I’m curious to know: when the Presidency will go either to a competent and seasoned politician who happens to be deeply disliked by credulous people (largely on the basis of specious bad-mouthing); or to a proven con man, political neophyte, and all-around blowhard who patently hates every value and virtue that America aspires to on her best days, why do you have a preference for the America-hater?
The “Republican” under his name on the ballot.
Democrats are the antichrist, didn’t you know?
Your example of George McGovern actually disproves your argument considering it shows that whoever wins the primaries isn’t necessarily the best candidate for the nomination. And Bernie has plenty of crossover appeal-he regularly outruns Democrats in Vermont races.
How would that work, exactly?
Why not just let someone run on their own merits. I think people seem stuck on the idea that “dynastic” politicians are appointed and anointed – they’re not. They’re evaluated and voted on by the electorate. Sure, the public isn’t informed in a lot of cases, but I’d rather take a dynastic figure than an idiot like Trump. In the case of George W Bush, yeah, he was highly unqualified, which is why I didn’t vote for him. Unfortunately, millions of others did. But the problem was with the voting population, not the process. That’s the problem I have with American democracy. Blame big money, big donors, big parties all you want, but the REAL problem is our next door neighbor, our crazy uncle, our conspiracy theorist office assistant, our app-addicted nieces and nephews who just became old enough to vote. Until we take responsibility for our own ignorance and own voting behavior, you can search high and low for someone not named Bush, Kennedy, or Clinton. We’ll still get the same shit results.
Same reason they might nominate a self-proclaimed socialist who is even older than Trump. Overconfidence.
They’ll look at Trump’s low approval polling and interpret it as meaning he’s a sure loser, ignoring the power of incumbency. I can show you other presidential republics (Taiwan, for one) where you can get re-elected with low approval numbers.
As a Trump opponent, I wish the Democrats would nominate a governor. They have a better track record for presidential victory than do senators.
Solid post, Mr. Broad Street.
This is spot on. Clearly, Hillary lost in no small part because of overconfidence, and I’ve no doubt that a lot of Bernie’s backers are similarly overconfident.
I think that’s really the best bet. A governor would be better than a Senator. Barack was kind of a special case because most sitting senators have voting records and political histories that are like dead weights tied to their feet. Usually the skill set that is required to win a governor’s race is the same one required to win the White House. A governor is an alpha male or an alpha female. A senator is one among many. Voters usually vote for candidate alpha. Sure, we had JFK and Barack Obama, but those were special characters. I don’t see anyone like that in the current senate or house. Kamala Harris is intriguing though. I wanna see more of her.
Yeah, I mean if you guys wanted a dynasty, you could ask the ones you kicked out to return. I am sure Prince George would be available for being Viceroy of the United States.
Good lord, I hope not. So many people absolutely loathe her, for a lot of sexist bullshit reason (she shouts, she nags, she’s too aggressive).
This. So much this. Ever since she made the cookie remark, attacks have been ridiculous and constant. Do you remember the pearl-clutching about her pantsuits? How stupid was that? And, EHRMERGRD! She was involved in politics instead of just smiling in the background! Remember the Republicans going after her for her health plan and for daring to put her thoughts forward? Now we have someone with absolutely NO educational or practical background advising the president and sitting in for him; this is allowed merely because she’s his daughter. Although, honestly, a large swath of the White House staff seem to have no educational or practical background relating to their jobs.
Plenty of other American females have had successful careers in politics without suggestions they should just smile in the background.
Opposition to her focuses on her solipsistic intense vanity and profound ability to fail at everything she undertakes, including as Secretary of State, Libya, to which state her withering finger gave failure as a failed state.
Plus she whines a lot.
Also, note that Senator Obama ran against . . . Senator McCain. So any problems he would’ve faced by dint of not having been a chief executive cancel out, right?
Hey, Chelsea’s work experience tops that of Caroline Kennedy, who briefly was considered a serious candidate for the U.S. Senate from New York, and who was named ambassador to Japan (true, Caroline Kennedy did serve as Honorary Chairperson of the American Ballet Theatre, so there’s that). :dubious:
Neither can hold a candle to Callista Gingrich, named by Trump as ambassador to the Vatican (interestingly, Obama considered Caroline Kennedy as an appointee to the Vatican ambassadorship but there were Catholic Church complaints over her support of abortion rights. Now the Vatican can embrace an ambassador who carried on a six-year affair with Newt during his “open marriage” phase). 
I’m with you on this. Nothing smacks of Banana Republic like political dynasties. I’m also hoping that our first female president will NOT be the wife, sister daughter or even cousin of a former male president.
Thank Og that the Clintons have only one person in their potential dynasty. I think it’s going to be impossible to rid ourselves of the Bushes and the Kennedys. Just too damn many of them!
And if Mr. Trump becomes a popular president, the Trumps.
“One day you will do things for me that you hate. That is what it means to be family."
Somehow I’m not too worried about that (emphasis added).
Even the Clintons realize Chelsea has to be elected to something else before ever being considered seriously for president. Sooner or later it’s quite possible she’ll run for something, perhaps get elected to it, do a passable job, then we’ll be faced with the idea of her as presidential candidate on ‘her merits’ (kind of like the merits by which anyone ever thought of Hillary for pres, nothing do with being a president’s wife to begin with, that was just a coincidence 
). But no Chelsea 2020 for pres.
As for Hillary I doubt she has ruled out running again to the point she could never change her mind. But she has never faced a political race where she wasn’t ‘inevitable’ (including her Senate races), yet blew it in the two biggest (as inevitable nominee 2008, as nominee and inevitable general election winner 2016*). So now she’d claw her way to the top of a pile of people in a genuinely open race, who aren’t going to hold their fire because they know she’ll eventually win? Hard to see it.
*if you doubt it, read a cross section of posts on SDMB ‘elections’ forum before the last election.
Let’s just hope that the fork stays in for good.
I suspect that Hillary is thinking about another run and I hope that enough Democratic establishment types tell her bluntly that she has had her chances and needs to move on.
Justice for something like that is something you get posthumously in the history books. Or you are at least vindicated as a decent person through a retirement dedicated to humanitarian service or advocacy for a cause, even if the partisan types continue to insist you were terrible at the actual job. But somehow I see it hard for the Clintons to gracefully step into elder statespeople roles providing sage counsel, leaving behind the levers of power,* even if they wanted to*. The well has been thoroughly poisoned and whatever they do, even with the best intentions, there will always be a question, “what’s in it for them?”
So yes, in spite of that and even because of it – since it would only mean stirring up the same crap again: we have seen how “the negatives are already baked in” was a fallacious line of reasoning – the Clintons should sensibly give it up and focus instead on how to help the Dems get back on the road.
Sure! There’s George Clinton…I mean…Clint Eastwood, Clint Howard…ugh, I can do this…Delbert McClinton…it’s like trying not to think of an elephant!