===The Outcome of the 2016 Election===
Donald Trump ran and won because he made his supporters believe he was a transformative figure who would enact sweeping changes to national policy once in office. He's not and he won't, and that will ultimately be his downfall, and that of his party. Why? Because Trump is the most unpopular incoming President since they bothered to poll for that. He lost the popular vote by the widest Margin in 140 years (second only to Rutherford Hayes, third if you count John Quincy Adams). He's already facing defections from within the Republican party (Senators Paul, McCain and Graham alone give a majority in the Senate to block any of his more egregious nominees), and the Democrats have enough votes to filibuster basically whatever they want. In short he has no mandate to effect tranformative change, and without that his supporters will be quick to turn on him.
===The Economy in 2017-2018===
The US economy will have gone 8 years without a recession by the summer of 2017. The gap between recessions has never exceeded 10 years and that was the gap between the early 90s recession and the Dot Com Crash, which was the longest period of economic expansion in US history. Most gaps last between 3-6 years. I think its fair to say that the recovery from the Great Recession is more comparable to the one that occurred under Reagan which led to the lite, but still painful Early 90s Recession. So we're due for another short, but painful recession: the Late 2010s Recession. Like all recessions this will be a product of the business cycle, while the crash that kicks the whole thing off probably engaged from either non-performing student loans or car loans, but in the end those are the two industries that will be hit the hardest domestically. It will likely last no more than 11 months, unemployment will peak below 8%, but remain above 5% for at least another year. The contracting in effective demand in the US will hurt manufacturers most of all despite whatever protectionist policies Trump tries to pass, because the crash of those two industries will lead to a lot of defaults on debt from younger Americans, leading to a contraction on new car purchases by the generations that are still buying cars as the baby boomers retire. It will eventually impact the housing market, but the real impact won't be felt until the Big crash around the end of the 2020s. So, you have a situation where the Auto Industry, dealerships, and private colleges will be collapsing due to loans to people who couldn't afford them (sound familiar?) In all likelihood those Midwestern Democrats will benefit the most from the crash of the auto industry under Republican rule, while the ripple effect will put Republicans in a bind nation-wide as pissed off 20-30 somethings come out to vote and Trump's working class supporters (feeling burned) will turn on the Republicans much as they turned on Obama for not delivering all he promised in 18 months.
The Democrats have two distinct advantages for the 2018 Senate race, the first being that most of their candidates up for re-election are popular incumbents, and the second being the likelihood of a recession in late 2017.
Amy Klobuchar, Bill Nelson, Ben Cardin, Bob Casey, Bob Menendez, Chris Murphy, Claire McCaskill, Debbie Stabenow, Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Manchin, Kristen Gillibrand, Maria Cantwell, Martin Heinrich, Mazie Hirono, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tammy Baldwin, Tim Kaine, and Tom Carper are all candidates that have won their previous races by comfortable margins and can be considered "safe" seats for 2018. The only Dems that could be in trouble are Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, John Tester, Sherrod Brown, all of which are from states Trump carried or barely held onto their seats in their last race.
As for the Republicans, the safe seats are: Bob Corker, Deb Fischer, John Barrasso, Orrin Hatch, Roger Wicker, and Ted Cruz, while Dean Heller and Jeff Flake never won majorities in states Trump either lost or barely won. So realistically we have 6 competitive races with 2 Republicans and 4 Democrats up for grabs. Best case scenario for the Republicans is that they get to a 56 seat majority. However, I think its more likely that as a referendum on Trump's administration, the Democrats are more likely to pick up those 2 Republican seats, and bring the Senate to a 50-50 tie, kept in Republican control only by Vice President Pence's vote.
By 2020 the Democrats stand a real chance of taking back the Senate, particularly in North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado if they can build on the momentum against Trump from 2018.
I still haven't done my homework on the House, but if 2010 was any guide, don't be surprised if Nancy Pelosi is Speaker in 2019. A Popular Democrat for 2020 could very well put the Dems over the top.
Democrats have three fronts to battle for 2020 that Trump will have a hard time defending and the country is in sorely need of: Redistricting, National Popular Vote, and Ranked Choice voting.
===National Popular Vote===
This has been my axe to grind to years, so I may be looking at the likelihood of at least declawing the electoral college with rose tinted glasses, but hear me out. Personally, I don't like the idea of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, it just feels like a cop out. But its history reveals a truth many Democrats have been unable to see as they sulk from the depression that follows a soul cleaving defeat: the National popular Vote compact has made it out of committee or been voted on in 31 states. It's only passed in 9 states and DC, but the fact is that this isn't a measure that's been rejected out of hand, and the political will to get it voted on exists. And if you have that, it is indeed possible to push for a change. It takes 2/3 of the states to amend the constitution those 31 states who've considered NPVIC are just 3 shy of what you need. This is a fight the Democrats would be wise to show up for.
===Ranked Choice Voting===
In 2016 13 states saw neither candidate gain a majority, and most were swing states. Maine was one of those states, and they (having suffered under a governor who lost the popular vote in both elections) took action in 2016 by adopting Ranked Choice Voting. Democrats would do well to push for this nationally, first in strongholds where easy wins could build momentum, followed by the states where a candidate who failed to win a majority of the vote won all of their electoral votes. Other attempts can be made in states where RCV is in place in some cases at the local level and a positive test case can be referenced to push for state-wide adoption.
Currently the Federal and Supreme courts have weighed in on Gerrymandering in North Carolina and Wisconsin and determined that their efforts to redraw districts to benefit one party over the other is unconstitutional. Texas, Maryland, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana are home to some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country, so court decisions in those states before 2018 resulting from the Supreme court decision won't be unlikely (think of it as you would the results of the court's gay marriage ruling).
