I think we will all be very happy with our new Autobahn.

dajo9;842760149 said:

---

Normally this would be spot on however 2018 is very different. If you look at the Senate races in 2018 there are likely only 2 potential flips to the Dems. That Ywould create a tie and leave the GOP in charge. Meanwhile there are many Dems running in red states who are vulnerable.

In the House, GOP gerrymandering has created an environment where the GOP holds Congress even if people vote for Dems. Such was the case in 2012. I've seen estimates that Dem's would have to win about 58% of the Congressional vote to retake the House. I think it's most likely the GOP holds Congress through 2020.

---

Yes, Congress is pretty much lost for four years. The Democrats need to focus their efforts on winning back state houses and governors' races. That's where they have been getting killed during Obama's administration and why they are so gerrymandered to death now. Win those back so you can rewrite the map in 2020.

Frankly, they should have been doing this all along, but seem to have lost their way after Howard Dean stepped down. I wouldn't necessarily recommend Dean as the new chair (they're probably better off with young blood), but something like his "50 State Strategy" needs to return, and to stay.

Some dynamics I think are being overlooked:

1. 2008 financial meltdown was caused by a credit bubble and financial institutions that could not withstand it. A credit bubble supported by both Dems and Republicans (the repeal of GlassSteagall was supported by both parties and Bill Clinton, who signed it into law). Dems also aggressively pushed for sub-prime mortgages and loose lending, which wall street was only to happy to provide with the help of Fannie/Freddie. It was about this time that Clinton and the Dems started getting a larger share of Wall Street money. Which candidate did Goldman and the rest of Wall Street support? Bottom line is that both parties contributed to the mess in large part because they were (are) beholden to special interests.

2. Trump has many policies that are closer to Democrat than Republican (e.g., infrastructure spending, foreign policy when it comes to wars, trade and social issues). While they can use parliamentary requirements to oppose Trump, Ryan and McConnell will have plenty of incentive to cooperate and compromise. We have already seen that Trump has no problem bashing them and I have no doubt that Trump will reach out to the Dems if need be for votes on infrastructure and other similar issues - keep in mind Schumer and Trump get along (at least privately). Ryan seems to be falling into line already, realizing that the Republicans will get pounded by their own voters if they don't pass legislation this term. That means that they need to work with Trump to pass bills they may not love. Now that they have control, the onus will be on them to produce on multiple policy initiatives. If they don't they will be hammered on all fronts, including the ballot box.

3. In terms of the 2018 mideterms, as others have noted, the dems have an uphill battle for sure based on which senate seats are up for re-election (not many vulnerable republican seats and several dem seats in red states). I think the more interesting question is how do the dems reconstitute themselves? Obviously there will be a generational shift, but what about policy? There seems to be a consensus among the "talking heads and elite" on the left that HRC lost (in part) because she wasn't progressive enough - i.e., that future candidates should be more liberal like Bernie. I'm dubious of this notion, particularly when you consider how those positions trickle down to state-level elections.

4. Will the republicans overreach? Will they learn from Obama's mistake in that regard? I have no idea, but I think the fact that Trump is not a doctrinal republican (far from it) may help, but it is a real risk.

5. I expect Ryan and Trump to make a real effort to reach out to inner city communities, particularly in swing states. This has been a big issue for Ryan (a Jack Kemp protege) and makes good political sense.

dajo9;842759976 said:

---

You bring no predictions to the table. Very brave of you.

I will say, markets went up during constrained demand because the Fed was providing massive liquidity (remember quantitative easing?). The economy is stronger now but not exactly robust. The scenario I described is demand weakness and the Fed removing liquidity.

---

It is hard to make any predictions. Especially in this case.

