For what it's worth, here's what I think is happening:
Looking at the Democratic slate of candidates for 2020, it seems apparent that at least one of the presidential nominee or VP picks will be a person of color. Very possibly, one of them will be a woman, too. Trump is ramping up the racism, sexism, and neo-birtherism now, because he knows that's what his supporters like/want/respond to. What he is doing now is building a new Hillary machine for them to hate -- a figurehead to spew all their bile and conspiracy theories at. Expect more and increasingly strident racism from him going forward, because the point is to create that space where any of the eventual candidates can just be plugged in. By the time the Democratic nomination is made, Trump's base -- and right-wing media, and his lackeys in the GOP -- will be primed and prepped to transfer all that hatred to whomever it ends up being. Instead of "Lock Her Up!" they'll just change the chant to "Send Them Back!"
And if the Democrats keep infighting, they will be fragmented and unable to rally behind their ticket.
The libertarians will keep thinking they're above all this and not bother to try to block Trump. Because, you know, both parties are the same.
And that's how we get Trump in 2020.
IF Trump wins, I'm pretty sure Kris is right about how. Don't blame the libertarians though, the changing the line above that is all the Democrats should need to win. Trump has his base and they will turn out, but they are far from a majority. Of course Democrats could pivot towards the center in the primary and win by a landslide with plenty of independent support. The way I see it the Democratic party has all the power in this round because they know exactly which cards the Republican party will play; but this doesn't have to be a game where Trump always wins.
While the Democrats were in power, I kept thinking that the Republicans could easily take control by embracing the old-fashioned type of conservatism that OurTown talked about (that's what it will take to get my vote back). I never imagined that they would win with a candidate like Trump.
Either way, I won't spend too much time considering presidential candidates, I'm sure all 55 electoral votes from my state will go to the Democratic party's nominee. My time will be better spent considering the top two runoff candidates on my ballot.
Don't given Trump too much credit for any of the current prosperity. That pre-dated him and is independent of him. Enough said.
That is mostly true for nearly every presidential reelection candidate. The economy reacts too slowly to the policy lead by the sitting president to really be an indicator for their second term election. Unfortunately the voters react to the economy faster than policy changes effect the economy (and voters often put to much weight on the current economic conditions that are part of common business cycles in spite of policy changes as well).
I think the fundamental moral dilemma for moderates is that both far wings of each parties are taking the respective parties hostage, leaving many people feeling unrepresented...
and he is not at all old school conservative (small government, budget reduction, etc.).
Yep, (but I haven't decided to shirk my civic duty to vote, just decided that voting for the candidate that I believe would be the best is a better message to the dominate parties than voting for the dominate party candidate that is not as bad as the other). Republicans haven't actually put up an old school conservative for president in a long time.
Bottom line of this rant -- voting for one or the other is a "tacit approval" of everything they do is perhaps true, but it ignores the significant complexities of the matter.
And voting for a third party is not "tacit approval" of the eventual winner!
But constantly crying fascism got old during GWB's presidency, and anyone that's been around long enough to remember that is probably tired of hearing it by now. I remember having conversations with people who legitimately thought Bush would refuse to surrender power after his second term. And I see some of the same comments now.
And I heard plenty of conservatives that were afraid that Obama was going to refuse to turn over power and become a dictator.
She always was a moderate. It's just that the right has taken to labeling pretty much everyone on the other side a far-left radical socialist, no matter what the reality.
Personally I think Hillary's worst credential was her record at the Department of State. Not sure how people thought Trump would be better.
“If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier... as long as I'm the dictator.” -GWB
It was reported that Obama said something along the lines of it being easier to be president of China than of the USA to Chinese officials (so that can be taken with a grain of salt).
I take these to mean that President of the United States (and "Leader of the Free World") are not nearly as powerful titles as people sometimes make them out to be. You can (think you) have the perfect policy, but you still have to deal with politics to actually implement it. To everyone who's candidate losses the Presidential election, remember, the President's power is considerably limited on its own.
Trump seems to say a lot more of it, but that doesn't change the fact that people will always overreact to or ignore whatever is said, depending on party affiliation.
My biggest concern with Trump is that his words will be a problem for us diplomatically. Fortunately, I think most of the world is far more rational about the actual power of the sitting US President than the average american voter.