The technicality being the election.
The technicality being FBI and Russian interference.
-
The Democrats need to start focusing on the local and state level elections. Don’t focus on 2020 while forgetting about today and 2018.
-
Don’t run Hillary in 2020.
-
We need a better DNC. Priebus might be doing a terrible job at the White House, but he was masterful in how he handled the Republican primary. The RNC has also consistently been better at supporting state and house candidates than the DNC has. As someone upthread noted about the recent Kansas special election, that continues to be a problem.
-
Don’t run Hillary in 2020.
-
Democrats need to take the EC into account. With Republican governors in Wisconsin, Michigan, and in Pennsylvania up until 2015, the loss of the upper Midwest becomes obvious in hindsight. The candidate in 2020 needs to focus on those states in particular, not take them for granted. The alternative is to try to flip some of the southern coastal states and go for North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. I think it’s going to come down to those two regions in 2020. Forget about messing with Utah, Arizona, and Texas. Those states aren’t flippable.
-
Don’t run Hillary in 2020.
-
Don’t make the 2020 primary seem like a coronation. Have a primary with multiple legitimate contenders. Sure, 17 might be to many, but having only 2 serious contenders wasn’t good. Yes, I’m counting Hillary and Bernie as the only legitimate Democratic primary contenders this last election.
-
Don’t run Hillary in 2020!!
Well, so dont run the person who won the popular vote?:dubious: Who has already survived decades of Rove lies and propaganda? Who just missed surviving Russian propaganda and hacking and FBI interference?
DrDeth, would you support a HRC third-time’s-the-charm campaign in 2020?
Didn’t someone famous once say that trying the same thing over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity? 
I think age and health might be the bigger issues, not electability.
So, then Nixon didnt win?
What’s that compared to the Billy Bush video? You need to have a candidate who can survive shit like that because there is always going to be shit like that.
Nixon didn’t run against JFK in 1968. Clinton would presumably be running against Trump again in 2020.
Outside of a few democrat Strongholds Hillary couldn’t get elected as dog catcher.
What is it about her that her supporters don’t see she’s just generally unlikable and completely unpalatable for conservative leaning people?
Yes, she’s competent, qualified, whatever: completely irrelevant: she will not get any votes outside of the democrat faithfull.
The gop. ran Trump and she still lost. Can you imagine the landslide a sane candidate would have had?
You mean the FBI that all the progressives were patting on the back and lauding for their integrity and honesty when they said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges based on the evidence, and the conservatives immediately accused of being a closet liberal in the pocket of the DNC?
Or do you mean the FBI that progressives were accusing of deliberately sabotaging Hillary when the investigation into Anthony Weiner’s dick pics to underage girls also uncovered a shitload of emails between Hillary and Huma Abedin, of course the conservatives immediately called Comey a bastion of bureaucratic integrity.
I’ve said it before (when Comey let Hillary off the hook and again when he strung her up again), no reasonably informed person thinks Comey lacks integrity or is unethical unless they are being partisan.
How exactly did the Russians interfere? Other than exposing the truth about how Hillary cheated in the primary, how exactly did they interfere?
Hillary really has noone to blame but her self. Of course that doesn’t stop her from trying.
She has a huge political machine that she inherited from her husband so she has a head start and a vagina. She has name recognition and a vagina. She is a baby boomer with a vagina. She is an outspoken feminist with a vagina. And some people just like her because she has a vagina.
Washington DC bureaucracy is filled to the gills with competent, qualified, whatever people. However qualified you think ANY politician is, there is a DC bureaucrat that is more qualified than them in EVERY way except the politician’s ability to get elected.
Hillary might make an excellent bureaucrat (and by all accounts she was an excellent secretary of state (emails aside)) but she has never been good at winning elections. The only election she won was the result of Guiliani dropping out of the race and being replaced by some back bencher that noone had heard of before or heard from since.
The difference between these bureaucrats and a politician is that these bureaucrats can’t win elections, much like Hillary.
The only person who regrets not running more than Romney is Biden.
Yes, don’t run the person who managed to lose an election to Donald Trump, even if she has excuses for it. Seriously, if the Democrats are actually stupid enough to run Hillary in 2020 I will vote for Trump just to try to bring them to their senses.
generally unlikable?:dubious: 65,853,516 voters disagree.
Actually, no, she would have won vs Cruz, etc. It was the Trump campaign that took the Dems by surprise. And, other than maybe Kasich, the GOP didnt run any sane candidates.
This is where I think you are wrong: Trump didn’t do anything. She lost all on her own.
She motivated some people to vote for the other guy and got the votes ANY democrat candidate would have had.
American elections are about motivating undecideds to vote: She got 0 of those.
If I see things correctly; The American electorate is 30% D, 30% R, and whoever motivates the most of the rest wins: Obama inspired 5 million people who normally don’t vote to vote FOR him: Hillary motivated 2 million to vote AGAINST her.
disclaimer: I think Hillary is a very competent woman and I was absolutely rooting for her. I utterly detest Trump and everything he stands for.
Nothing but having the Russians hack and rig the elections?
The Russians didn’t “hack and rig the elections”.
Havent been reading much recently? :dubious:
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/russian-hack-donald-trump-2016-election/
That’s neither “hacking” nor “rigging” an election. Not that we haven’t gone over that a bazillion times on this MB already.