The Trump Presidency

[Oklahomahawk]

Just saying. Im not really a Trump fan, but he's going to be much more moderate than people assume.

I'm already on record as saying he'll either be better than his supporters think, or worse than his detractors predicted. I guess we'll see in time. In the meantime he's the president, or will be as of January 20th. Let's all give him a chance, but let's also not give him a pass on doing what he promised to do.

 

[weso1]

Trump could win huge in 4 years if he's competent as president. The main argument against him is that he's a buffoon and dangerous. If he does a decent job in his first 4 years then that argument won't exist. That's a pretty big if though.

 

[NinersSBChamps]

Temper tantrum has now hit the streets. This is pathetic. These people are sad.

 

[Julio3000]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-09/deciphering-trumponomics-chapter-one

If there is any common theme to my predictions, it stems from Trump’s history in franchising his name and putting relatively little capital into many of his business deals. I think his natural instinct will be to look for some quick symbolic victories to satisfy supporters, and then pursue mass popularity with a lot of government benefits, debt and free-lunch thinking. I don’t think the Trump presidency will be recognizable as traditionally conservative or right-wing.

---------

^^ +1

Agree. He'll nominate a conservative for the court, probably do some window-dressing things on immigration, and cancel almost all (if not all) of Obama's Executive Orders. After that, I expect the deficit to balloon.

I agree with most of this, but there are two major factors that are going to shape the scope, tone, and efficacy of his administration.

One is what that administration is actually going to look like, from the front-page cabinet appointments to the political appointments in the executive agencies. I'm inclined to think that these are going to be standard-issue Republican fare, particularly the latter. Industry lobbyists and corporate folks running the regulatory agencies, etc, very much like the GW Bush administration. That won't be a coincidence, since it's Bush vets who are going to make up the pool of experienced candidates, in the same way that Clinton retreads populated the Obama Administration, particularly early on.

The second thing is the extent to which the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is willing to adopt his agenda, potentially to the detriment of their own. He's not really starting with a strong hand here, as a polarizing figure who lost the popular vote.

 

[Runnin]

I agree with most of this, but there are two major factors that are going to shape the scope, tone, and efficacy of his administration.

One is what that administration is actually going to look like, from the front-page cabinet appointments to the political appointments in the executive agencies. I'm inclined to think that these are going to be standard-issue Republican fare, particularly the latter. Industry lobbyists and corporate folks running the regulatory agencies, etc, very much like the GW Bush administration. That won't be a coincidence, since it's Bush vets who are going to make up the pool of experienced candidates, in the same way that Clinton retreads populated the Obama Administration, particularly early on.

The second thing is the extent to which the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is willing to adopt his agenda, potentially to the detriment of their own. He's not really starting with a strong hand here, as a polarizing figure who lost the popular vote.

That's not the "swamp" draining his supporters have been calling for.

 

[50PoundHead]

I agree with most of this, but there are two major factors that are going to shape the scope, tone, and efficacy of his administration.

One is what that administration is actually going to look like, from the front-page cabinet appointments to the political appointments in the executive agencies. I'm inclined to think that these are going to be standard-issue Republican fare, particularly the latter. Industry lobbyists and corporate folks running the regulatory agencies, etc, very much like the GW Bush administration. That won't be a coincidence, since it's Bush vets who are going to make up the pool of experienced candidates, in the same way that Clinton retreads populated the Obama Administration, particularly early on.

The second thing is the extent to which the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is willing to adopt his agenda, potentially to the detriment of their own. He's not really starting with a strong hand here, as a polarizing figure who lost the popular vote.

I can't believe the folks on the right who are saying this is a mandate simply because they outperformed projections.

The thing is he can always appoint outside-the-box folks who believe exactly what the establishment folks do so we may see less Bush vets and the like. But when I see guys like Guiliani and Gingrich who have been living in the swamp pretty much all their adult lives line up for jobs, I wonder what the cabinet will actually look like. One challenge Trump may have is that a number of his high-profile insider supporters are a bit on the bombastic side and if Trump wants to button things down a bit, will he be able have guys like that going off-script.

 

[acesfull86]

I can't believe the folks on the right who are saying this is a mandate simply because they outperformed projections.

The thing is he can always appoint outside-the-box folks who believe exactly what the establishment folks do so we may see less Bush vets and the like. But when I see guys like Guiliani and Gingrich who have been living in the swamp pretty much all their adult lives line up for jobs, I wonder what the cabinet will actually look like. One challenge Trump may have is that a number of his high-profile insider supporters are a bit on the bombastic side and if Trump wants to button things down a bit, will he be able have guys like that going off-script.

In regards to that first sentence, Nate Silver wrote an interesting piece about the implications of a 2 point swing - what people are saying the implications are of the Trump victory, and what they would have been saying had those 2 points went to HRC. I agree with him that there is fair amount of truth to both sides (I'd link the article so people know what the heck I'm taking about but I'm on my iPhone and I'm lazy).

Speaking of Nate Silver, as an aside, maybe it's because I do a lot of forecasting at my day job and have to defend the results against people who don't understand them, but I have sympathy for him and the the others that "got it wrong." The reality is 538 had Clinton at 70% to win the morning of the election. 30% is hardly some sort of once in a lifetime occurrence. He trashed the Huff Post (I think) a few days ago when they were proclaiming this to be an inevitable HRC win. There are certainly things to be learned from, but I still put a lot of stock in what 538 (in particular) produces

 

[50PoundHead]

In regards to that first sentence, Nate Silver wrote an interesting piece about the implications of a 2 point swing - what people are saying the implications are of the Trump victory, and what they would have been saying had those 2 points went to HRC. I agree with him that there is fair amount of truth to both sides (I'd link the article so people know what the heck I'm taking about but I'm on my iPhone and I'm lazy).

