Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:46 PM
Locrian Locrian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,775
Missed window.

There's also to consider how much people are starting to HATE the word politician. Over 40+ million voted for someone with zero political experience over people who have studied and served in it for a lifetime. If you KNOW politics, you won't get 40+ million votes.
  #52  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:50 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 35,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Sure, I can more or less agree with that. But I wouldn't rule out Bernie categorically. He's old, but that's part of his appeal. He's the "cranky old New York Jewish guy from Vermont" that so many people can't get enough of. In the spirit of never say never, I'd put Biden at 1% chance of running, Hillary at about 5% and Bernie at about 20-25%.
I'd probably reverse the odds of Hillary and Biden, and might put Bernie's odds a nudge higher, but basically we're in agreement.

However, IF Bernie runs, I think a lot of people will be surprised at how his support falls off. Last time, he benefited from being the only real alternative to Hillary for the Dem nomination. This time it'll at least start off as a wide-open race with multiple viable candidates who have the right positions to appeal to Bernie's base, without Bernie's handicap of looking at everything through the lens of economics. I predict that if he runs, he'll do no better than third. (Votes, delegates, either way.)
  #53  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:58 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 35,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
There's also to consider how much people are starting to HATE the word politician.
I've been hearing people say that for more than 50 years now. The major difference now is the madness that's overtaken the Republican Party, but that really only plays into who gets their nomination. Which isn't expected to be an issue in 2020.
  #54  
Old 07-14-2018, 06:01 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'd probably reverse the odds of Hillary and Biden, and might put Bernie's odds a nudge higher, but basically we're in agreement.

However, IF Bernie runs, I think a lot of people will be surprised at how his support falls off. Last time, he benefited from being the only real alternative to Hillary for the Dem nomination. This time it'll at least start off as a wide-open race with multiple viable candidates who have the right positions to appeal to Bernie's base, without Bernie's handicap of looking at everything through the lens of economics. I predict that if he runs, he'll do no better than third. (Votes, delegates, either way.)
I hope so. It will be great to have 5 or 6 candidates vying for the nomination. And yeah, that would probably blunt Bernie's appeal.
  #55  
Old 07-14-2018, 07:48 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,008
...I want to make it clear that what I'm about to say isn't an accusation against the poster who made this OP.

If anyone is wondering how part of the Russian disinformation took place then this is exactly how it happened. The Daily Caller or Breitbart would join-the-dots and make some outlandish claim. That claim is turned into a talking point. And in this particular case the talking point was:

Quote:
And the media is putting out more stories about her desire to run again.
Then the talking point goes viral on media channels and social streams that target particular demographics.

Now this particular talking point is easily debunked. "The media" (however nebulous the media may be defined) is not putting out more and more stories about her desire to run again. It isn't happening. The talking point originated from a heavily slanted editorial. There is nothing to the story.

But the story spreads. People talk about it. Because its a talking point. People start arguing about it. Old debates resurface. We start talking about how the Democratic leadership sucks. And there are no good options. And all of a sudden the air gets sucked out what we all should be talking about which is (IMHO) the biggest threat to Western society as we know it in the last 20 years.

I'm not blaming anyone for this. Not the OP for starting the thread, not the people who have chosen to participate. Because the tactics that are being used here are quite simple ones but they are extraordinarily hard to combat.

But this is psyops. An operation started by the Russians and continued by complicit Americans. Done on an extraordinary scale, to devastating effect. I honestly don't know what we can do about it. But the very least we can do is point it out when we see it.
  #56  
Old 07-14-2018, 08:04 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 5,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I want to make it clear that what I'm about to say isn't an accusation against the poster who made this OP.

If anyone is wondering how part of the Russian disinformation took place then this is exactly how it happened. The Daily Caller or Breitbart would join-the-dots and make some outlandish claim. That claim is turned into a talking point. And in this particular case the talking point was:



Then the talking point goes viral on media channels and social streams that target particular demographics.

Now this particular talking point is easily debunked. "The media" (however nebulous the media may be defined) is not putting out more and more stories about her desire to run again. It isn't happening. The talking point originated from a heavily slanted editorial. There is nothing to the story.

