Nice try.
I know it would be easier for Trump and his Trumpettes to be given such an easy target this early in the game, but they will just have to wait until the Democrats pick their own candidate, I’m afraid.
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%.
Me too. More than a few actually. And they’ll vote for Trump again rather than vote for her, despite all the stuff Trump is doing.
She’s political cancer at this point, and nominating her or even letting her be a candidate is a mistake. The Democrats desperately need to get as far from the 2016 election in all ways, including Bernie Sanders as they possibly can. Running a mostly independent Jewish socialist isn’t going to beat Trump either.
They need to find a middle of the road, respectable and upstanding white or Hispanic man. I think choosing a woman or a black person at this point would be a gamble; now’s not the time to try and do something controversial- it’ll just end up being a competition of who’s more outrageous.
It’s an absolutely terrible idea. The one arguably “good” thing if it happen would be that the US Democratic Party as a brand, party of Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson, would be finally reduced to a sad sick joke in all minds, and could join the Whigs in the graveyard of history. This would be a good thing. Future progressives could shut down criticism that identifies them spuriously with Dixiecrats and Indian Removal.
In the eventuality of a Clinton nomination, all progressives should run away from the Clinton circus first; those who have an actual vision of a real choice for this country shouldn’t be tarred with the Clinton glop as the Democratic Party implodes into ultimate ridiculousness.
What - like Tim Kaine? Yeah, he brings all the boys to the yard.
That statement is both sexist and racist. Maybe you’d be happier with a different party’s milkshake.
As for Hillary - I wouldn’t be surprised if she ran again or if her pals in the DNC supported her. But she’s a lot quieter at the moment than she was in the summer of 2015. I think reason just might prevail, here.
I think Bernie & Diamond Joe have both missed their windows, too. I suspect they both know it. I don’t see either of them gearing up right now, either.
Did anyone else notice that the only sources bringing this up are overtly right-wing sources? The right loves bringing Clinton back into the spotlight. They’re the only ones thinking this. Clinton isn’t going to run for president in 2020, and I will bet money on it if anyone’s interested.
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.
That butt plug wearing pear shaped loser would have no chance against Trump.
With the disgusting misogynistic and racist comments from various GOP reps, it can NOT even be a woman for the Dems in 2020, let alone anyone who isn’t white. The trumpeters already showed they want a rich, white, racist celebrity. I think the Dems’ best chance is to find their own celebrity in order to turn some of TrumpTurdBase to their celebrity. Maybe someone from Shark Tank?
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.
Jeb Bush was pretty much the only Republican name being seriously discussed. I don’t remember if he had officially discussed a run, but he certainly did by the end of 2014. I remember most political junkies (and a lot of folks here on the Dope) believed the 2016 race would come down to H. Clinton v. Jeb Bush. Other possibilities were Rubio and Cruz, but most of the money was on Jeb!. Trump, of course, was nothing more than a two-bit TV star who was famous for being famous.
I’m not seeing any of this right now. There’s some talk of Harris, Booker, or Merkley running but none of this is, as far as I can tell, anything more than gossip. Clinton isn’t even on the radar.
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.
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’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.
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.
…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.
Was Kenny Loggins also helping out?
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.
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 ]
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.