Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

[Darth Yan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... de46b2b24e

These idiots have literally learned nothing. Hillary was a shit candidate and while it's true sexism played a role she still made tactical blunders and was a just plain unlikable candidate.

Get ready for 8 years of trump if she wins

[FireNexus]

There is no evidence that Clinton is running again other than a politico writer trying to get credit for being some kind of sage.

Though, let's face facts. The idea of Clinton running again would make a certain amount of sense given the fact that Trump ran on how crooked she was and proceeded to make her look like Jesus Christ.

I'd still vote against her in the primaries, though. And that's as someone who legitimately wants her to be President.

[Terralthra]

Clicking those links gives money as a reward for the pointless fomenting of rumors. There are better ways and places to spend your time and (effectively) money.

[TheFeniX]

Until she says "I'm running in 2020," I'm taking anything said on this with a grain of salt and registering it as click-bait.

That said, if I hear "I'm running in 2020" leave HRC's mouth, the only comment my brain will get out is likely: Fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

And Trump beat Clinton with a simple message: She is the status quo you hate; I am radical change. She's a politician; I'm not. She is of Washington; I hate Washington.

This is a pretty succinct point: the blowback against the establishment isn't a conservative mindset. It was actually the purview of liberals since forever. Obama scratched that itch something fierce. Hillary does not. The woman might support the platforms of the Democratic electorate when it's convenient, but I don't think she is a good representation of liberal ideals.

[Simon_Jester]

I wouldn't actually be surprised if, by 2020, she could win the election on the merits of "would you vote for Trump again if you could get a do-over?" Note that Trump's approval rating, already sub-50% when he took office, has managed to sink a little more in just a few weeks. I doubt he's going to be able to get himself back up to a level where he could win an election that was purely a referendum on his own performance.

The only real X-factor is, of course, voter suppression.

That said, it is just an incredibly bad idea to nominate someone who has already lost her own primary once, and the general once to someone who SHOULD have been a fairly easy target. Someone who has this tremendous amount of baggage such that her very name is like a berserk button for conservatives that brings them out in droves to vote for a man who is transparently, obviously, the avatar of the god of used car salesmen.

...

But again, there is no fundamental reason to assume she WILL run again in 2020 (at the age of seventy-three). Or that she'll have much chance of winning the primary assuming anyone competent and with a even a modicum of appeal runs against her.

[I'm going to echo some of the complaints I've heard; where are the prominent Democrats from Generation X? The ones who were born in 1965 instead of 1955? The closest we've had to date is Obama, and he's one guy. Who else is on offer that I'm just forgetting about or not hearing about?]

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

This barely rises above the factual level of "conspiracy theory." Thanks for the clickbait thread title, OP.

As has been stated, even if Clinton did run again, she probably wouldn't survive the primary. Especially if there was a challenger even modestly more viable than Bernie Sanders (which, admittedly, is a low bar to clear.) As has been said, she's not only a presidential loser, but a repeat presidential loser; which is a pretty damning indictment for any big-money backer looking for a Democrat to throw their weight behind in 2020 ... and because of that, it is difficult to imagine the press and party establishment so completely falling in line behind her; like they did in 2016 ... especially since the Trump administration is, so far, encouraging a sharp leftward tack by the Democratic base.

[Simon_Jester]

The thing about money is a good point. Who wants to donate X thousand dollars to Hillary Clinton's campaign, if there's a high probability she'll simply lose?

[White Haven]

The same people who, upon looking at the board in 2016, said to themselves, "Let's fling money at the specific candidate who the Republicans have been laying the groundwork to tar and feather for decades. That makes great tactical sense."

[Gandalf]

The same people who, upon looking at the board in 2016, said to themselves, "Let's fling money at the specific candidate who the Republicans have been laying the groundwork to tar and feather for decades. That makes great tactical sense."

Who was the alternative?

[White Haven]

Literally anyone else? Clinton should have been bottom-tier. She was a bog-standard politician from Central Casting, just like most politicians in any election, but she was a generic politician with a decades-long-assembled bullseye on her forehead. You can either push her front and center and say 'hey look! Her forehead's right in the way of your bullets, enjoy!' or you can run literally anyone else and at least not start with a handicap.

[Flagg]

If Hillary Clinton runs for President I will eat my hat.

[Flagg]

Literally anyone else? Clinton should have been bottom-tier. She was a bog-standard politician from Central Casting, just like most politicians in any election, but she was a generic politician with a decades-long-assembled bullseye on her forehead. You can either push her front and center and say 'hey look! Her forehead's right in the way of your bullets, enjoy!' or you can run literally anyone else and at least not start with a handicap.

Literally anyone else? Literally? John Edwards. Run him.