Trump has been vague (even more than most politicians) about his future policies, which he has said include a massive infrastructure build-out which may face opposition from his own party, cutting taxes and on a few occasions deficit reduction through growth. Its very hard to envision what that actually looks like, other the than maybe the tax cut. There also is a system of checks and balances. Okay, let's say Trump tries to eliminate a bunch of "job killing" regulations, but the courts may have a lot to say about that. For example, a wholesale elimination of environmental regulations may be in violation of statue, and instead require legislative action, which may be subject to filibuster.

The other factor is for better or worse, that the US more than ever is involved in a global economy and national banks (including the FED) that that President and even world leaders do not fully control. . I guess this is a nice academic exercise for academics, but until there is more specificity in what Trump administration will and actually is able to do, and what fiscal policies the national banks are pursuing, this is an exercise in mental masturbation.

BearGoggles;842761102 said:

---

Some dynamics I think are being overlooked:

1. 2008 financial meltdown was caused by a credit bubble and financial institutions that could not withstand it. A credit bubble supported by both Dems and Republicans (the repeal of GlassSteagall was supported by both parties and Bill Clinton, who signed it into law). Dems also aggressively pushed for sub-prime mortgages and loose lending, which wall street was only to happy to provide with the help of Fannie/Freddie. It was about this time that Clinton and the Dems started getting a larger share of Wall Street money. Which candidate did Goldman and the rest of Wall Street support? Bottom line is that both parties contributed to the mess in large part because they were (are) beholden to special interests.

2. Trump has many policies that are closer to Democrat than Republican (e.g., infrastructure spending, foreign policy when it comes to wars, trade and social issues). While they can use parliamentary requirements to oppose Trump, Ryan and McConnell will have plenty of incentive to cooperate and compromise. We have already seen that Trump has no problem bashing them and I have no doubt that Trump will reach out to the Dems if need be for votes on infrastructure and other similar issues - keep in mind Schumer and Trump get along (at least privately). Ryan seems to be falling into line already, realizing that the Republicans will get pounded by their own voters if they don't pass legislation this term. That means that they need to work with Trump to pass bills they may not love. Now that they have control, the onus will be on them to produce on multiple policy initiatives. If they don't they will be hammered on all fronts, including the ballot box.

3. In terms of the 2018 mideterms, as others have noted, the dems have an uphill battle for sure based on which senate seats are up for re-election (not many vulnerable republican seats and several dem seats in red states). I think the more interesting question is how do the dems reconstitute themselves? Obviously there will be a generational shift, but what about policy? There seems to be a consensus among the "talking heads and elite" on the left that HRC lost (in part) because she wasn't progressive enough - i.e., that future candidates should be more liberal like Bernie. I'm dubious of this notion, particularly when you consider how those positions trickle down to state-level elections.

4. Will the republicans overreach? Will they learn from Obama's mistake in that regard? I have no idea, but I think the fact that Trump is not a doctrinal republican (far from it) may help, but it is a real risk.

5. I expect Ryan and Trump to make a real effort to reach out to inner city communities, particularly in swing states. This has been a big issue for Ryan (a Jack Kemp protege) and makes good political sense.

---

From above, #1 misses the point - the bubble and crash were caused by conservative deregulation policy (Clinton's triangulation stuff included) accompanied by income inequality pushing the wealthy to find more assets because they needed good investments
#2 is naive
#3 I agree with - the Democratic Party belongs to the Millenials now. They are big, active, and angry.
#4 The learn from Obama part is funny but
#5 is comedy gold

I don't think Trump is as stupid as we think he it. Bush and Sarah Palin are.

burritos;842761228 said:

---

I don't think Trump is as stupid as we think he it. Bush and Sarah Palin are.

