Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's South Carolina Victory Puts Her on Track to Win the Democratic Nomination

Clinton's win a sign that Democratic voters want to stick with Obama's policies.

|

credit: Aaron Webb via Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

For a little while, it looked like the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders might be genuinely competitive. But Hillary Clinton posted a huge win in South Carolina last night, putting her on the clear track to win the party's nomination. Clinton won the state's contest with more than 73 percent of the vote, compared to Sanders' 26 percent.  

That puts her in place to win big in the south on Super Tuesday this week. As Nate Cohn writes in The New York Times, if Sanders can't then go on to win major victories outside the southern voting block, he's virtually certain to lose. 

Clinton's South Carolina victory was propelled by heavy support from Black voters, 87 percent of whom picked her over Sanders. Notably, Clinton's victory was significantly larger than Barack Obama's primary victory in the state in 2008, when he beat Clinton by capturing 78 percent of the vote.

And it signals that South Carolina voters, at least, hope to extend the Obama presidency. Much of the Democratic primary has revolved, at least implicitly, around questions of lingering liberal dissatisfaction with President Obama's policies and whether they went far enough. Sanders' campaign has essentially been an extended argument that they didn't.

But for South Carolina's democratic voters, there was very little question. As CBS News reports, exit polls show that 72 percent of Democratic voters yesterday preferred a president who would continue Obama's policies. Clinton, in other words, decisively trounced rival Bernie Sanders yesterday. But in many ways, it was President Obama who won. 

NEXT: Donald Trump Repeatedly Refuses to Disavow Support From Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Clinton’s win a sign that Democratic voters want to stick with Obama’s policies.”

    Don’t you mean Bush’s policies?

    1. At this point isn’t the universally understood?

      1. Not by Democrats. To them, Bush was a dangerous, right wing extremist who shrank the government to a dangerously small size and gutted regulation of businesses and the environment.

        And if you don’t believe that, you are the one out of touch with reality.

        Which is why the government never gets smaller, when Republicans expand it (like Bush), it’s still perceived as being shrunk to half the country

    2. Suderman’s fine either way.

  2. he’s virtually certain to lose.

    Oh, can’t they pretend a little longer? No fair.

  3. “Clinton’s win a sign that Democratic voters want to stick with Obama’s policies.”

    This isn’t a win for Clinton. It’s a loss for Bernie.

    1. I think that’s more-accurate

      It has nothing to do with “Obama’s policies” or Hillary’s promise of ‘more of the same’

      It’s just 100% a rejection of Sanders by a state that doesn’t have a lot of progressives.

      The media, which is riddled with progs, still tries avoiding this obvious point. They’re a small minority and blacks don’t actually buy their shit

    2. I’m going to vomit.

      1. Was there any possible outcome where you wouldn’t have vomited?

        1. If they both quit…?

    3. What happens when she goes to prison?

      1. It will restore my faith in the system and I’ll throw a huge fucking party?

        You’re all (mostly) invited.

        1. So, no party.

        2. Mmmm so who is on the not invited list? Tulpa? Nikki?
          Inquiring minds need to know.

          1. You don’t not invite women to parties. That’s a rookie mistake, especially for a libertarian.

        3. I’ll throw a huge fucking party?

          At Chipotle, I presume?

          1. That will be the location on Tulpa’s invitation.

      2. Watch closely who she picks as a running mate.

        1. She’ll pick Team Blue’s Hispanic Obama, that former mayor of San Antonio and current HUD secretary Julian Castro. He’s dreamy and dark-skinned even if he can’t actually speak Spanish.

          I actually predict that backfiring spectacularly if Rubio is the nominee.

        2. What will be the most important attribute for a VP pick? Assassination protection, somebody worse than Hillary? Or legacy protection, somebody who has no chance of going on to ever outshine Hillary? A good defense attorney to keep her out of jail? Any chance she’s going to pick an up-and-comer to boost the party fortunes in future campaigns or does she not give a hang about the party beyond what they can do for her? Any chance she’ll have a hard time finding anybody willing to get close enough to her to be tainted by the association? Al Gore?

          1. What will be the most important attribute for a VP pick?

            Someone who will pardon her?

  4. Clinton’s South Carolina victory was propelled by heavy support from Black voters, 87 percent of whom picked her over Sanders. Notably, Clinton’s victory was significantly larger than Barack Obama’s primary victory in the state in 2008, when he beat Clinton by capturing 78 percent of the vote

    Soooo the Clintons are blacker than Obama?