Anyway, I was wondering if you could do a map where Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Japanese Empire untie their seperate empires into one giant country.
But hey, I want to believe.
Secondly voter ID laws only serve to limit the elderly and the poor from voting, because unless you are also willing to issue National ID Cards (which I personally have no problem with) most people have to US their drivers' license. It also disproportionately impacts minority voters who tend to not be as well off as their white counterparts.
As for your "cheating" assertion, the only recorded instance of voter fraud in this election came from a Trump voter who tried to vote twice in Iowa. In fact it looks like the only places where the numbers could have been skewed were in Wisconsin and Michigan, who use these electronic voting machines that occasionally count votes multiple times do to software glitches, but even that only resulted in around a 5% error in the final count (which might have flipped those two states, but it wouldn't have stopped Trump from winning an electoral majority. Pennsylvania's had some reports of tampered voting machines, but so far nothing concrete has been confirmed).
Here's some valid forms of ID for voting, picked from various states:
- Property tax statement of the voter’s residence
- Any mailing to the voter marked “Official Election Material.”
- Current utility bill or copy thereof dated within 90 days before the election
- Bank or other financial account statement, or legible copy thereof
- Certified birth certificate
- Valid Social Security card
- Check issued by the state or federal government or legible copy thereof
- Paycheck from the voter’s employer, or legible copy thereof
Every modern citizen should have at least one of these documents; moreover, there is no reasonable barrier to anybody gaining a valid form of identification.
Here's an article about a case concerning such ids: www.heritage.org/research/repo…
You say that, but she lost. It’s not like your claims have been right in the past. The bill is going up for a vote on the first day of Trump’s administration. You’d have to be insane to deny it.
1. Most of the appointments Trump has already announced have been mostly met with enthusiasm among Republicans (Mattis, for instance, is sure to be a shoe-in for SecDef). Here's a question to ask: in a party that chased away Boehner and almost chased away McConnell, why would any of these men risk their seats or positions in the Senate by opposing their own party?
Furthermore, are you aware that the nuke option is in play, courtesy of Harry Reid?
Finally, Trump doesn't really need Congressional action to execute even his more controversial moves. For instance, regarding immigration: all he has to do is increase the size of ICE and then enforce the law; the law that says illegal immigrants have to be deported.
2. Here's my problem with this: we haven't really recovered from the recession that Obama rode into power on. The economy has grown at about 1% for the past few years and our unemployment numbers may not be very...honest.
Another problem here is that you assume people turned on Obama in 2010 because of economics. I can't really deny it may have been a factor, but the real issue that killed Democratic power in Congress was Obamacare and the high-handed way it was passed and then implemented. Now, six years later and premiums are going up by up to 60%.
3. Nancy Pelosi will only stop being the Democratic Leader in the House when a hearse pulls up outside her office. Moreover, she has been leader for the past, what, 10 or 12 years? In that time, she was speaker for perhaps four. How well have the Democrats done in that time?
The signs coming out of this election are that many Democrats are doubling down on the factors that drove people away from them. And now they're adding "attempting to subvert American democratic order" to the list.
4. National Popular Vote: I'm going to be blunt here: I don't think many people care that much about this. The Democrats don't even care about it: in 2004, Barbara Boxer attempted to use it as a club to try and undermine George W. Bush's reelection. Now it's a convenient tool to beat on Trump with; if Hillary had won, there would be no questioning the Electoral College that would have formally elected her.
5. Ranked Choice: I have not really experienced this, so I don't feel I can comment on it adequately. That being said--again--people don't really care that much. The current system pretty much worked.
Also, I'm not sure why you keep talking about either candidate not getting a majority in these states, since obviously one candidate got more votes than the other. Are you saying that elections have to be more lopsided for democracy to function?
6. Redistricting: This is assuming that a lawsuit in those states is forthcoming, and that indeed they are unconstitutional. I admit I don't know the law and I haven't read about those cases you mentioned, but would the circumstances in, say, Ohio be the same as those in North Carolina or Wisconsin? A Supreme Court, with a new appointee fresh to the bench, may not act as you think they might.
I am torn between letting them just stew in the miasma of their making or helping them see the truth, after the hell we have been through for the past eight years!
I'm afraid he may just turn is back on us and say we are deplorable and irredeemable because we don't agree with their ideas or worse come up to us and glare hatefully, like our president has been in the habit of doing to Putin...yes Mister Obama very classy, very diplomatic......
I like a good conversation and don't mind being told I'm wrong in a reasonable argument.
I don't believe any body is irredeemable...
I know that Trump will be one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, in a time the United States needs him, with an indomitable legacy that will last as he undoes the madness and I will be there to help my friends to stand on their own legs and walk and run!
I want to be patriotic, proud and celebrate my country and wish everyone everywhere....
You'll notice the pin for "Tomorrowland" is a great big capital "T"! Touch it see the future! Have you're dreams come true!
In golden fields....its what the internet used to be....
Hyperbole? Indeed, agreed.
Rude is being told by our out of touch political class of America that its citizens are "deplorable and irredeemable." Even Christians don't believe that!
That no there is "no hope" as expressed by the first lady after eight years of stagnant economic development, unless you live in the well funded privileged seven or eight zip codes( I will never understand why protester demanding social justice don't protest there), living off government graft, or living on the east or west coast in a major liberal mecca sipping a latte.
Thank God for the electoral college, otherwise we would never see those who rule us!
They would be in Hollywood, sipping Lattes!