Speaking of Nate Silver, as an aside, maybe it's because I do a lot of forecasting at my day job and have to defend the results against people who don't understand them, but I have sympathy for him and the the others that "got it wrong." The reality is 538 had Clinton at 70% to win the morning of the election. 30% is hardly some sort of once in a lifetime occurrence. He trashed the Huff Post (I think) a few days ago when they were proclaiming this to be an inevitable HRC win. There are certainly things to be learned from, but I still put a lot of stock in what 538 (in particular) produces

Like many, I thought Hillary would win. Heck, even Trump's pollsters thought it was an extremely uphill battle. In Minnesota, the state senate flipped from Democrat to Republican largely on segmented Trump turnout. We saw this in Minnesota with Ventura and while I didn't think the disaffected voter effect would be as relevant in a two-person race, that, combined with Republicans coming home to Trump, provided the turnout necessary in the key swing states to put him over the top. Polls aren't perfect because they can't truly measure voter participation within segments. My guess is all the polls underestimated participation from the disaffected voter in their assumptions and that's how we got what we got.

 

[Runnin]

Speaking of Nate Silver, as an aside, maybe it's because I do a lot of forecasting at my day job and have to defend the results against people who don't understand them, but I have sympathy for him and the the others that "got it wrong." The reality is 538 had Clinton at 70% to win the morning of the election. 30% is hardly some sort of once in a lifetime occurrence. He trashed the Huff Post (I think) a few days ago when they were proclaiming this to be an inevitable HRC win. There are certainly things to be learned from, but I still put a lot of stock in what 538 (in particular) produces

He was closer than any other forecaster I saw.

 

[cajunrevenge]

What really struck me as odd was the other pollsters being upset 538 gave Trump that much of a chance. Why should they care if some other pollster is wrong? The more wrong they are the better you look in comparison. Only thing I can think of is they wanted to create a narrative that Hillary was overwhelmingly ahead.

 

[NinersSBChamps]

Liberals behaving like children again.

So the sediments before were that a Trump supporter is a racist bigot. So now it's safe to say that Hillary supporters are all immature maniacs.

 

[ESP47]

Liberals behaving like children again.

So the sediments before were that a Trump supporter is a racist bigot. So now it's safe to say that Hillary supporters are all immature maniacs.

Oh no they're racist as well. Their racism and bigotry is just directed toward a different group of people....so that makes it ok in their eyes.

 

[MrShwag]

WAAAAAAH! WAAAAAAH! WAAAAAAAH! ****ing pathetic liberal millenials.

 

[DaneHill]

People are passionate about elections these days. If you recall, Texas threatened to secede from the Union after Obama won election, so don't try acting like Dems and Libs are the only ones to protest. I'd say that Trump's unlikely and unfortunate win is more than enough to cause massive concern among a wide swath of folks, certainly enough to cause protests. That's what makes this country great. People can protest and hold rallies. They've been peaceful, so not sure what the beef is.

 

[gilesfan]

Earlier, I was referring to the not so peaceful rallies. Like the one in Richmond where they wrote "**** White People" all over the city. Or "Your Vote is a Hate Crime." And I'm referring to the blocking of the roads which infringes on peoples rights. The rally I saw in Chicago looked peaceful; though the "Move Bitch, Get out the Way" was comical.

 

[MrShwag]

People are passionate about elections these days.

Right.. and passion = strongly and very nearly uncontrollable emotions. Hence the crying baby joke. And followed up with the insult because they are adults and should be doing more constructive things than burning american flags, vandalizing buildings, carrying around signs calling for the assassination/murder of President-Elect Trump and spitting on democracy. Oh and not to mention propagating irrational thought (I've already heard today that Trump is going to implement government control of google searches ---- and this was from a technology maililng-list.. these people shoud know better). "Not my president"? Technically correct. But you emotional babies better have it sorted out in 61 days.

Now we understand where we're both coming from. No beef, I'm vegan.

 

[MrShwag]

Earlier, I was referring to the not so peaceful rallies. Like the one in Richmond where they wrote "**** White People" all over the city. Or "Your Vote is a Hate Crime." And I'm referring to the blocking of the roads which infringes on peoples rights. The rally I saw in Chicago looked peaceful; though the "Move Bitch, Get out the Way" was comical.

Well they don't show those on MSNBCABCCBSFOXCASTAPPLE so to his credit, he literally thinks that all the protests are mature and peaceful and non-disrupting to hard-working civilians with jobs.

 

[Hawk]

Let's start guessing who's in the cabinet:

State: Sarah Palin
Attorney General: Chris Christie
Homeland Security: Rudy Guiliani
Defense: Mike Huckabee
HHS: Ben Carson

State: Corker
AG: Trey Gowdy
Defense: Flynn
HHS: Carson
Treasury: Not sure, but a guy that Trump knows from Wall Street most likely. Not sure he goes with a pol here.

Chief of Staff: Christie

Non-cabinet:
FBI: Giuliani (DHS also a good guess)
Press Secretary: Conway?
UN Ambassador: Gingrich

 

[Hawk]

SCOTUS: Bill Pryor

 

[The Tariff King]

State is going to be someone to position them for a run later. Sarah Palin's biggest blunder was foreign policy. So I'm sure she agreed to help him campaign earlier on condition she gets State for her resume for a future run.