[Tribble]

At this stage of the game I wouldn't mind it if the US President was a potted plant tbh.

[Flagg]

At this stage of the game I wouldn't mind it if the US President was a potted plant tbh.

I'm pretty sure President Pussygrabber has an alien chia-pet on its head.

[Tribble]

At this stage of the game I wouldn't mind it if the US President was a potted plant tbh.

I'm pretty sure President Pussygrabber has an alien chia-pet on its head.

Obama had to release his long form birth certificate, why can't we demand to pour water on Trump's head to see how his "hair" reacts? If it starts growing its definitely an alien chia pet.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd settle for him releasing his 1040s.

If he can demand proof that Obama was, in fact, born, I can demand proof that Trump is, in fact, not a felony tax-dodger.

The same people who, upon looking at the board in 2016, said to themselves, "Let's fling money at the specific candidate who the Republicans have been laying the groundwork to tar and feather for decades. That makes great tactical sense."

I think a lot of them expected her to win. Possibly because they underestimated just how important Obama's charisma was to generating the historical result of 2012: namely, the Republicans bickered and discredited each other and the incumbent breezed through to victory.

People aren't going to go into the 2020 election cycle expecting Hillary Clinton to be a strong contender in a presidential election. Because she can't beat a strong contender for a primary, and she can't beat even a relatively weak contender for the general election, so long as said contender pushes the right buttons. She's got just about all the skills someone would need to do an adequate job of running the White House... except electability.

[Flagg]

I'd settle for him releasing his 1040s.

If he can demand proof that Obama was, in fact, born, I can demand proof that Trump is, in fact, not a felony tax-dodger.

The same people who, upon looking at the board in 2016, said to themselves, "Let's fling money at the specific candidate who the Republicans have been laying the groundwork to tar and feather for decades. That makes great tactical sense."

I think a lot of them expected her to win. Possibly because they underestimated just how important Obama's charisma was to generating the historical result of 2012: namely, the Republicans bickered and discredited each other and the incumbent breezed through to victory.

People aren't going to go into the 2020 election cycle expecting Hillary Clinton to be a strong contender in a presidential election. Because she can't beat a strong contender for a primary, and she can't beat even a relatively weak contender for the general election, so long as said contender pushes the right buttons. She's got just about all the skills someone would need to do an adequate job of running the White House... except electability.

"Democrats are excellent at governing, Republicans are excellent at getting elected."

[TheFeniX]

Literally anyone else? Clinton should have been bottom-tier. She was a bog-standard politician from Central Casting, just like most politicians in any election, but she was a generic politician with a decades-long-assembled bullseye on her forehead. You can either push her front and center and say 'hey look! Her forehead's right in the way of your bullets, enjoy!' or you can run literally anyone else and at least not start with a handicap.

Honestly, if Trump continues to deal with bickering bullshit with his own cabinet and fails miserably at everything, AND he doesn't get his ass impeached doing something so incredibly stupid the party has to oust him,* Clinton could easily beat him in 2020. Really, anyone could beat him.

But they would be better served to take a hard look NOW at who they can build up. There's plenty of younger white guys but there's also a multiple women and minorities who look like they have their shit together. Throwing this out there: Julian Castro. Hispanic Texas native. If you want to flip Texas (we're actually getting close): fucking do it. Obama cred. Young. I saw him on some news outlet talking about the results. Looks like he has a good head on his shoulders and talked about multiple issues with the Democrats approach to the election, Trump's strengths, and the frustrations of the electorate.

*They could turn on him given the chance. The Republican leadership, Trumps blustering aside, has to know the "Trump Angle" of "say vile shit + MAKE MURRICA GREAT!" line isn't going to hold because Trump won via EC rule-lawyering. They can gerrymander and voter suppress all they want, but it doesn't matter. The party has to start embracing the continually move towards the left (read: center) the country is doing because their base (by all accounts) isn't getting stronger or larger. He gave up 3 million votes to a candidate they've been systematically slandering for years, whose own comments don't always endear her to voters, and who people were totally apathetic for.

This is bad enough as it is, but:

They're going to be fighting an energized voting base in 4 years: one who has instantly seen what getting lazy under Obama's "benevolent" leadership leads to. Put someone up there that isn't saddled with his/her own and opposing party shit-slinging. You know, like Obama who Republicans tried and failed to attack on multiple fronts but nothing sunk him because very few people had seen the man on the boob-tube decades ago. He had so little baggage at one point they were portraying him as inexperienced. When they realized how dumb that was, they then tried to saddle him with the "Chicago Politics backstabbing and thieving" label.

Anyways, if things work out in 2020: we'll go through it all again in another 8 years because people are fucking stupid. Read: how is this shit not completely like 2000 where things were so comfy under Bill Clinton they let a Bud Light swilling Texas party-boy get elected? Hey, I'm not blameless here: I voted for the guy. I was 18 and pretty conservative at the time: sue me.