---

Isn't Trump floating the idea of having Palin in his cabinet?

dajo9;842761214 said:

---

From above, #1 misses the point - the bubble and crash were caused by conservative deregulation policy (Clinton's triangulation stuff included) accompanied by income inequality pushing the wealthy to find more assets because they needed good investments
#2 is naive
#3 I agree with - the Democratic Party belongs to the Millenials now. They are big, active, and angry.
#4 The learn from Obama part is funny but
#5 is comedy gold

---

And again, as before, dajo, you ask people to engage then when the going gets tough you denigrate. That is superficially a liberal strategy as old as the New Stanford band. Boring. Usage of "naive", "misses the point", "funny", "comedy gold".....C'mon, speak up and use your big boy words...Goggles has put it out there. You don't like it. We get it. But instead of throwing stones, get some and counter.

sycasey;842761232 said:

---

Isn't Trump floating the idea of having Palin in his cabinet?

---

I believe he suggested that someone needs to serve the coffee.

BeachedBear;842761249 said:

---

I believe he suggested that someone needs to serve the coffee.

---

I thought that was gonna be Chris Christie.

dajo9;842761214 said:

---

From above, #1 misses the point - the bubble and crash were caused by conservative deregulation policy (Clinton's triangulation stuff included) accompanied by income inequality pushing the wealthy to find more assets because they needed good investments
#2 is naive
#3 I agree with - the Democratic Party belongs to the Millenials now. They are big, active, and angry.
#4 The learn from Obama part is funny but
#5 is comedy gold

---

I thought the bubble was caused by Chinese money chasing returns creating an illusory valuation of US RE and the ground beef that made up mortgage backed securities.

None of the above matters if you don't deal with Climate Change. Sad it was only mentioned by one poster.

sycasey;842761253 said:

---

I thought that was gonna be Chris Christie.

---

Did you say serve the coffee or eat the Whitehouse?

BearGoggles;842761102 said:

---

5. I expect Ryan and Trump to make a real effort to reach out to inner city communities, particularly in swing states. This has been a big issue for Ryan (a Jack Kemp protege) and makes good political sense.

---

"Donald Trump is the ultimate Republican repudiation of Jack Kemp’s legacy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/12/donald-trump-is-the-ultimate-republican-repudiation-of-jack-kemps-legacy/

Oh, yeah, Kellyanne Conway is a Jack Kemp protege, too. How did that work out?


By the way, Trump just named a white nationalist as his chief advisor -- the man who has a "Black Crime" tag on his website.

http://www.breitbart.com/tag/black-crime/


Ryan, when talking about the inner cities, has cited Charles Murray, who believes blacks are inferior to whites.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/13/paul_ryan_and_charles_murray.html

Big C_Cal;842760128 said:

---

Trump shrewdly marketed himself as a populist, but some poor slob in Michigan is in for a shock when he finds out that a New York City billionaire is a New York City billionaire is a New York City billionaire.

---

Wall Street was completely behind Hillary, she got something like 100 times the hedge fund industry support and kickbacks in the form of Goldman Sacks mid 6-figures speeches. Some of Trump's harshest critics are other billionaires, like Bloomberg and Cuban. Trump is a 70yr old guy who wants to build a legacy.

burritos;842760051 said:

---

My understanding was that the TPP was an agreement with the other asian countries to keep China in check. I think China is happy that TPP is dead. I don't care one way or the other. Prices going up around the world that keeps consumption in check is actually the best way keep climate change in check.

---

The idea of rooting for deindustrialization in order to stem CO2 production is really perplexing. A lot more people stand to suffer from that and from energy restrictions than from the theoretical effects of climate change at the end of the century.

OdontoBear66;842761234 said:

---

And again, as before, dajo, you ask people to engage then when the going gets tough you denigrate. That is superficially a liberal strategy as old as the New Stanford band. Boring. Usage of "naive", "misses the point", "funny", "comedy gold".....C'mon, speak up and use your big boy words...Goggles has put it out there. You don't like it. We get it. But instead of throwing stones, get some and counter.

---

Stop asking for safe spaces. If Goggles doesn't want me to laugh at him he has to stop posting stupid ish.

