicans have the ability to correct Obamacare or do whatever.  Let's hope they do the right thing for the people.  Obamacare is a mess and has to be eliminated or corrected.  Single payer will break the bank.  Market forces have to be a big part of it.  Until the user of the service is paying for most of it directly, there will be no slow down on the use of services as long as the user feels it's being passed along to someone else. 

[Chris Calohan]

The problem with the insurers having a stake in the policy decision making is the same issue we've had with them for years. They have a single-directed end goal: to make as much money as they possibly can. The idea that Trump can force them to lower their costs as people cross state lines is absolutely ludicrous. If he repeals Obamacare without a SOUND plan in place, 20 million people are going to be suddenly uninsured. Then, our hospital emergency rooms become family doctors. Who pays for this? Trump...oh Hell no,  the taxpayer covers that burden, hospital costs rise, and we're back to square one. I'm on Medicare and a supplement so it doesn't really affect me, but my son depends on his Obamacare package. Sucks for him.