I’d like to see a cite that Sanders has bought into ANY of these theories.
Clinton will be on Graham Norton tonight.
The way the stars are aligning (Biden hurt by spillover of the Ukraine mess and Bloomberg’s candidacy, Warren plateauing, perception of Sanders as too extreme etc.), Clinton is liable not only to be active in the campaign but to be the eventual nominee if no declared candidates can separate themselves from the (dwindling) pack.
That’s why she’s determined to stay in the limelight, not just to settle old political scores.
I can’t think of a better way to hand the election to Trump than to run Hillary again.
It doesn’t matter if he personally has.
Many of his supporters certainly have and are not shy about voicing them, which we’ve all been learning and re-learning for years is not a great thing in the internet age.
And that’s kind of the point. There’s a lot of tu quoque and in-fighting, and it’s counterproductive to the larger goal. I’ll credit most of his supporters with not doing so, but it’s the squeakiest wheels that are getting most of the oil.
Case in point, this notion that she’ll run again is bizarre and can only be described as conspiracy theory. She’s not going to run, and she’s not going to get more involved than requested by the eventual nominee.
I really wonder what everybody is going to do once they don’t have Clinton as a punching bag anymore. It’s been a whole generation, so the scrambling will be furious and silly.
I fully agree. I don’t see any Democrat who I’m really enthused about this year. But no matter which of them - Sanders, Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, or one of the others - they will have my full support and I will vote for them on Election Day. Because I don’t want another four years of Trump and that should be our focus. I’ll vote for Bloomberg if it comes down to that.
“The point” is that Sanders did nothing wrong, but some of his base is made up of dumb assholes? Every politician, Hillary included, has some portion of their base that’s made up of dumb assholes. Trump’s base is entirely dumb assholes. But the majority of people who like Bernie like him because they believe in what he is selling – Medicare for all, taxes on the ultra-wealthy, getting money out of politics, overturning Citizens United (the #2 most important issue in the nation right now IMHO, right behind beating Trump). Bernie was addressing these issues in 2016. Hillary was not.
None of that means they should have taken their ball and gone home when Sanders wasn’t nominated. I voted for Hillary (in the primary, too, because I wasn’t fully on board with Sanders at the time, and because I thought she had a better chance against Trump). People who didn’t suck. But it’s not about conspiracy theories and sexism. It’s about Hillary being the “business as usual” candidate. Things need to change – that’s more obvious now than it was in 2016, but to Sanders, it’s been clear for a long time.
Wait, how are they unfair?
Hillary won California by 5 million votes, the greatest margin any state has ever been won by. And then she lost a crap load of states by a handful of votes. That’s losing the election. She is a horrible politician, she’s never won a competitive election in her life. She makes a much better cabinet member, CEO or military general than politician.
DC is packed to the brim with hard working competent people. It is the ability to get elected that makes one a politician and she never really won an election, she only ever had them handed to her.
Because the weight of a citizen’s vote depends on where they live. That’s unfair, IMO. Do you think it’s fair to assign some voters more weight and influence because they happen to live in swing states?
I find myself nodding approvingly when someone says running Hillary would be a disaster, case closed, full stop. But then I realize, that’s mostly because I flat out don’t like her. And when approaching my duty as a citizen, I should make every effort to hold reason above emotion.
Why, perzackly, is that so totally proven? She got more votes before, why would she get less now, after we have already seen what a damp bag of turds the Trump presidency is, and will be? Who repents having voted for Hillary? Anybody here, voted for her, but thinks that was wrong?
Therefore, can we not assume that most, if not all, of the people who voted for her before will do so again? Can we reasonably expect some others to vote who did not feel the motivation before?
Funny thing, her policies and positions are not that different from her husband, Horndog Bill. But I *like *him, and don’t like her. That is unreasonable, and I gotta cop to it. I am ready and willing to climb onto the Anti Hillary bandwagon, but you’re gonna have to tell me why.
He really has a chance to be an elder statesman to this next generation of politicians. A lion of the senate. We need some of those on both sides to get the senate functioning again.
Then she wasn’t the right candidate.
The ONLY thing politicians offer that DC wonks do not offer is the ability to get elected. Whatever policy issue you can name, I can probably name a policy expert that understand the issue better than any of current politicians. The ONLY advantage that these politicians offer over these wonks is the ability to get elected. If she couldn’t do that then she shouldn’t have run. She should have stepped aside so that someone other than Trump would be sitting in the oval office right now.
Then she shouldn’t have run.
She failed us. She spent too much time in California and New York building up the biggest margin of victory in California in American History. It’s not that she couldn’t have won, she just didn’t spend a lot of time in those swing states.
Her taking of responsibility almost always has a “but… here are the real reasons why we lost” addendum.
Yes.
Otherwise no one would bother going to Wyoming. They would stay in large metropolitan areas and see to the welfare of city folk.
If the electoral college kept out Trump, you might think it was a good thing.
“that’s mostly because I flat out don’t like her”
And you are not alone in that sentiment. Plenty of folks that hated Trump before, hate him more now but a lot of folks who were never trump before are kinda OK with him now. We have 2 more conservative justices and that’s really all they care about. For others, it was his tax cuts. And for some others it was his protectionism. This is not a one way ratchet.
Ha! When was the last time a presidential general election candidate went to Wyoming?
Every voter should have the exact same influence. Right now, millions of voters don’t matter at all. Under a popular vote, that voter in Wyoming would have the exact same influence as a voter in California. Right now, neither voter has any influence at all for president. Only voters lucky enough to be in swing states have any influence at all.
Heh… Wyoming! Not sure if I’ve ever seen such a self refuting argument!
Nobody goes to Wyoming now. That’s why there’s so few people there. Why should areas with little to almost no people have more say than areas with many people? The large metropolitan areas are where most of the people are. Last I checked ours was a Government of, for and by the People. Not of, for and by large unpopulated tracts of land.
It’s free real estate!
The U. S. Constitution was written as, and continues to be, a compromise between the idea that the U.S.A. is a collection of people (so every individual person should have equal representation in the federal government), and the idea that the U.S.A. is a collection of states (so every state should have equal representation in the federal government).