    1. Well, they (by they I mean bill) know how to play down home. Obama never did.

    2. Socialism hasn’t completely destroyed the black family in the South. Yet.

      This is a rejection of Bernie. If I were in that situation, I imagine that I’d choose the shit sandwich over the cyanide pill too.

      1. I’d be interested in hearing what a black Dem Hillary supporter has to say about Bernie. Now there’s a real culture clash.

        1. There’s dozens of examples out there. I linked to a WaPo story in the previous post that is pretty much that. And it’s not a ‘culture clash’. Theres never been any chance southern blacks were voting for the Communist Brooklyn jew

            1. WaPo’s pay wall means I can’t read their ads.

              Their advertisers should sue, or lobby a new law or something.

              Government needs to get involved though to protect victims like me from this paywall discrimination bias.

              #nonsubscribersreadingmatters

              1. Use a private browser window

              2. I have a strict one link limit.

            2. Thanks Gilmore those were good, although I didn’t get any actual quotes from black people.

              This was very interesting: in our data, blacks rated Trump a dismal 22, significantly below each of the other GOP contenders we asked about, including both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who were each rated quite negatively but less so than Trump.

              IOW, the “Trump will win over black people” notion is just more idiotic reality-free fantasy.

          1. Finally someone said the J-word. It’s amusing how the media is squeezing past this elephant in the room.

    3. How many votes did she get compared to Barry?

      1. More. See my link above, first link in comment

        1. Which makes sense. Clinton still had lots of appeal v Barry, who while “” mostly black” was still relatively lesser known

          1. She received less votes than Obama. Obama got 290 thousands votes in SC while running against Clinton and John Edwards.

  5. For a little while, it looked like the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders might be genuinely competitive.

    Considering the Democrat party’s Tammany Hall history, Harry Reid style machine politics, and use of ‘super delegates’, I never quite trust appearances when it comes to the Dem vote total for anything. There is just way too much fraud.

  6. I wonder how much longer white liberals will be celebrating diversity. While there will certainly be Democratic candidates winning office in the future, they won’t be getting to pick them.

    1. Hurr durr blacks

    2. Good. White liberals are the worst. They are the ones rooting for Bernie.

  7. Is it November yet?

    What I would give for a good old cop shoots dog story.

    1. Now that you mention it, my nuts have been much more comfortable lately.

  8. It’s no surprise to see to see Bernie lose in South Carolina.

    The Democratic Party is deeply antisemitic, and it’s becoming more so all the time.

    And whether you agree with that statement and whether that accounts for why Hillary won, it’s important that progressives be made to answer questions like that.

    Listening to them answer charges of antisemitism, we’ll find that they sound a lot like Republicans do when they’re made to answer for charges of racism.

    It’s a win/win.

          1. What are you talking about exactly?

            What was your link supposed to mean?

            1. While Sanders may indeed be losing some votes to antisemitism, it’s likely a negligible amount. Clinton is getting the black vote because she’s being cast as Obama’s legatee. The split in the democratic voters is between whites and blacks. I have no reason to believe this is because blacks are inherently any more antisemitic than whites are.

              1. The split they’re talking about in the article you linked is between white Republican (voting for Trump) and black Democrats.

                It isn’t about a split between white Democrats and black Democrats.

                Both of those groups (white Democrats and black Democrats), apparently, broke hard against the Jew–the gap between Hillary and Bernie was much wider in South Carolina than than it was elsewhere in the country in other Democrat primaries.

                What accounts for the divergence is not that Hillary’s message is finally taking off.

                1. Huh?

                  Until Saturday, Election 2016 was largely about white voters. Working-class white Republicans have transformed Donald Trump’s candidacy from an apparent long shot into a potentially historical repudiation of the party establishment. White liberals, meanwhile, catapulted Mr. Sanders into a virtual dead heat with Mrs. Clinton in the overwhelmingly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

                  In one stunning swoop, however, black voters in South Carolina have struck a potentially for the status quo.

                  1. Again, you keep citing differences between white Republicans and black Democrats.

                    That isn’t the difference I’m talking about.

                    I’m talking about the difference between Democrats in South Carolina, on the one hand, and Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada on the other.