But the story spreads. People talk about it. Because its a talking point. People start arguing about it. Old debates resurface. We start talking about how the Democratic leadership sucks. And there are no good options. And all of a sudden the air gets sucked out what we all should be talking about which is (IMHO) the biggest threat to Western society as we know it in the last 20 years.

I'm not blaming anyone for this. Not the OP for starting the thread, not the people who have chosen to participate. Because the tactics that are being used here are quite simple ones but they are extraordinarily hard to combat.

But this is psyops. An operation started by the Russians and continued by complicit Americans. Done on an extraordinary scale, to devastating effect. I honestly don't know what we can do about it. But the very least we can do is point it out when we see it.
Great post.
  #57  
Old 07-14-2018, 08:08 PM
Mangosteen Mangosteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Namche Bazaar
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancia View Post
If we compare where we are right now to the 2016 election, we're in the summer of 2014. If my memory is even somewhat accurate, here were the blowing political winds then:

Clinton was clearly the democratic front-runner and, even though she hadn't announced yet she was running. She had a lot of people gunning for her and a lot of endorsements, as well as people like Jim Messina working to get her elected.
Was Kenny Loggins also helping out?
__________________
Its only funny until someone gets hurt, then its fuckin' hilarious!
  #58  
Old 07-14-2018, 10:08 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,758
After many heart-to-heart meetings, they decided that this was it. Being associated with Hillary meant that Loggins was in a danger zone. She can no longer call him a friend. But don't worry about him, he's alright.
  #59  
Old Yesterday, 12:30 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,587
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by FavreCo View Post
That butt plug wearing pear shaped loser would have no chance against Trump.
Since this is clearly not true, (if his previous actions had not already swapped the votes in the three states that cost her the election, the fallout in those states from the brewing trade war would certainly make her a contender), your need to couch your odd views in coarse language suggests that you have a purpose that differs from promoting this discussion.

Dial it back.

[ /Moderating ]
  #60  
Old Yesterday, 12:35 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I hope so. It will be great to have 5 or 6 candidates vying for the nomination. And yeah, that would probably blunt Bernie's appeal.
5 or 6, perhaps. On the other hand, I suspect that the overcrowded field among the Republicans is what allowed Trump to edge into the lead when the serious Republican candidates could not agree to step back and let one of their number take on Trump, alone.
  #61  
Old Yesterday, 12:52 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 36,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Picky. I'm not a huge fan of Harris - I'd be about enthused for her as I was with Hillary. Which is to say, not all that much.

But at this point I'd probably vote for an irritable, incontinent alpaca over Trump. A low standard most normal politicians should be able to reach with a little work. Trump vs. David Duke? Then I might vote for Trump.

Ok, so I exaggerated. I would vote 3rd party. Since it is CA, I'd be safe.
  #62  
Old Yesterday, 02:45 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If it is Harris, I will vote for Trump. Seriously. She has done nothing.
Whereas Trump has done something I guess. Seriously?

Some voters' cognition is not completely up to genius level.
  #63  
Old Yesterday, 05:55 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,257
The Moderator Clears His Throat

That's enough right there, septimus.

Everyone, keep it polite.
  #64  
Old Yesterday, 07:16 AM
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
Ok, thanks. One guy who was published in the Daily Caller suggests it. By the way, I browsed around that site. Just between you and me, I would find an independent source of information to verify anything I read there. That's just a suggestion from me to you, in the interests of keeping ignorance to a minimum. Nothing personal.
  #65  
Old Yesterday, 08:43 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I want to make it clear that what I'm about to say isn't an accusation against the poster who made this OP.

If anyone is wondering how part of the Russian disinformation took place then this is exactly how it happened. The Daily Caller or Breitbart would join-the-dots and make some outlandish claim. That claim is turned into a talking point. And in this particular case the talking point was:



Then the talking point goes viral on media channels and social streams that target particular demographics.

Now this particular talking point is easily debunked. "The media" (however nebulous the media may be defined) is not putting out more and more stories about her desire to run again. It isn't happening. The talking point originated from a heavily slanted editorial. There is nothing to the story.

