Yeah, that would be a disaster, IMHO, though just because Trump nominates someone doesn’t mean they would automatically get in. Does either party have a majority enough to push though a candidate that would be completely opposed by the other? I don’t think so.
There might have to be a SCOTUS Death Pool. Bonus points for picking the last one to remain.
The Notorious RBG could outlive Stonehenge with sheer will-power.
That is an awesome post.
Are you at all familiar with the difference between ethnicity and nationality?
You know who else pals around with the Pope?
Has to be exhausting to be this consistently wrong, eh DM?
[quote=“foolsguinea, post:27, topic:756749”]
[li]good government voters not wanting to vote for someone with Hillary’s record of dubious conflicts of interest and shady deals;[/li][/quote]
i.e. People who either don’t understand just how fucked Trump is in terms of “Shady deals” or who just straight-up should never vote in any election ever because they’ve bought wholesale into the Nirvana Fallacy.
[QUOTE]
[li]anti-regime-change voters who want someone who didn’t push for the Second Gulf War;[/li][/QUOTE]
Someone who didn’t push for the second Gulf War… You mean like Hillary Clinton? And not Donald Trump?
[QUOTE]
[li]the younger online generation who realize that they’re getting a raw deal compared to people in other First World nations;[/li][/QUOTE]
And therefore are not standing up for the candidate most likely to push them in that direction. Huh. Makes sense.
[QUOTE]
[li]ideological progressives who want a politician whose progressivism isn’t just campaign lies;[/li][/QUOTE]
And well-thought-out policy proposals, and an express interest in furthering the agenda of her well-regarded predecessor, and showing no indication that she’s going to make a major about-face after the primaries. Not sure why one would simply assume Clinton’s progressivism is “just campaign lies”.
[QUOTE]
[li]environmentalists upset about Keystone XL and fracking (Bernie was the only anti-fracking candidate);[/li][/QUOTE]
Oh give me a fucking break.
This is the point where this list goes from the silly to the outright absurd. We have two candidates left. One of them explicitly advocates fracking. One of them supports a series of stringent regulations on fracking, but not an outright ban. This should be the easiest fucking choice in the world, right? Even before we consider that Trump believes that global warming is a conspiracy from China and would tear up the Paris Accords (and clearly doesn’t even understand them, or is lying about them). There is no fucking excuse. There just isn’t. Is fracking your #1, big-ticket bugbear, that drowns out everything else? Then if you aren’t voting Clinton, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. You’re essentially saying, “Well, I get a lot of what I want with you, and the other guy is giving me absolutely nothing and actively wants to make my life worse, but because you’re not the perfect candidate we’re dreaming of, I can’t be bothered to help you. Sorry!”
That’s incredibly short-sighted and stupid.
This seems a good time to bring this up:
Leftists for Trump: What Is to Be Done About These Insufferable Nihilists?
“Cosplay revolutionaries” … I like that.
Also from the same article:
This is why responsible grown-ups don’t let children play with matches.
It’s as if people think the world really is a video game, and that the hilarity of starting your Rollercoaster Tycoon ride after deleting a section of track and watching the cars carrying pixel people fly into space would be even funnier if they were real people.
Still, we should all be prepared for the possibility that Trump might actually win, and that Ketcham might be right about the consequences – “consternation, confusion, dissension, disorder, chaos—and crisis”. And I note he ranks the chances of “resolution” as no more than “possible.”
I know this is an older thread, but I couldn’t help but answer. It depends on how you define “legacy”, as well as how you define “runner-up”. For this post, I’m going to take the latter to mean “announced their candidacy for the nomination and didn’t win it”.
Joe Biden & Hillary Clinton both ran for the Democratic Party nomination for POTUS in '08 and lost.
Hillary (even if we ignore her going on to win the nomination as you requested) went on to serve as the Secretary of State, probably the most powerful Secretary position in the cabinet.
Joe went on to serve as Vice President.
A lot of cabinet level positions are filled by people who once ran for (and lost) their party’s nomination for POTUS.
Whether that qualifies as a “legacy” or not is something that’s more in eye of the beholder, but the people who lose the nomination don’t necessarily fade into oblivion from that point on.
As an aside, there are also people who, after losing their party’s nomination, go back to doing what they were doing originally and build their legacy that way (completely unrelated but it still followed sequentially). The most famous example I can think of is John Glenn. As a Senator, he ran for the Democratic nomination in '84 & lost to Mondale. He then, in 1998, went on to become the oldest man to fly in space. The two were, quite obviously, unrelated, but he still had a legacy building action after losing his party’s nomination for POTUS.
Same can be said for Jesse Jackson, who, if memory serves, ran a few times.
Of course, your question doesn’t even specify “after”, just that the individual shared the 2 traits: “losing the party’s nomination” and “having a legacy”–which qualified John Glenn without the shuttle flight, as his legacy was built before he even threw his hat in the ring.