Would we really be better off under President Clinton?

[Danny Bateman]

Thread's exactly what it sounds like. Let's say Trump doesn't win and Clinton eeks out a victory instead. All things being equal the margin was so slim in such a small handful of states it would have had only a small effect on the composition of Congress.

 

I'm not so sure things would be that much better. At least when you take the long view and consider what happens to Congress during that time and the subsequent GOP governance in 2020 or 2024 with a bigger majority.

 

How do you think things would be different? Would they be better, worse or pretty much the same?

[huKSer]

I didn't like either so I voted for someone else.  

 

I feel that Clinton is the Democratic equivalent to Nixon.  And probably the same results

 

Trump at least tweets his dirty laundry

[Moiraine]

I don't know. The damages to the environment are kind of hard to see, especially this soon. Just read today that he is trying to subsidize coal and nuclear power.
The same goes with the relationships we have with our allies and the rest of the world.

 

Those are 2 things I can safely say would have been much better with Clinton, but they're more long-term things. We haven't seen the repercussions yet, and probably won't until they can be blamed on the Democrats. Another one is the tax decreases and increased spending combined. I think that's going to end up being pretty bad. Then add to that some of the deregulation, especially of banks.

 

I realize from your post you're thinking more of how it would have riled up the GOP, and I get that. I've said before that I would give Obama's 2nd term up if it would have prevented the Trump presidency. But the GOP might still have a majority after 2018 and I don't know how much more damage we can take.

Clinton was the status quo, so her presidency itself (without thinking of what it would have meant for the make up of congress in the coming years) would have been far better than what we have now.

 

 

Just to add, even if Trump gets taken down by an investigation or the vote, I think he's potentially opened the floodgates for worse things to come. The consequences of how he has tarnished the FBI and the media might last long after him, and he is also giving hints to someone out there who's much smarter than he is how to possibly take over the country. The back and forth control of the government between Democrats and Republicans was one thing. I didn't like it when the Republicans were in charge. But this is a hell of a lot worse, and it has taught us that large amounts of the population really are sheep and that it wouldn't be so hard to control them. i.e., Clinton causing the GOP to win more elections might have just been a normal thing that happens when one party is in power a long time. I think it would have been much less damaging for the country if Clinton had won and some normal/sane Republican nominee had beaten Clinton in 2020.

[Danny Bateman]

10 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

I don't know. The damages to the environment are kind of hard to see, especially this soon. Just read today that he is trying to subsidize coal and nuclear power.
The same goes with the relationships we have with our allies and the rest of the world.

 

Those are 2 things I can safely say would have been much better with Clinton, but they're more long-term things. We haven't seen the repercussions yet, and probably won't until they can be blamed on the Democrats. Another one is the tax decreases and increased spending combined. I think that's going to end up being pretty bad. Then add to that some of the deregulation, especially of banks.

 

I realize from your post you're thinking more of how it would have riled up the GOP, and I get that. I've said before that I would give Obama's 2nd term up if it would have prevented the Trump presidency. But the GOP might still have a majority after 2018 and I don't know how much more damage we can take.

Clinton was the status quo, so her presidency itself (without thinking of what it would have meant for the make up of congress in the coming years) was the status quo, and the status quo was far better than what we have now.

 

+1.

 

From a big picture perspective, I totally agree things would be better. What you mentioned about the environment & U.S. diplomacy would undoubtably be better, as would the general expectation of what's acceptable behavior from our public officials as well as the corruption and grifting (yes, a Clinton White House would be less corrupt than this Trump one, even if that feels like pulling teeth). 

The Supreme Court would be different. There'd be no Gorsuch and presumably Garland would have maintained his nomination, leaving McConnell to find some other excuse to not give him a vote. I'm honestly not sure they'd just have left the seat open for four more years. Also, McConnell's confirmation spree of lower court judges would at least have been delayed. 

 

As far as the electoral effects, it gets pretty messy. They'd have been running investigations out the wazoo in Congress. I have to imagine we'd remain badly gridlocked & as dysfunctional as Obama's last three Congresses were. What does a bigger GOP majority accomplish in 2020/2024? I also wonder who they'd put up in 2020 for president after a Trump loss. 

[Big Red 40]

I think that Trump has purposely undone everything Obama did, good or bad, and replaced it with worse policies,  or nothing at all . Clinton wouldn’t have done that .

She’s a very smart person, and I think we could have counted on her to use her common sense , diplomacy , intelligence and experience, to find  better solutions to some of the  problems we face  as a country .

Trumps wild , thoughtless , self centered . Ego driven , way of doing things is resulting in bad decisions, bad policies, and doing damage to the country  imo

Sure Clinton would face tons of resistance and be bogged down by a Republican Congress , but I think at the very least she wouldn’t have thoughtlessly slashed everything,  and possibly made some progress on big issues like healthcare, immigration, the  environment, and foreign policy .