But the story spreads. People talk about it. Because its a talking point. People start arguing about it. Old debates resurface. We start talking about how the Democratic leadership sucks. And there are no good options. And all of a sudden the air gets sucked out what we all should be talking about which is (IMHO) the biggest threat to Western society as we know it in the last 20 years.

I'm not blaming anyone for this. Not the OP for starting the thread, not the people who have chosen to participate. Because the tactics that are being used here are quite simple ones but they are extraordinarily hard to combat.

But this is psyops. An operation started by the Russians and continued by complicit Americans. Done on an extraordinary scale, to devastating effect. I honestly don't know what we can do about it. But the very least we can do is point it out when we see it.
True, but lets also keep in mind that the right wing media machine has been doing this for a very long time without the Russians, so we needn't postulate the Russians are behind this particular little piece of "journalism".
  #66  
Old Yesterday, 09:18 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
True, but lets also keep in mind that the right wing media machine has been doing this for a very long time without the Russians, so we needn't postulate the Russians are behind this particular little piece of "journalism".
..."the Russians are behind this particular little piece of "journalism" wasn't my claim. They don't need to be. Thats the entire point.
  #67  
Old Yesterday, 11:51 AM
sfriver sfriver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: The IL Corn Desert
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What we need is a nice bland middle of the road white guy from the South or rust belt. Someone boring the hate machine can't get their hooks into.

And sure, maybe a fiery black woman as Veep.
How is this not considered blatant racism? You're more interested in skin color and sex than issues.

Hillary has wanted the presidency her whole life. She has changed her opinion on a few issues, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing, her motivations for flipping are entirely for the votes. Nobody who wants it that bad should ever become president.
  #68  
Old Yesterday, 12:07 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfriver View Post
Nobody who wants it that bad should ever become president.
You just ruled out every president and every serious candidate we ever had for president . At a certain level they're ALL egotistic, self-aggrandizing narcissists. You kind of have to be to be willing to put yourself and your family through that kind of pressure and scrutiny because you think you know best how to govern a huge country.
  #69  
Old Yesterday, 12:27 PM
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What we need is a nice bland middle of the road white guy from the South or rust belt. Someone boring the hate machine can't get their hooks into.

And sure, maybe a fiery black woman as Veep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfriver View Post
How is this not considered blatant racism? You're more interested in skin color and sex than issues.
I think what he's "interested in" is beating Trump. (Whether or not "a nice bland middle of the road white guy from the South or rust belt" would in fact be the most electable candidate in 2020, I really couldn't say--I didn't think Trump was even remotely electable, so what the hell do I know?)
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #70  
Old Yesterday, 01:08 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,275
Hillary should run, I would support her entirely both in the primaries and in the general should she be the nominee.

But, only if she runs on the republican ticket.
  #71  
Old Yesterday, 01:56 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
New rule: if you lose to Donald Trump you are disqualified from holding any office anywhere ever.
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
She is very smart. Smart enough to not run again.
And this.

Think about it. Not even the naivety of the Democratic Party is going to nominate a candidate whose main legacy is "she brought us four years of Trump". It's a shame and it's unfair, but Hillary is now toxic. Even Al Gore had the grace to bow out of politics, and he only brought us George W. Bush.
  #72  
Old Yesterday, 02:22 PM
Chefguy Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 39,906
No to Hillary and fuck no to Sanders. I think Biden missed his opportunity.
  #73  
Old Yesterday, 03:03 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
She is very smart. Smart enough to not run again.
Well, there's smart and then there's smart enough to beat Trump. The fact that she wasn't the latter makes me just a little bit nervous that she's not smart enough to not run again. Just a little bit.
  #74  
Old Yesterday, 03:07 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,412
What would she have done differently, in 2016, if she wasn’t smart?

That’s not snark; I’m entirely serious. What changes?
  #75  
Old Yesterday, 03:18 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What would she have done differently, in 2016, if she wasn’t smart?

That’s not snark; I’m entirely serious. What changes?
She spent some time in AZ trying to run up the score when she should have been campaigning hard in the Rust Belt. She could have named a more charismatic VP candidate, O'Malley brought very little to the ticket. Picking a guy whose state you're going to win anyway wasn't a power move. She should never mention being female as a reason to vote for her. Spend less time with 15 point plans and more time delivering platitudes.
  #76  
Old Yesterday, 03:28 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What would she have done differently, in 2016, if she wasn’t smart?

