Hillary 2020

[DrDeth]

@Tamerlane

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.

[septimus]

@DrDeth

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.

[Jonathan_Chance]

That’s enough right there, septimus.

Everyone, keep it polite.

[bobot]

@Mangosteen

Hillary Clinton Running In 2020? It Sure Sounds Like It | The Daily Caller

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.

[John_Mace]

@Banquet_Bear

…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”.

[Banquet_Bear]

@John_Mace

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.

[sfriver]

@DrDeth

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.

[Tamerlane]

@sfriver

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.

[MEBuckner]

@DrDeth

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.

@sfriver

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?)

[k9bfriender]

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.

[wolfpup]

@DWMarch

New rule: if you lose to Donald Trump you are disqualified from holding any office anywhere ever.

This.

@DSeid

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.

[Chefguy]

No to Hillary and fuck no to Sanders. I think Biden missed his opportunity.

[John_Mace]

@DSeid

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.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

What would she have done differently, in 2016, if she wasn’t smart?

That’s not snark; I’m entirely serious. What changes?

[BobLibDem]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

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.

[John_Mace]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

What would she have done differently, in 2016, if she wasn’t smart?

That’s not snark; I’m entirely serious. What changes?

@BobLibDem

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?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@BobLibDem

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?

[k9bfriender]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

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.

[John_Mace]

@k9bfriender

Less policy, more lies.

She coulda won.

Instead, she was just a contender.

[zoog]

@BobLibDem

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?