                    Clinton won 73.5% to Sanders’ 26% in South Carolina.

                    How’d he do in the other states?

                    Iowa: Clinton 49.6% Sanders 49.6%

                    New Hampshire: Clinton 38% Sanders 60.4%

                    Nevada: Clinton 52.6% Sanders 47.3%

                    I suspect the reason Sanders did so much better than Clinton in New Hampshire is because he’s from the state next door.

                    Why do you think Sanders did so poorly compared to Clinton in South Carolina?

                    A lot of people think religion is important down there. I’m not the only one!

                    Maybe South Carolina’s Democrats are antisemitic.

                    The Democrats have a big and growing problem with antisemitism.

                    1. White liberals, meanwhile, catapulted Mr. Sanders into a virtual dead heat with Mrs. Clinton in the overwhelmingly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

                      In one stunning swoop, however, black voters in South Carolina have struck a potentially for the status quo.

                      Er, what part of that statement mentions Republicans?

                    2. “Until Saturday, Election 2016 was largely about white voters. Working-class white Republicans have transformed Donald Trump’s candidacy from an apparent long shot into a potentially historical repudiation of the party establishment. White liberals, meanwhile, catapulted Mr. Sanders into a virtual dead heat with Mrs. Clinton in the overwhelmingly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

                      In one stunning swoop, however, black voters in South Carolina have struck a potentially for the status quo.”

                      Honestly, I don’t get why you think Trump’s candidacy is indicative of something happening in the Democratic party–at least not from that statement–and I don’t understand what you believe about the status quo based what’s written in that statement either.

                      There isn’t anything about Hillary’s message that’s any different in South Carolina than it was anywhere else.

                      Why did she get such a big response in South Carolina . . . and not other places?

                      Maybe it’s because not being a Jew is a big advantage when you’re going up in front of all those antisemitic Democrat voters. Don’t expect the MSM to write articles talking about what big antisemites the Democrats are.

                      Four years ago, we spent a lot of time talking about whether the Republicans could nominate a Mormon.

                      The Democrats have a big and growing problem with antisemitism.

    1. I am not sure having more witch-hunts is a good strategy.

      1. It’s like in football. The other team will keep running the same plays that work until they don’t work anymore.

        Why would Democrats stop if Republicans never fight back?

        One time, I was in a new school, and some other kids started picking on me. Mom told me to just ignore them. If I didn’t get upset, they’d think it wasn’t fun anymore and leave me alone. Turns out that making fun of someone who just stands there and takes it is about the most fun bullies can have. It got worse and worse . . .

        One day I hauled off and punched the bully in the mouth. The bully’s friend started to run away, so I chased him down, kneeled on his biceps, and beat his face in with a rock.

        They stopped making fun of me after that.

        There need to be negative consequences for misbehavior, or the misbehavior won’t stop. If there aren’t any negative consequences for identity politics, then the Democrats won’t stop. They’ve made their electorate hyper-susceptible to charges of racism. That’s the bed they made–make ’em lie in it. If they don’t like it, they can make all the same arguments their political opponents do when they’re charged with racism, homophobia, bigotry, etc., etc.

        1. But to denounce them for antisemitism just perpetuates and legitimizes their tactic of declaring opposing ideas to be heresy. By all means punch a bully in the mouth, but attacking ideas on the basis that they are racist, sexist, antisemitic etc. is to play into the idea of badthink. You cannot have a free debate if people fear to speak their ideas.

          1. There are no negative consequences for playing identity politics on the left.

            Remaining silent as they pummel Republicans will never do the Republicans any good. They need to fight back.

            Maybe one of the reasons so many swing voters think of the Republican party as the party of racism is because the Republicans never accuse anyone else of racism. . . . not even when it’s right in front of their faces.

            Or are you going to tell me that Bernie being a Jew doesn’t have anything to do with his poor showing in South Carolina?

            1. There are no negative consequences for playing identity politics on the left.

              There are when white Democrats vote for Trump, which is happening.

              1. I suspect that will happen in the general election.

                Not in closed primaries.

        2. That strategy only works with the cooperation of the media, and there’s no way the media will go after a Democrat for racism or sexism or anything else.

          1. If someone at the RNC accused the Democrats of South Carolina of being antisemitic, I’m sure the MSM would cover it.

            They’d put a spin on it, and Bernie would come out and deny that it was antisemitism himself . . .