That’s not snark; I’m entirely serious. What changes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
She spent some time in AZ trying to run up the score when she should have been campaigning hard in the Rust Belt. She could have named a more charismatic VP candidate, O'Malley brought very little to the ticket. Picking a guy whose state you're going to win anyway wasn't a power move. She should never mention being female as a reason to vote for her. Spend less time with 15 point plans and more time delivering platitudes.
That's a good list, Bob. But in a general sense, I think she was just way too overly confident in her ability to win. It was her time, her turn, and... who could possibly lose to Trump, anyway? To be fair, the press played that last bit up as well, and I think we all saw how shocked the newscasters were around 8:30 on election night when it started to sink in.

But here's the thing. None of us is a politician, and we're not necessarily the ones to know what she should have done differently. All I know is that whatever she did, it wasn't the right thing. There was something or some set of things that she did wrong. Who the hell knows what they all are?

Last edited by John Mace; Yesterday at 03:29 PM.
  #77  
Old Yesterday, 03:29 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
She spent some time in AZ trying to run up the score when she should have been campaigning hard in the Rust Belt. She could have named a more charismatic VP candidate, O'Malley brought very little to the ticket. Picking a guy whose state you're going to win anyway wasn't a power move. She should never mention being female as a reason to vote for her. Spend less time with 15 point plans and more time delivering platitudes.
I’m sorry; maybe I wasn’t clear.

I’m not asking what would’ve been smarter for her to do; I’m asking, how would she have campaigned differently if she were less smart?
  #78  
Old Yesterday, 03:36 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I’m sorry; maybe I wasn’t clear.

I’m not asking what would’ve been smarter for her to do; I’m asking, how would she have campaigned differently if she were less smart?
Less policy, more lies.

She coulda won.
  #79  
Old Yesterday, 03:38 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Less policy, more lies.

She coulda won.
Instead, she was just a contender.
  #80  
Old Yesterday, 04:19 PM
zoog zoog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
She spent some time in AZ trying to run up the score when she should have been campaigning hard in the Rust Belt. She could have named a more charismatic VP candidate, O'Malley brought very little to the ticket. Picking a guy whose state you're going to win anyway wasn't a power move. She should never mention being female as a reason to vote for her. Spend less time with 15 point plans and more time delivering platitudes.
Her VP pick was apparently so generic that we've already forgotten that it was Kaine. O'Malley was a half-assed primary challenger. But in BobLibDem's defense, they're pretty much the same guy as best anyone can tell. Now that I think of it, have they ever been seen in the same room together?
  #81  
Old Yesterday, 04:27 PM
Siam Sam Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 39,475
In this day and age, you never get another shot at running as the nominee if you lose. That's probably for the best.
__________________
Everything happens for a reason. But sometimes the reason is you are stupid and make bad decisions.
  #82  
Old Yesterday, 04:33 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoog View Post
Her VP pick was apparently so generic that we've already forgotten that it was Kaine. O'Malley was a half-assed primary challenger. But in BobLibDem's defense, they're pretty much the same guy as best anyone can tell. Now that I think of it, have they ever been seen in the same room together?
Holy shit, I actually forgot about Kaine. Yes, he was also short on charisma but at least he wasn't from a solid blue state. Still, had she picked Bernie Sanders it would have been a blowout.
  #83  
Old Yesterday, 05:14 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 29,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
I know it gets confusing. The New York Times and the Washington Post are newspapers. The New York Post and the Washington Times are not.
You'll be even more confused to find out that the Washington Post has taken note of the possibility of a Clinton revival. And Politico had its own take previously.

I suspect the right-wing sources speculating about a Hillary rerun are doing so with a mixture of glee and dread. It's sort of like having nailed shut the coffin lid on a vampire, only to have it break free and sit up with a dreadful leer on its face.

Somehow I doubt all of Clinton's public appearances, fund-raising efforts and quotable quotes are aimed only at cementing her place in history.

