in a lot of trouble. I am an Independent, but some Democrats would be disappointed.
My thoughts exactly! Welcome back!
You have a point. “Don’t Mess With Texas” was a bizarre campaign slogan. But then, I found Bill Clinton smarmy and unpleasant as well.
I conclude that a significant bloc of USA voters do in fact like that kind of thing, somehow, or behave as if they do.
I thought of the 2000 US Senate contest in Missouri, where the Democratic nominee died during the campaign and won (against an incumbent) anyway, but that’s not entirely the same. He wasn’t indicted, just unavailable.
No, I don’t think he will be.
And his opponent was John Ass…er, Ashcroft. Whose inability to defeat a corpse wasn’t terribly surprising.
And who outside Virginia has heard of him? It’s far too late in the game to bring in a no-name.
Actually, if you have a candidate under indictment that’s exactly what you want. A fresh face. Plus if you have a brokered convention an unknown is usually the result, although I’d imagine if Biden wanted the nomination the party would quickly coalesce around him.
Given that it’s too late to bring in new candidates though, doesn’t it make sense for O’Malley to remain in the race as the only viable option should Clinton become unelectable? There are a lot of outcomes short of indictment that would doom her candidacy. I’d argue her candidacy is already doomed if not for the possibility she might face Ted Cruz in the general.
Good thing the thread is about a hypothetical, or else the laughter would be uproarious.
Hey, don’t shut him down, he’s just about to tell us how Hillary is doomed unless Ted Cruz gets the nod!
Don’t worry. You won’t hear that…
That’s just totally unfair, and unexpected, and they can switch to Biden if they want to!
Sorry, Bridget, just couldn’t stop myself…
It doesn’t matter. She’s helpless before the Kasich juggernaut.
HRC needs to pick up exactly this drum and beat it for all she’s worth for the next 12 months. I’d prefer Sanders but in order for him to be appreciably effective he’d need several dozen "mini-me"s to get elected into the congress at the same time. And his message is kinda complex anyway. But “They’re demonstrable dickheads and charlatans and I have whupped their incompetent asses for over a year” is a bit easier to grab onto.
Tell me, when have Democrats ever nominated a candidate that they have serious reservations about but thought the candidate was the most electable, and it ended well?
Is there evidence of serious reservations outside of the fact that pundits express them? (No snark intended.)
What reservations? Most of the “baggage” you decry are goofy RW media whines. Benghazi, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Emailgate? Mostly a bunch of nonsense that the GOP voter vapidly eats like fishflakes in the aquarium.
How about the fact that nearly half of Democrats agree that she just says what she thinks people want to hear?
http://pollingreport.com/wh16.htm
ANd it’s not like a lot of Dopers who are supporting her like her. They just hate Republicans more. But historically, that has never been enough.
I don’t think that that reflects “serious reservations”. Furthermore I think the fact slightly more than three quarters of people in the same poll think Clinton has the best chance to win in 2016 demonstrates that no “serious reservations” exist.
Believing that your candidate has no actual beliefs is not a serious reservation? I just don’t get how Democrats think, apparently.
I suppose it could be bad if people thought she had no actual beliefs, but I don’t think people think that and I’m not sure how you get that impression from the poll question under discussion.