I also think she would have put together a much better surrounding cast  than Trump  . His is awful, I don’t see how she could do much worse . 

 

[Nebfanatic]

It evokes an interesting question. Obviously our system is broken beyond this presidency and while I do think Clinton would be a much better President in a myriad of ways, she has plenty of flaws and those flaws are consistent with alot of the problems people have with government. Is the adversity of Trump better than the complacency of Clinton? I think the current circumstances have forced people to be more politically active and while it has created a divide, I think the energy of the people is ultimately a good thing. It could potentially bring a positive change to government in the long run. On the other hand, Trump could also do irreprable damage to the US's world standing that we don't come back from. Given the chance to do it over I'd still vote Clinton and would likely be more active in getting others to do the same

[Moiraine]

57 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

+1.

 

From a big picture perspective, I totally agree things would be better. What you mentioned about the environment & U.S. diplomacy would undoubtably be better, as would the general expectation of what's acceptable behavior from our public officials as well as the corruption and grifting (yes, a Clinton White House would be less corrupt than this Trump one, even if that feels like pulling teeth). 

The Supreme Court would be different. There'd be no Gorsuch and presumably Garland would have maintained his nomination, leaving McConnell to find some other excuse to not give him a vote. I'm honestly not sure they'd just have left the seat open for four more years. Also, McConnell's confirmation spree of lower court judges would at least have been delayed. 

 

As far as the electoral effects, it gets pretty messy. They'd have been running investigations out the wazoo in Congress. I have to imagine we'd remain badly gridlocked & as dysfunctional as Obama's last three Congresses were. What does a bigger GOP majority accomplish in 2020/2024? I also wonder who they'd put up in 2020 for president after a Trump loss. 

 

 

Heh. I didn't even mention the Supreme Court. And Kennedy might still retire.

[knapplc]

Things would be much different, and much better, if Clinton had won.

 

She was an unpalatable choice, the last person I would have voted for in almost any other election, but she's qualified, she wouldn't sell this country out to the highest bidder, she wouldn't have alienated our allies or pissed off our trade partners. We'd still be the leader of the free world instead of some increasingly ostracized nation headed by an incompetent child.

 

If Clinton would have won we here at HuskerBoard would have been (mostly) united in our bitching about her.  I'd probably start being accused of being a Conservative again by some of the more liberal members & guests.  There'd be the crackpot tinfoil hat people we'd have to deal with, but for the most part I think most of us would be joined in disliking her. 

[commando]

with the republicans in control of the house and senate the impeachment proceeding would already be done with.

[sho]

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I don't know. The damages to the environment are kind of hard to see, especially this soon. Just read today that he is trying to subsidize coal and nuclear power.
The same goes with the relationships we have with our allies and the rest of the world.

 

Those are 2 things I can safely say would have been much better with Clinton, but they're more long-term things. We haven't seen the repercussions yet, and probably won't until they can be blamed on the Democrats. Another one is the tax decreases and increased spending combined. I think that's going to end up being pretty bad. Then add to that some of the deregulation, especially of banks.

 

I realize from your post you're thinking more of how it would have riled up the GOP, and I get that. I've said before that I would give Obama's 2nd term up if it would have prevented the Trump presidency. But the GOP might still have a majority after 2018 and I don't know how much more damage we can take.

Clinton was the status quo, so her presidency itself (without thinking of what it would have meant for the make up of congress in the coming years) would have been far better than what we have now.

 

 

Just to add, even if Trump gets taken down by an investigation or the vote, I think he's potentially opened the floodgates for worse things to come. The consequences of how he has tarnished the FBI and the media might last long after him, and he is also giving hints to someone out there who's much smarter than he is how to possibly take over the country. The back and forth control of the government between Democrats and Republicans was one thing. I didn't like it when the Republicans were in charge. But this is a hell of a lot worse, and it has taught us that large amounts of the population really are sheep and that it wouldn't be so hard to control them. i.e., Clinton causing the GOP to win more elections might have just been a normal thing that happens when one party is in power a long time. I think it would have been much less damaging for the country if Clinton had won and some normal/sane Republican nominee had beaten Clinton in 2020.

 

Add to this, I think Obama Care would not have been dismantled under the guise of 'tax reform' and that tax reform bill wouldn't have happened.   I also think all positions of government would be filled, or a lot more would be filled and for the most part a qualified candidate would have filled those positions.  

[BigRedBuster]

I couldn't vote for either candidate.  They both were pathetic and very divisive.  

 

However, at this point, I wish we would have tried the other choice.  I still think the country would have been in a similar type mood. 

[RedDenver]

Depends if Hillary got into a war, especially with Syria. She's very hawkish and another war is probably worse than anything Trump has done so far (maybe). I agree with @Clifford Franklin that things might be worse AFTER Hillary because the same simmering issues would be 4 years further along. (She couldn't have gotten anything through Congress even if she wanted to - maybe deregulating the banks.)