"And perhaps most relevant of all: She’s Hillary Clinton. Does anyone doubt she goes to bed every night with the phrase “Madame President” haunting her dreams? As Goodwin notes: “Doubters should recall the line about pols who get the presidential itch: There are only two cures — election or death.”

On top of the NYPost’s data points, there’s the fact that Hillary just won’t stop talking. She’s on TV almost as much as she was during the campaign, and she’s generating headlines at least once a week. She’s scheduled to speak at the American Federation of Teachers’ national gathering in Pittsburgh this Friday.

Who was the first national union to endorse Hillary in the 2016 Democratic primary? The AFT."


Face it, fellow Democrats. If the right set of circumstances occurs (including a crowded and divided field of candidates with no clear front-runner), then "spontaneous" calls to draft Hillary back into the race will be heard. And if she isn't dead or moribund, she'll jump at the chance.
  #84  
Old Yesterday, 05:59 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
That's a good list, Bob. But in a general sense, I think she was just way too overly confident in her ability to win. It was her time, her turn, and... who could possibly lose to Trump, anyway?
This, again, is exactly right. Trump pretty much believed it himself. Nobody could possibly lose to Trump, unless some significant portion of the American electorate was stupider than one could ever imagine, and an even more significant portion was too complacent to even bother voting. It was the perfect storm. Everyone shelter in place until further notice.
  #85  
Old Yesterday, 06:09 PM
The_Peyote_Coyote The_Peyote_Coyote is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,013
I think the Clintons should go quietly into the sunset. I also think Biden and Sanders are too old. I would like to see Gov. Dayton run.
  #86  
Old Yesterday, 06:55 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 35,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoog View Post
Her VP pick was apparently so generic that we've already forgotten that it was Kaine. O'Malley was a half-assed primary challenger. But in BobLibDem's defense, they're pretty much the same guy as best anyone can tell. Now that I think of it, have they ever been seen in the same room together?
I've been living in Maryland (where O'Malley was 2-term governor) for nearly 2 decades now, and have spent 30 years of my life in Virginia (which Kaine represents) and whose politics I'm still pretty familiar with.

And I can barely tell you a thing about either one, they're both so generic.

Last edited by RTFirefly; Yesterday at 06:57 PM.
  #87  
Old Yesterday, 07:07 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 35,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
You'll be even more confused to find out that the Washington Post has taken note of the possibility of a Clinton revival.
The piece says nothing to suggest that Clinton might actually be considering another run. It's just one of those "let's show our sophistication by writing something totally counterintuitive" sorts of pieces. Should be in Slate, because it's the perfect #slatepitch.

Guy's full of it too, because he brings in unsuccessful primary campaigns as instances of defeats followed by successful comebacks. We're talking about defeat in the general election. The last Dem who lost in the general, and later won the Dem nomination, was Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, a lifetime ago. The last time it happened for a Republican was Nixon in 1960/1968.

IOW, it could happen again sometime, but it's been one hell of a long time since it happened, and the political world worked differently back then: just a handful of primaries, and party bosses deciding how most of the delegates voted.
  #88  
Old Yesterday, 08:57 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
...Does anyone doubt she goes to bed every night with the phrase “Madame President” haunting her dreams? As Goodwin notes: “Doubters should recall the line about pols who get the presidential itch: There are only two cures — election or death.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The piece says nothing to suggest that Clinton might actually be considering another run. It's just one of those "let's show our sophistication by writing something totally counterintuitive" sorts of pieces. Should be in Slate, because it's the perfect #slatepitch.

Guy's full of it too, because he brings in unsuccessful primary campaigns as instances of defeats followed by successful comebacks. We're talking about defeat in the general election. The last Dem who lost in the general, and later won the Dem nomination, was Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, a lifetime ago. The last time it happened for a Republican was Nixon in 1960/1968.

IOW, it could happen again sometime, but it's been one hell of a long time since it happened, and the political world worked differently back then: just a handful of primaries, and party bosses deciding how most of the delegates voted.
Jackmannii expresses the reason why I don't put her running again at 0%, like I would with most other former candidates. And I think it would have to be a situation where Trump didn't run in 2020. If it's Trump again, I think someone form the DNC will arrive at Hillary's door and handcuff her to the stair rail until November of that year.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017