            But the story would be out there. Democrats would be on the record making the same kinds of denials that so many people equate with being guilty.

            When President Nixon said, “I am not a crook”, people really started thinking, “Wow, the President is a crook”. Republicans typically don’t bring up these topics for that reason–they’re so used to losing whenever racism and bigotry are the topic. But sitting there and taking it isn’t the solution.

            If you’re sick of getting knocked around with a baseball bat, go get a bat of your own.

        3. Holy shit. I had no idea Ken Schultz was such a terror.

          The problem Ken is that unsubstantiated charges of anti-semitism are as likely to backfire as anything else.

          1. They’re not unsubstantiated.

            They’re a hypothesis: The reason Democrats in South Carolina prefer Hillary more so than in other parts of the country is because of their antisemitism.

            That isn’t implausible at all.

            Nikki Haley apparently thought it necessary to convert to some flavor of Christianity.

            Why is it unreasonable to think that South Carolina’s Democrats are subject to the same biases?

            Antisemitism is a big and growing problem in the Democratic Party. Just because the kind of antisemitism you see from Democrats in the urban northeast may be of a different character than the antisemitism you see from Democrats in the South is no reason to think that South Carolina’s Democrats are for some reason immune to antisemitism.

            P.S. Democrats have a big and growing problem with antisemitism.

  9. Democratic voters want to stick with Obama’s policies.

    As pro-Obama democratic voters, you and your fellow DC Reasoniids already knew that a long time ago.

    1. Say “Block Yomomma” again, Mike! Do it! It’s absolutely hilarious! Come on, entertain us!

      1. Ah so it’s Mike. That explains the mouth-breathing noises I hear whenever I read his comments.

        1. No, actually, there’s a more straightforward explanation for the mouth-breathing noises you hear when you read comments.

          1. Ha ha. Nope. I am a lot more intelligent than many and even most people here.

            1. Haha. Yeah. Sure.

    2. . Among South Carolina Democrats who said they wanted the next president to have policies in line with Mr. Obama, Clinton won 81 to 19 percent. And black Americans made up a historically high share of the overall turnout”

      I have read and heard multiple times and places that Blacks have fared worse than any other demographic under Obama’s policies.

      Does that mean Black voters are stupid or just follow their leaders who stand to personally gain by bringing in the votes?

      1. Well, they did get a free Obamaphone and a free low-level Obama health insurance policy courtesy of the taxpayers, so it’s not like it was a total loss.

        Jobs, not quite so many, but then that’s not an especially high priority for too many inner city voters.

  10. So much for the ‘blacks hate amnesty’ narrative.

    1. Wtf are you talking about

      1. One of the many fantasies held by Trumpsters is that black people really don’t like amnesty and for this reason and others they will flock to Trump. The numbers are clear: they don’t give a shit and hate Trump.

        1. Blacks don’t care about amnesty. Many of them actually favor voter IDs.

          They just don’t vote GOP.

          1. Many of them will when Trump is running. Cytotoxic is deluded if he thinks American blacks are supporters of illegal immigration. They often aren’t.

            1. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH *takes breathe* AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

              Data motherfucker-it supports me not you. Black people may not support illegal immigration but clearly they don’t really care about it that much. And they HATE Donald Trump.

    2. blacks vote Dem. Amnesty sold separately.

      1. Exactly. They’re not voting on policy

        1. Okay but the point is that the idea that amnesty is going to drive blacks to Trump or any GOP candidate is just nonsense.

          1. Is that what your many black American friends tell you?

  11. Bernie was never a serious candidate and he was never going to seriously challenge the Hillary coronation. The math just wouldn’t work out thanks to how incredibly unfair and undemocratic the Democratic Party’s nominating process is with the superdelegates as well as the demographics and voting habits of most non-white Democrats.

    He’s simply a bellwether for how underwhelming and incompetent Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been. She’s basically had to abandon all pretense of being a true-believer in the prog religion and has been gaining momentum by pointing out the obvious that she’s more electable than Bernie.

    This has translated into abysmal turnout in every single contest so far and bodes very poorly for her in the general where it looks like Team Stupid is more motivated to show up at the polls. Trump can’t beat her but Rubio, Kaisch and even Cruz probably would. So it’s another situation of Team Stupid needing to stop themselves from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    1. I don’t know how credible Rickey Yaneza is, but it looks like Team Stupid is rushing to lose the election.