 

The silver lining with Trump is that it's exposed the intentions of the GOP and put the lie to their claims of balanced budgets and not being in bed with the rich. And exposed that they can't govern even when they hold all the levers of power.

[Fru]

Secretary of Energy, a position that is in charge of the nukes, and has been historically headed by an Ivy League, MIT and Stanford educated scientist now has Rick Perry in charge who once got a D in a class called "Meats" while he was an animal husbandry major at Texas A&M.

 

 

Not to mention Betsy DeVos is in charge of schools, Scott Pruitt is in charge of the EPA and Ben Carson is in charge of HUD.

 

Yes, we'd be exponentially better off with Clinton. While SHE may not be perfect, she wouldn't have put these looney tunes in charge of critical cabinet positions.

 

The "They're both bad" argument is repugnant. One was a qualified, career politician with baggage but would have been a completely survivable one term President. The other option was a reality show TV star. 

 

 

[TGHusker]

Both candidates were 'deplorable' to borrow someone's term. 
Some quick thoughts:

In the Trump spin room we have the following (not listing the merit of these here - just the spin):

1. He challenging the status quo and that is how things get done (tariffs, canceling agreements on Iran, Environment, PPT, and threatning NAFTA)

2. He has low unemployment #s

3. He moved our embassy in Israel as he promised

4. He's given tax cuts

5. He's forcing action on the NK situation

6. Appointed and will appoint conservative judges

 

My take on Trump:

1. He is a poor moral example to the nation (that is a whole list in itself and I think we all know the list)

2. He is not emotionally fit for the office

3.  He is not presidential (some will say that is a strength) He does not lead, he does not unite, he is a divider.  He's not a person that calls us

to live up to higher values and ideals- he does not inspire - he gets his way via manipulation and bullying.

4.  He is corrupt - using the office to enrich family - I think 5-10 years down the road (after he is gone) we will see the fruit of it more clearly. By the way where are those promised tax returns.

5.  Embassy move - I'm ok wt the move but not the timing - he throws away a yuge bargaining chip.

6. Tax cuts - he's swallowed the theory that tax cuts at any time are always good.  I think his timing is off when he is also implementing yuge spending plans.

The economy didn't need it and most corporations are not passing it down to their employees.

7. NK - time will tell. 

8. Conservative judges - I'm good with that. 

9.  He has alienated our allies  with tariffs, withdrawal from treaties/agreements

10. He has isolated the USA. While Obama was accused of 'leading from behind' - Trump isn't leading at all.   Withdrawing from treaties/agreement isn't leading.

Thinking he can bully others back to the table is ignorant at best and grossly arrogant at worst.

11.  Judicial side - he's failed with Russia, may get impeached and cannot be trusted to tell the truth

12. Did I say corrupt?

 

Clinton:

Spin:

1. Experience

2. Knowledge of govt and how it works

3. Relationship with nations - she knew the leaders and would maintain relationships

4.  Status quo- there would not have been much change from Obama years

5. If you like liberal judges - then she would have continued appointing the same

 

Negative:

1. Deeply polarizing

2. Corrupt

3. Impeachment - it would be ongoing right now I do believe

4. Corrupt

5. Nothing would be getting done - we'd have 4 more years of stalemate wt Congress

6. Continuation of the Clinton/Bush dynasty.  Probably one of the Bush's 'next generation' would be running next to continue it.

7. Clinton fatique

8. Whiner (as shown by her still blaming others for her loss)- can't stand her laugh either - it would drive me nuts to listen to her for 4 years.

9. Did I say corrupt (so is Trump so there is a 'tie' on that subject)

 

Net Net -  I think Trump is setting the wrong precedent of what the presidency is all about.  I think he will do more harm than good long term.

With Clinton we would have had the status quo and like some said before - punt a lot of issues down the road.

From a foreign affairs perspective - Clinton may have been the better choice.   Yes, having a female president would have set a new, good example and opened up

doors - but I could think of several other females I'd like to see being the one to open that glass ceiling door.  Domestic economy - Clinton would have done ok. The long

term affects of Trump's tax & spend policies are yet to come home to roast - so it is hard to know how much different they would be.  Fed policy determines so much

in the flow of our economy.  As a social conservative, I'm sure I'd be disappointed in her choices for judges and policies.

 

So would we be better with Clinton or Trump -   Yes, we'd be better with them both on the sidelines and having a Kasich/Rubio or a Moderate Dem President.

I answer the OP by the same way I voted - neither of the above.

 

 

[RedDenver]

56 minutes ago, Fru said:

The "They're both bad" argument is repugnant. One was a qualified, career politician with baggage but would have been a completely survivable one term President. The other option was a reality show TV star. 

I get where you're coming from, but we don't know what Hillary would have done (or what Trump may yet do). We're speculating about an alternate reality.