But I will retract what I said about #2

OdontoBear66;842761234 said:

---

And again, as before, dajo, you ask people to engage then when the going gets tough you denigrate. That is superficially a liberal strategy as old as the New Stanford band. Boring. Usage of "naive", "misses the point", "funny", "comedy gold".....C'mon, speak up and use your big boy words...Goggles has put it out there. You don't like it. We get it. But instead of throwing stones, get some and counter.

---

Liberal strategy????? Come on Odon......seriously? I don't know what Trump is but I'm pretty sure he's not a liberal. He just ran a campaign full of hate, bigotry and name calling. He just appointed an avowed racist in Bannon to his leadership team. You accuse Dajo of name calling when we just experienced the worst bout of name calling ever in a presidential election, mostly emanating from the Trump side.

Cal88;842761271 said:

---

Wall Street was completely behind Hillary, she got something like 100 times the hedge fund industry support and kickbacks in the form of Goldman Sacks mid 6-figures speeches. Some of Trump's harshest critics are other billionaires, like Bloomberg and Cuban. Trump is a 70yr old guy who wants to build a legacy.




The idea of rooting for deindustrialization in order to stem CO2 production is really perplexing. A lot more people stand to suffer from that and from energy restrictions than from the theoretical effects of climate change at the end of the century.

---

I'm not rooting for de-industrialization, it's just an observation. If the doomsday predictions of climate change do come to fruition, it just mother nature's way of keeping in check the smart and spoiled cohort of her children. I don't want to others to suffer, but I realized I have minimal impact on this course of history.

OdontoBear66;842761234 said:

---

And again, as before, dajo, you ask people to engage then when the going gets tough you denigrate. That is superficially a liberal strategy as old as the New Stanford band. Boring. Usage of "naive", "misses the point", "funny", "comedy gold".....C'mon, speak up and use your big boy words...Goggles has put it out there. You don't like it. We get it. But instead of throwing stones, get some and counter.

---

After this election, there is now absolutely nothing more tiresome than Republicans and conservatives complaining about liberals not being "civil" enough with their language when addressing conservatives.

Guess what folks: THE COUNTRY JUST ELECTED TRUMP. Liberals didn't do it. Conservatives did. When Trump is your party's standard-bearer, you've lost all claim to civility. This is a man who literally spent his entire campaign insulting people. Not just his Democratic opponent, everyone. If you want to complain about civility, don't start with liberals. Speak out against those within your own ranks who seem to either like Trump's behavior or have accepted and normalized it.

sycasey;842761379 said:

---

After this election, there is now absolutely nothing more tiresome than Republicans and conservatives complaining about liberals not being "civil" enough with their language when addressing conservatives.

Guess what folks: THE COUNTRY JUST ELECTED TRUMP. Liberals didn't do it. Conservatives did. When Trump is your party's standard-bearer, you've lost all claim to civility. This is a man who literally spent his entire campaign insulting people. Not just his Democratic opponent, everyone. If you want to complain about civility, don't start with liberals. Speak out against those within your own ranks who seem to either like Trump's behavior or have accepted and normalized it.

---

Thank you.

sycasey;842761379 said:

---

After this election, there is now absolutely nothing more tiresome than Republicans and conservatives complaining about liberals not being "civil" enough with their language when addressing conservatives.

Guess what folks: THE COUNTRY JUST ELECTED TRUMP. Liberals didn't do it. Conservatives did. When Trump is your party's standard-bearer, you've lost all claim to civility. This is a man who literally spent his entire campaign insulting people. Not just his Democratic opponent, everyone. If you want to complain about civility, don't start with liberals. Speak out against those within your own ranks who seem to either like Trump's behavior or have accepted and normalized it.

---

I agree with the sentiment that the responsibility for a lot this falls with the republican party. They allowed him to rise and that was mostly in part due to their rash of incompetence in their party over the past decade or so.