[Flagg]

Literally anyone else? Clinton should have been bottom-tier. She was a bog-standard politician from Central Casting, just like most politicians in any election, but she was a generic politician with a decades-long-assembled bullseye on her forehead. You can either push her front and center and say 'hey look! Her forehead's right in the way of your bullets, enjoy!' or you can run literally anyone else and at least not start with a handicap.

Honestly, if Trump continues to deal with bickering bullshit with his own cabinet and fails miserably at everything, AND he doesn't get his ass impeached doing something so incredibly stupid the party has to oust him,* Clinton could easily beat him in 2020. Really, anyone could beat him.

But they would be better served to take a hard look NOW at who they can build up. There's plenty of younger white guys but there's also a multiple women and minorities who look like they have their shit together. Throwing this out there: Julian Castro. Hispanic Texas native. If you want to flip Texas (we're actually getting close): fucking do it. Obama cred. Young. I saw him on some news outlet talking about the results. Looks like he has a good head on his shoulders and talked about multiple issues with the Democrats approach to the election, Trump's strengths, and the frustrations of the electorate.

*They could turn on him given the chance. The Republican leadership, Trumps blustering aside, has to know the "Trump Angle" of "say vile shit + MAKE MURRICA GREAT!" line isn't going to hold because Trump won via EC rule-lawyering. They can gerrymander and voter suppress all they want, but it doesn't matter. The party has to start embracing the continually move towards the left (read: center) the country is doing because their base (by all accounts) isn't getting stronger or larger. He gave up 3 million votes to a candidate they've been systematically slandering for years, whose own comments don't always endear her to voters, and who people were totally apathetic for.

This is bad enough as it is, but:

They're going to be fighting an energized voting base in 4 years: one who has instantly seen what getting lazy under Obama's "benevolent" leadership leads to. Put someone up there that isn't saddled with his/her own and opposing party shit-slinging. You know, like Obama who Republicans tried and failed to attack on multiple fronts but nothing sunk him because very few people had seen the man on the boob-tube decades ago. He had so little baggage at one point they were portraying him as inexperienced. When they realized how dumb that was, they then tried to saddle him with the "Chicago Politics backstabbing and thieving" label.

Anyways, if things work out in 2020: we'll go through it all again in another 8 years because people are fucking stupid. Read: how is this shit not completely like 2000 where things were so comfy under Bill Clinton they let a Bud Light swilling Texas party-boy get elected? Hey, I'm not blameless here: I voted for the guy. I was 18 and pretty conservative at the time: sue me.

Papers are being files by my lawyers.

One big enough terrorist attack (made more likely by President Pussygrabber going to war with the intelligence community) and Trump gets reelected.

[Ralin]

The Republican leadership, Trumps blustering aside, has to know the "Trump Angle" of "say vile shit + MAKE MURRICA GREAT!" line isn't going to hold because Trump won via EC rule-lawyering. They can gerrymander and voter suppress all they want, but it doesn't matter. The party has to start embracing the continually move towards the left (read: center) the country is doing because their base (by all accounts) isn't getting stronger or larger.

I've been hearing this since pre-Obama. The Republican Party's demographic bases are shrinking. There are more young and non-white voters than ever. Young people are increasingly left-wing and supportive of gay rights and against the Religious Right. Etc.

And yet Trump is still president and Republicans came out ahead in state and Congressional elections on top of that. Republicans keep winning and they keep getting worse, not more moderate. So no, I'd say they damned well fucking can keep staying the course and do what works for them. There's a name for someone who wins via Electoral College mechanics: Mr. President.

[Simon_Jester]

One big enough terrorist attack (made more likely by President Pussygrabber going to war with the intelligence community) and Trump gets reelected.

I dunno.

One, it's entirely possible that said big terrorist attack would end up looking more like "his fault" for ignoring CIA people he's pissy about, and less like "he'll protect us." He's such a fuckup I'm not even sure he could project the kind of 'uniter' image that Dubya was able to manage during the aftermath of 9/11. He'll be running around tweeting about how all he knows from the terrorists he learned on TV and how this is all the fault of [insert domestic opponent here].

Bush at least managed to do a convincing impersonation of a "presidential guy" in September 2001. "We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail" does a much better job of keeping your approval ratings high than "blame the courts." Having Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice- even Donald Rumsfeld, who at least had a lot of experience in actual government- as the people who speak for your administration makes you look a lot less stupid than having Sean Spicer and Steve Bannon.

And at that, the 2004 election was actually really damn close. A 1.2% shift would have flipped enough swing states to give Kerry the win (flipping New Mexico, Iowa, and Ohio).