      Mitch McConnell Says Republicans Will Drop Donald Trump ‘Like A Hot Rock’ If He Wins GOP Nomination

      I’m kinda hoping Senators get in slap fights on C-SPAN.

      1. My respect for McConnel just increased massively.

    2. Why do you say that Trump can’t win ?

      1. The polling data. Common sense. Having any connection with modern America.

      2. Cytotoxic thinks he has his finger on the pulse of modern America, and that we’re all upset that someone wants to enforce immigration law and not import more Muslims.

        1. My finger is closer to the pulse than you are. It’s hard for you to place your finger anywhere given how far up your ass your head is.

          “we’re all upset that someone wants to enforce immigration law and not import more Muslims.”

          Just the decent thinking people.

    3. So it’s another situation of Team Stupid needing to stop themselves from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

      Guaranteed Hillary Clinton presidency then

    4. “She’s basically had to abandon all pretense of being a true-believer in the prog religion”

      Good. She’ll be wretched, but maybe not that wretched.

  12. The saddest part is: Hillary is going to be enshrined as one of the Great Americans, celebrated alongside George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Rosa Parks, etc. Obama of course will be too, that’s not so bad as Hillary. Good God, Hillary. She has a vagina and she’s not a conservative like Thatcher, and so our grandchildren will be taught to worship her has a deity, and archives of articles like this that criticize her will be shown as evidence of the backwards misogyny she overcame to break the glass ceiling.

    In a century she might even have her own national holiday.

    1. In a century we will be gradually climbing out of chaos into protofeudalism. Its 410 AD and that knocking sound is Alaric.

      1. I hear nothing. There is no Alaric. The future is Argentina, not Medieval Europe.

        1. Who is going to repeatedly loan us money to keep our nation from dissolving? I agree that we don’t actually have strong tribes at the borders who will roll in. I was speaking figuratively about Alaric, but government spending has been growing faster than the economy for a very long time, and no one has been serious about cutting it. At some point you divert too many resources from production and the whole thing falls apart.

          Given the increase in identity politics, I strongly suspect that the US ends up splintering at that point.

          1. True. Honestly, disintegration would be a good thing. The United States just isn’t working. Better than Argentina.

          2. The Romans got rid of Alaric by paying him off and offering him a job. Just sayin’…

  13. South Carolina primary turnout:

    2008 Dem: 532,468
    2016 Dem: 359,066 (98.2% reporting)

    2008 Rep: 445,677
    2016 Rep: 737,924

    This is what’s known as an “enthusiasm gap,” and just one reason why all predictions that Hillary will of course win in November are questionable.

    1. She’s not going to win the general unless things change dramatically.

      If the economy / markets shit the bed, she’s DOA

      1. If Trump is the nominee, she’ll win. He’s radioactive.

        1. If there’s another recession between now and November, Trump’s odds may get close to even I think. If the economy stays more or less normal, he has no chance. Against Hillary, at least. Against Bernie, he might.

    2. While I agree with you about the enthusiasm gap, there’s a couple things to note. First off, Hillary Clinton was expected to win and the Democratic field is smaller than the Republican field. The more competitors, the larger the field, in general.

      2012 Republican primary turnout in South Carolina with Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and Paul: 603,770
      2016 Republican primary turnout in South Carolina with Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Carson and Bush: 737,924

      2008 Democratic primary turnout in South Carolina with Obama, Clinton and Edwards: 532,468
      2016 Democratic primary turnout in South Carolina with Clinton and Sanders: 359,066

      Secondly this is South Carolina, and the Democrats aren’t expected to win this in the general anyway.

      General election results 2008 in South Carolina:
      McCain: 1,034,896
      Obama: 862,449

      General election results 2012 in South Carolina:
      Romney: 1,071,645
      Obama: 865,941

      1. Excellent counter-point. Was there much enthusiasm for Obama in 2012? I think not, but he won anyway.

        Enthusiasm is bullshit. An enthusiastic ballot weighs as much as an unenthusiastic one.

        1. Enthusiasm matters because it gets more people to the polls.

        2. There was more enthusiasm for Obama in 2012 than there was for Mitt Romney.

      2. The Dem/Rep turnout difference has been noted in other state primaries and caucuses this season, even when Hillary had more competition. I haven’t checked but I’ve read that Rep turnout is up 30% and Dem turnout is down 30%.