However, I firmly believe that the responsibility of this election is due to a complete failure of strategy in Clinton's camp. They attacked Trump's character of which everyone already knew that he doesnt have character and this was a trap. It became a game of who is the bigger villain because in my opinion there's no denying that both are villains and its up for debate in terms who is actually the worse person. They let him in this by running such a negative campaign against him instead of focusing on the issues and Trump's camp got the last punch in because of the reopening of the email scandal just prior to the election. It simply became of game of who had the ball last. Her camp never learned from the republican primaries where Cruz, Rubio etc lost by attacking trumps character. People had already proven that they didnt care about his character, so it was a waste of time to attack him in that manner as the primary strategy.

the reason why i think people should accept this election. the incompetence of the democratic party. they absolutely deserved to lose

Trump is the least Civil Candidate since at least 1900. He is more civil than those campaigning for Jefferson and Adams, though.

gobears725;842761465 said:

---

I agree with the sentiment that the responsibility for a lot this falls with the republican party. They allowed him to rise and that was mostly in part due to their rash of incompetence in their party over the past decade or so.

However, I firmly believe that the responsibility of this election is due to a complete failure of strategy in Clinton's camp. They attacked Trump's character of which everyone already knew that he doesnt have character and this was a trap. It became a game of who is the bigger villain because in my opinion there's no denying that both are villains and its up for debate in terms who is actually the worse person. They let him in this by running such a negative campaign against him instead of focusing on the issues and Trump's camp got the last punch in because of the reopening of the email scandal just prior to the election. It simply became of game of who had the ball last. Her camp never learned from the republican primaries where Cruz, Rubio etc lost by attacking trumps character. People had already proven that they didnt care about his character, so it was a waste of time to attack him in that manner as the primary strategy.

the reason why i think people should accept this election. the incompetence of the democratic party. they absolutely deserved to lose

---

I mean, if we want to talk about who is "responsible" for this campaign, how about Trump actively running on a white nationalist platform (don't tell me he wasn't, when the Breitbart News guy was one of his chief advisors)? He set the tone in the first place. Might it have been a strategic error for the Clinton campaign to "go negative" with him? Yes, probably. Personally, I think their biggest error was ignoring the Upper Midwest where they lost huge ground from the Obama elections and focusing on "stretch goals" like Arizona.

But we're not talking about campaign strategy. We're talking about civility. And conservatives do not have a leg to stand on when asking for civility, not when Trump is now the leader of your party.

sycasey;842761471 said:

---

I mean, if we want to talk about who is "responsible" for this campaign, how about Trump actively running on a white nationalist platform (don't tell me he wasn't, when the Breitbart News guy was one of his chief advisors)? He set the tone in the first place. Might it have been a strategic error for the Clinton campaign to "go negative" with him? Yes, probably. Personally, I think their biggest error was ignoring the Upper Midwest where they lost huge ground from the Obama elections and focusing on "stretch goals" like Arizona.

But we're not talking about campaign strategy. We're talking about civility. And conservatives do not have a leg to stand on when asking for civility, not when Trump is now the leader of your party.

---

I agree. I think civility occurs with democrats if they sit back and examine why their party lost, not because republicans ask for it. However, if the mentality of liberal minded people is to continue to attack instead of figuring out how to advance their issues, then I think that they will be sorely disappointed in how people are willing to work with them. These protests simply make the party look petty and like sore losers.

The Election. If the article in the USA today is true, we are also talking about cowering and quailing by academics over AN ELECTION. Adult professors at major universities. Canceling classes because the faculty and students "are distraught." Seriously? I get the protesting. But cancelling classes? Having therapy dogs at Kansas and some help for the distraught at the Univ Michigan law school? Neither political party should want those "victims" among their number. Anyone who needs this sort of therapy is not mature enough to vote, drink or drive a car.

sycasey;842761471 said:

---

I mean, if we want to talk about who is "responsible" for this campaign, how about Trump actively running on a white nationalist platform (don't tell me he wasn't, when the Breitbart News guy was one of his chief advisors)? He set the tone in the first place. Might it have been a strategic error for the Clinton campaign to "go negative" with him? Yes, probably. Personally, I think their biggest error was ignoring the Upper Midwest where they lost huge ground from the Obama elections and focusing on "stretch goals" like Arizona.

