General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary should staff a Shadow Government
I wish Hillary would begin staffing a "Shadow Government" consisting of members designated for every Cabinet agency.
These members can meet in private and maintain secrecy. They should examine every move, be it criminal or incompetent of their alter ego, and be ready to step into position, should a dire emergency demand the replacement of every remnant of the Orange One and his Comedy of Failures.
This Shadow Government could also step in once it has been learned the extent to which this election was the result of criminal fraud from domestic and foreign actors.
When armed insurrection rises up to topple this criminal regime, we're going to want to have a team that can swoop in to make transition back to normalcy as quickly and painlessly as possible.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,424 posts)DURHAM D
(32,606 posts)staring right now coupled with public service ads on tv explaining How Trump is Screwing You.
Also hire an army of Real News posters based in the US to push back against Fake News posters in Eastern Europe.
ZoomBubba
(289 posts)... Hillary's gone. She's not coming back. The Democratic Party has a chance to break away from the Clintons and re-define itself without them. That's one good thing that came out of this mess.
earthside
(6,960 posts)But I have to agree that the Democratic Party needs non-Washington fresh faces and new progressive-populist leadership now.
Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)available to electors 2 days ago. Obviously she still thinks she's got a chance. Your post reeks of Bernie or Bust.
ZoomBubba
(289 posts)... I was not a Berniebot. I voted for Hillary.
That said, I just think we'd benefit in moving past her. Even if the presidential election is shown to be fraud, she has very little chance of becoming president ... that honor would probably go to Pence or whatever candidate was compromised on.
Like it or not, the Clintons have been larger than the Democratic party for years. Whatever has been thrown at them sticks to us. We have a chance to separate ourselves from that now and redefine our image. I just think that's an opportunity we should take coming out of this election.
Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)Until congress' confirmation locks Hillary out. Tired of the defeatism tbh, we need to keep fighting for a "perfect scenario " rather than a "rational one". If this election taught us one thing it's that excessive rationality is a deterrent. Focus your energy on flipping electors and dredging up Trump's Russian ties.
On January 7th we can talk about how to prepare the democratic party for 2018
ZoomBubba
(289 posts)... I'd rather not gamble on something that could put us in a bigger hole than we're already in. We have to assume this is the way things are going to be and act accordingly. Putting all our energy and focus on something very unlikely (flipping electors) is just going to distract from that. We need to be ready for the most likely situation and that is a Trump presidency.
Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)It's a zero sum game. We either do or die. By your logic voting itself is a gamble. I think it wouldn't hurt to spend 2 weeks making an effort to tank opinion of him among his base (in hopes to flip electors).
ZoomBubba
(289 posts)... by not being ready. We have to be strategic in the next two years, especially since 2018 could be the worst year ever for us. Not thinking about how we are going to keep from going below 40 seats in the Senate should be the top priority.
The electors are not going to flip. It's just not going to happen.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)is in the Constitution, and it makes no provision for including the loser of the Electoral College vote and her "shadow government." If Trump is impeached, Pence will be president. If Pence resigns or is impeached, then Trump gets to nominate another VP. If they would both go simultaneously, then it would be Ryan.
There is not going to be an armed insurrection.
Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)Core republicanism has become a delusional entity of mass-hysteria and fear based in alternate reality. At this point being a republican isn't political affinity, it's masochism of the highest order.
ZoomBubba
(289 posts)... control all levels of the federal government and majority of state governments. They're the ones who have the ball right now, not us, and the people have passed it to them again. We cannot act like they're some fringe, they are the mainstream at the moment.
Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)Hence "mass"-hysteria.
jabbothedog
(22 posts)they think they are saving America and the hysteria is on the part of Democrats. And the more "hysterical" Democrats act, the more that swing voters who sided with the GOP have their presumption confirmed.
SubjectiveLife78
(67 posts)Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)Because your post was clearly intended to draw a line of hypocrisy.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)brooklynite
(94,359 posts)msongs
(67,361 posts)karynnj
(59,498 posts)In countries from the UK to Israel with Parliments, all members of the cabinet are members of the Parliment. This explains the leader being the PRIME minister. The US government has a completely seperate Executive branch, where the President nominates cabinet secretaries that are confirmed by the Senate. An adhoc shaddow government would - for the most part - not be part of the government. They would not head anything, would not get all the information needed for many NS positions. I think if HRC spoke of doing this, it would not help either her or us.
However, the Senate itself has a "shaddow" government. Every committee has a ranking member heading the minority side. Prominence is partly from that status and the status granted the member by the media.
Another problem is that there is no real pattern for who the media treats as head of the party when it does not hold the Presidency. Neither party treats its defeated nominees as the sole leader of the party. Neither Mitt Romney or John McCain were the go to leader after 2008 and 2012 respectively. Gore intentionally lleft the country for a year, but when he returned, he was not considered the leader of the party - even though he actually should have won both the EC and popular vote. The strongest voices in 2001-2003 were Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2005, there was a whisper campaign against Kerry suggesting that he was acting as if he was a leader. After Trump is inagugerated, there will be many Democratic voices - just as there were many Republican ones over the last 8 years. There is no real precedent for Hillary to retain the position she had as nominee. However, as many of us said in 2005, the nominee does remain one of the leaders of the party and if HRC wants to speak out, so much the better - we need strong voices. I would suggest that the strongest voice of the Democrats - at least initially - will be OBAMA.
In Obama, we have a young, vigourous former President, who leaves office with a spectacular set of accomplishments and a very clean reputation. Add to that the fact that Obama is incredibly charming, dignified and able to speak eloquently on virtually anything. Neither Obama or Clinton will be the nominee we chose in 2020. Therefore as 2017 moves towards 2020, I would expect that we will hear voices of new leadership ... and hopefully someone will emerge with the ability to both win the election and to repair the damage almost certainly to be done.
MBS
(9,688 posts)I can only hope that our country (and the planet) will survive this nightmare in enough pieces for those "new voices" even to be able to repair the damage.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that happens, they can say what they would have done.