        Another datapoint: Trump had more people show up at his Las Vegas rally than Hillary had votes in all of Nevada.

        1. Hillary’s ‘competition’ barely amounted to anything. Oh Jim Webb, you deserved better.

          1. What’s Bernie Sanders? Chopped liver?

  14. Hillary has never been the most “electable”, and will lose to Trump. It’s because people like me can’t honestly say with a straight face that Hillary would be worse than Trump, which is horrifying. Other than their language and style, can anybody tell me how a Hillary presidency would look different than a Trump presidency? Not voting for either, but a Trump-Hillary election will have the lowest turnout in American history, and all the places that hate Trump were never going to vote red anyway, and are so detached from the rest of America that they think mockery and ridicule are all that’s needed to fight him. Every battleground state in the middle of the country will break for Trump. Four years of utter chaos might be good for this country.

    1. No she won’t to Trump. He is hated by a lot of people, and if he’s the nom there may very well be a serious third party run.

    2. Hillary is more committed to expanding government, higher taxes, intervening overseas, gun control, illegal immigration, Muslim immigration. She’s worse. And she’s hated by a lot of people, including by Democrats.

      1. Trump likes all of those things except the last two which are actually good things.

        Hillary is not nearly as hated as Trump.

        1. Her negatives are nearly as high, and it’s still long before the election. Most people aren’t even paying attention yet.

  15. I wonder what might happen if Hillary’s health problems is more serious then most of people thought.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eivpdmXfebY
    Some folks have some fun to imagine the causes of her coughing. http://moonbattery.com/?p=69064

    1. Yep. She’s a sickly old woman who is barely even fit and energetic enough to be able to handle a campaign now. I don’t know how in the world she can possibly handle a job which is about a hundred times more stressful than campaigning, or anything else that she’s ever done in her life.

      There’s a very good chance she won’t even survive to the end of her first term.

      1. I’m not even sure she’ll make it through the campaign.

        1. More fantasy.

    2. That just makes the prospect of her being president less scary because she’ll die part way through it.

      1. Less scary because you assume her VP will be better? Clinton/Folani 2016 slogan we’ll put the SS in USSSA.

        1. We’ll see. How bad can Julian Castro be.

  16. Trump would be big in trouble if the minority Republicans and Cruz and Rubio supporters abandon him in the general election.

    But at least in Nevada, Trump was competitive with the state’s Latino Republicans. Some conservatives are pledging massive defection, but that’s no certain thing. Bush is already out, so if Trump continues to gain widen the gap between the two closest pursuers, we can assume that he’s sucking up a good amount of votes that went to his rival.

    Let’s say Trump locks down the white vote and the Obama coalition doesn’t show up in force for Clinton. Then who knows? Obama already received less votes in 2012 compared to 2008 while Romney outperformed MCcain.

    But yeah, Trump is still a disaster in many ways and I would rather take my chances with Rubio and Cruz.

  17. I really think we should want Hillary to beat Trump if it comes to that. It’s what’s best in the long run. The debacle of the Bush administration is largely responsible for Obama; imagine what the catastrophe of the Trump administration would produce. There’ll be a flight from the GOP and the democrats will have license to move even further left; Sanders may be a moderate in that party by then.

    If Clinton, wins, on the other hand, she may well disgrace her party as badly as Carter did. Even a relatively adroit statesman would probably have a rough time in the next few years, and none of the candidates in play are above the bottom of the barrel. So the question is, who do we want to see fail? Against whom would we rather see a backlash?

    1. Well, I’d rather a knight in shining armor get the nod and fix all our problems. Barring that, Your scenario is most likely. Someone is going to fail miserably from 2016 to 2020/2024. It may well turn out best in the long term for a Democrat to win the election and get blamed for the crises to come in the short term.

    2. I agree with you MarkLastname that a Hillary presidency would likely be less damaging than a Trump presidency to the cause of small government and may even benefit it through a restructuring of the GOP. I seriously doubt she will serve more than a single term, probably due to health reasons; her constant cough suggests she may have the beginnings of a serious respiratory disease. Unlike Trump, she would be predictable at least (same shit we have had for the past 8 years), but could really fuck things up with her picks for the supreme court. I don’t trust Trump on this either, so will probably be staying home or cast my vote for Gary Johnson.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.