So basically, 9/11 wasn't a silver bullet for Bush. A few more gaffes, or a stronger Democratic candidate, or any of a lot of X-factors, could have led to him being defeated in 2004. Trump, who has all of Bush's weaknesses and a whole extra suite of new ones, may find it even more challenging to squeeze a victory out.

I've been hearing this since pre-Obama. The Republican Party's demographic bases are shrinking. There are more young and non-white voters than ever. Young people are increasingly left-wing and supportive of gay rights and against the Religious Right. Etc.

And yet Trump is still president and Republicans came out ahead in state and Congressional elections on top of that. Republicans keep winning and they keep getting worse, not more moderate. So no, I'd say they damned well fucking can keep staying the course and do what works for them. There's a name for someone who wins via Electoral College mechanics: Mr. President.

I'm sure you take great satisfaction in saying so. But the margin of each Electoral College-granted victory gets steeper, the margin of error for Republican wins gets narrower, and Goldwater Republicans keep dying of senile dementia.

The argument "it worked once, so it will always work" falls flat when you're taking narrower and weirder and more difficult victories as 'proof' that a strategy will keep working forever.

I'm reminded of the WWII Japanese and 'victory disease.' After their first round of carefully planned sneak attacks against unprepared and weak opponents succeeded, they assumed they could keep doing it forever, that their enemies would never fight back effectually.

It turned out not to be so. The Japanese 'winning combination' turned out to be very sensitive to circumstance, and it broke down very badly once the circumstances changed.

[Ralin]

I'm reminded of the WWII Japanese and 'victory disease.' After their first round of carefully planned sneak attacks against unprepared and weak opponents succeeded, they assumed they could keep doing it forever, that their enemies would never fight back effectually.

It turned out not to be so. The Japanese 'winning combination' turned out to be very sensitive to circumstance, and it broke down very badly once the circumstances changed.

Yeah, except that in this analogy we're all Japanese, and do I need to remind you exactly how Japan's last war ended?

I'm sure you take great satisfaction in saying so. But the margin of each Electoral College-granted victory gets steeper, the margin of error for Republican wins gets narrower, and Goldwater Republicans keep dying of senile dementia.

The argument "it worked once, so it will always work" falls flat when you're taking narrower and weirder and more difficult victories as 'proof' that a strategy will keep working forever.

Nothing works indefinitely. But for the time being it has continued to work and the results have gotten substantially worse. All these explanations for why it won't haven't panned out, well-reasoned and plausible though they may seem.

One, it's entirely possible that said big terrorist attack would end up looking more like "his fault" for ignoring CIA people he's pissy about, and less like "he'll protect us." He's such a fuckup I'm not even sure he could project the kind of 'uniter' image that Dubya was able to manage during the aftermath of 9/11. He'll be running around tweeting about how all he knows from the terrorists he learned on TV and how this is all the fault of [insert domestic opponent here].

I don't think he'll try to come off as an uniter. I think he'll throw all his weight behind the "blame domestic opponent" option and that it will work well enough for him to force whatever he tries to do through.

EDIT:

I mean, not to go all TRR here, but I'm not 100 percent convinced we'll be having an election in 2020. Or that it won't be so stacked that it will only be a formality. The former is pretty out there. The latter...

[Prometheus Unbound]

why can't we demand to pour water on Trump's head to see how his "hair" reacts? If it starts growing its definitely an alien chia pet.

http://9gag.com/gag/aqroVB7

Kind like that, I suppose.



Though we can have some fun with it:

http://9gag.com/gag/aG0m71X

[Flagg]

At this stage of the game I wouldn't mind it if the US President was a potted plant tbh.

I'm pretty sure President Pussygrabber has an alien chia-pet on its head.

Obama had to release his long form birth certificate, why can't we demand to pour water on Trump's head to see how his "hair" reacts? If it starts growing its definitely an alien chia pet.

I'm pretty sure Donnie Douchebag is bringing back water boarding torture, maybe he will do what Hannity lacked the balls to do and undergo it to "prove" it's not really torture. Of course the alien in his head will drain all of the life force from everything within a square mile once it's watered.

[Iroscato]

I'm reminded of the WWII Japanese and 'victory disease.' After their first round of carefully planned sneak attacks against unprepared and weak opponents succeeded, they assumed they could keep doing it forever, that their enemies would never fight back effectually.

It turned out not to be so. The Japanese 'winning combination' turned out to be very sensitive to circumstance, and it broke down very badly once the circumstances changed.

Yeah, except that in this analogy we're all Japanese, and do I need to remind you exactly how Japan's last war ended?

That's...the exact fucking point, you moron. Eventually, they lost the war. Put down the rattling sabre for a minute, would you?