Trump victory: Good or bad for liberals ?

[The Comrade]

[RetailBrain]

[quote="The dane"]While this might seem like heresy to many democrats, I have honestly been wondering, if I should be hoping for a Trump win.

[b]Cons:[/b]
- Trump is a wild card, and there is no telling what he might do when in power. Ban muslims entering the country ? Start either trade wars or actual wars with various countries ? Begin deporting millions of illegal aliens ? Stop all policies/treaties related to climate change ?
- Trump would get to pick the next supreme court justice ...

No doubt the possible cons are significant, but so are the pros.

[b]Pros:[/b]
- If Hillary wins she will get democrats to compromise on a lot of core issues (trade, social programs, foreign policy), which they never do under a republican president
- If Hillary wins in 2016, the Democrats are very unlikely to win again in 2020, and that's a crucial election since it's a census year. When Republicans won in 2010, they were able to guarantee control of the house for 10 years through their gerrymandering
- Hillary winning means at least 8 years without a liberal president, while Trump winning would open the door for an actual liberal in 2020 [/quote]

It really just depends on what a Trump presidency would look like. Obviously, a Republican administration is going to be "bad" for liberals in the immediate sense. If he's viewed as a disaster, he probably gets voted out in 2020 and replaced with a Democrat, who may look much better in comparison. But if Trump manages to become a successful and popular president, it could be bad -- potentially even devastating -- for liberal ideology and the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.

However, I would imagine a Trump presidency would be very polarizing, and the subject of continual debate for years afterward as to its merits and failures. I think it would ultimately have more to do with changing the Republican Party than altering the dynamics in the appeal of each respective party.

[IndependentProfessor]

[IndependentProfessor]

[exploited]

You can establish a loose correlation between unemployment/GDP and a unified government, but that doesn't establish causation. So that part of the article is total garbage that provides no evidence.

The second part is even worse. Who wrote this article? Simply passing more legislation doesn't mean a damned thing. Who cares if a divided government can pass 240 bills authorizing national animals or holidays, or agreeing to condemn whomever, or repealing other legislation?

Absolutely terrible article.

[IndependentProfessor]

[The Comrade]

[The Comrade]

[NAB]

[IndependentProfessor]