But we're not talking about campaign strategy. We're talking about civility. And conservatives do not have a leg to stand on when asking for civility, not when Trump is now the leader of your party.

---

It was mostly about turnout and lack of enthusiasm for Hillary.

Trump and Romney have nearly identical shares of the electorate

47.2% for Romney

47.28% for Trump (which may go down when all the California ballots are counted.)

vs.

51.1% for Obama

47.81% for Hillary

The flyover states that rebelled against the Washington elites just elected a bunch of NYC elites to run their country. I'll be ok at least.

Cal88;842761271 said:

---

Wall Street was completely behind Hillary, she got something like 100 times the hedge fund industry support and kickbacks in the form of Goldman Sacks mid 6-figures speeches. Some of Trump's harshest critics are other billionaires, like Bloomberg and Cuban. Trump is a 70yr old guy who wants to build a legacy.




The idea of rooting for deindustrialization in order to stem CO2 production is really perplexing. A lot more people stand to suffer from that and from energy restrictions than from the theoretical effects of climate change at the end of the century.

---

Not all NYC billionaires are Wall Street billionaires. It was amazing jiu-jitsu on Trump's part to get the non-urban working class to think he's their savior, I will admit. However, I am trying to think what he's going to do to help, in the long-term, some guy in Michigan or Pennsylvania and I'm coming up blank. Slapping some tarifs on imports and reopening a few coal mines isn't going to last even one election cycle. Nor will building that wall.

Big C_Cal;842761482 said:

---

Not all NYC billionaires are Wall Street billionaires. It was amazing jiu-jitsu on Trumps part to get the non-urban working class to think he's their savior, I will admit. However, I am trying to think what he's going to do to help, in the long-term, some guy in Michigan or Pennsylvania and I'm coming up blank. Slapping some tarifs on imports and reopening a few coal mines isn't going to last even one election cycle. Nor will building that wall.

---

Maybe Trump promised some of these Michigan and Pennsylvania folks jobs building the wall. That should last an election cycle or two.

NYCGOBEARS;842761481 said:

---

The flyover states that rebelled against the Washington elites just elected a bunch of NYC elites to run their country. I'll be ok at least.

---

Basically they just fell for a big con. A New York City billionaire running as an economic populist? You've been had, America.

All you liberals can pick up your participation trophies as you exit.

GUNNERMATE;842761494 said:

---

All you liberals can pick up your participation trophies as you exit.

---

Sorry, did you need a safe space? We'll show ourselves out.

GUNNERMATE;842761494 said:

---

All you liberals can pick up your participation trophies as you exit.

---

The participation prize was weed, right?

NYCGOBEARS;842761504 said:

---

The participation prize was weed, right?

---

At least with weed, everyone on both sides would mellow out.

As a democrat (old school, not this new version), I managed to see what could of attracted working class voters to 'the donald'. Even with all the idiotic things he says, he promised to repeal NAFTA and bring back jobs to the rust belt. EVEN if he doesn't do it, he's saying what people want to hear, which is more than the DNC did. I mean...guys...Unions are wanting to work with Trump. The Democratic party USE to be the party of unions in the 80s. Overhaul the DNC..they failed to listen to their constituents. Start adopting a platform of workers rights and trade protections. This country has been riding globalization so hard and so fast that we never thought about the long term impact it was going to have. Or ...the DNC can continue ignoring the problems and wonder why they keep losing elections..while yelling "popular vote, electoral college sucks"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/11/10/uaw-united-auto-workers-donald-trump-nafta-north-american-free-trade-agreement/93600032/