And_Gignac
Member
Clintons are over. It's time to let it go.
Cuomos issues are the only reason this is being discussedEh, this seems like it would be an odd play to me. I feel like most people will still be licking the wounds of the 2016 election by that time, and hell, it's likely some new ones will be opened by the Trump administration by then. It's just so soon that I feel like her momentum could easily be toppled by statements like "You couldn't even manage to win what was considered the most winnable presidential election in history". I think I could see it being the play in 2022 though.
I think Hillary would be a good governor, but at some point you just have to move on. Unless there is really no other qualified candidate, let someone else take it. We need new blood in those governors' mansions to build the party bench for the future. And while I don't think Hillary has done anything seriously wrong and that she was a good force in American politics, the meme about her as some sort of political vampire who cost the left everything has set in, and it's best not to lean into it. The fight over Hillary Clinton may have come to the wrong conclusion, but that doesn't mean it's worth the fight to readjudicate it. Just let it go.
People keep saying "she lost to Donald Trump!" as if this was some kind of impossibility.
Stop underestimating Donald trump.
I think at this point its been established that people don't really want Hillary Clinton anymore. Democrats didn't show up for her in the general election and she lost to Donald freaking Trump. Democrats should keep fighting, but I don't think they're fighting for Hillary
You're painting it as if it would be a tremendous sacrifice for her to run for office due to the catastrophic scrutiny she'd have to face.Oh right, her 30 years in service to the people mean nothing.
This irrational hate for her is ridiculous.
I think at this point its been established that people don't really want Hillary Clinton anymore. Democrats didn't show up for her in the general election and she lost to Donald freaking Trump. Democrats should keep fighting, but I don't think they're fighting for Hillary
As a New Yorker yea she has her strongholds and fundraising rolodex but insanely popular is stretching it. Especially after her loss to Trump. She's damaged goods, and while she was a pretty good Senator she wasn't a transcendent one that people are clamoring to return either.She won NY by a larger margin than most democrats. She's insanely popular there.
You're honestly not representing yourself well at all. It's embarrassing.
Nothing about the NY governorship office impedes new blood. It's her or Cuomo.I think she should bow out of politics. New blood is needed even though I supported her this past election.
NY governorship is an end point, not a beginning.
States like California, NJ, NY, etc... will attract the progressive/liberals and states like Texas and North Carolina will attract the Alt-Right conservatives.
You're painting it as if it would be a tremendous sacrifice for her to run for office due to the catastrophic scrutiny she'd have to face.
Now as much as most of GAF hates her and refuses to recognize any good she's every done for our country
There are only a few national level positions available for Democrats, the Democrats should try to use them wisely. Jerry Brown could be a great replacement for Feinstein, but it makes more sense to use that position to elevate Garcetti, Chiang, Newsom or Xberra.
You don't think a governorship would be huge boost to Kathy Hochul or Kirsten Gillibrand?
Gillibrand is better off staying away from Albany. It's like the Most Eisley cantina: a corrupt hive of scum and villainy.
There are only a few national level positions available for Democrats, the Democrats should try to use them wisely. Jerry Brown could be a great replacement for Feinstein, but it makes more sense to use that position to elevate Garcetti, Chiang, Newsom or Xberra.
You don't think a governorship would be huge boost to Kathy Hochul or Kirsten Gillibrand?
She lost even more narrowly than this guy called Nixon.Because she lost a presidential election due to a few hundred thousand voters in places like Michigan (but actually won the overall vote by millions), that means people in New York who overwhelmingly voted for her don't want her?
It's a step back for Gillibrand. But local NYNJ politics are poison for careers in general. See: Booker.There are only a few national level positions available for Democrats, the Democrats should try to use them wisely. Jerry Brown could be a great replacement for Feinstein, but it makes more sense to use that position to elevate Garcetti, Chiang, Newsom or Xberra.
You don't think a governorship would be huge boost to Kathy Hochul or Kirsten Gillibrand?
I like how because you think Hillary should hang it up, this means you don't think she has a role to play in politics at all, apparently!
She would be really good in an advisor role. A former first lady, senator, secretary of state? She's experienced as hell. But her role in the future should be grooming for that future. Not taking more offices. Personally, I just want the Clinton's to go away in general.
There are only a few national level positions available for Democrats, the Democrats should try to use them wisely. Jerry Brown could be a great replacement for Feinstein, but it makes more sense to use that position to elevate Garcetti, Chiang, Newsom or Xberra.
You don't think a governorship would be huge boost to Kathy Hochul or Kirsten Gillibrand?
As a New Yorker yea she has her strongholds and fundraising rolodex but insanely popular is stretching it. Especially after her loss to Trump. She's damaged goods, and while she was a pretty good Senator she wasn't a transcendent one that people are clamoring to return either.
hey if Shillary can do the job then she can do the jobClintons are over. It's time to let it go.
Right or wrong, she is politically tainted beyond repair. For christ sakes, she couldn't win against a man who admitted to molesting women!
...because the people who voted for him didn't care.Right or wrong, she is politically tainted beyond repair. For christ sakes, she couldn't win against a man who admitted to molesting women!
Jerry Brown will be like 80 years old by the time of the next Senate election, he's not running for Feinstein's seat so that seems like a moot point. Besides, I'd think those guys would be all be pretty likely to run as Brown's successor than Feinstein's anyway.
You honestly believe this?.
Now as much asGAF hates her and refuses to recognize any good she's every done for our countrymost of
Right, the data that said Clinton had the presidency locked up. If that's your argument there's nothing I can say that would convince you of any trepidation on behalf of New Yorkers. Like I said earlier, I'd vote for Cuomo over her anyway if it came to it.Your anecdotal evidence doesn't line up with the data.
Gillibrand is better off staying away from Albany. It's like the Most Eisley cantina: a corrupt hive of scum and villainy.
It's a step back for Gillibrand. But local NYNJ politics are poison for careers in general. See: Booker.
Context is important here. This is not a normal situation w Cuomo.
Federal and city regulations and taxes have much more of an impact on what NYC firms are doing that the state governor. I disagree that New York governors will never see that there are higher positions to aspire to.I repeat, the New York governor's mansion is not a fucking joke to use as a stepping stone. New York (post Brexit) is the financial capital of the entire world. NYC is the largest city in the country by a factor of 3. It's not an internship.
You mean the election she lost by a hair due in large part to post-truth fuckery, a sustained campaign of hyperbolic bullshit over her emails, and Russia's intervention? The one where the popular vote fell in her favor by around 3 million?lol
She should be out of politics for good after losing that election.
She still has loads of valuable experience, so why not?
You mean the election she lost by a hair due in large part to post-truth fuckery, a sustained campaign of hyperbolic bullshit over her emails, and Russia's intervention? The one where the popular vote fell in her favor by around 3 million?
Yeah her loss is totally definitely an indictment of her ability to serve competently and effectively in a political role.
Could have said the same during the Primary. But that would have made me a "sexist" back then.Sounds like a poor reflection on the voters.
They won't be holding an actual primary. If she enters, he will already be on his way out..If she runs against Cuomo and loses it'll be salt in the wound.
Hillary pls....
Multiple things went into the election results. The campaign fucking up was one of them. But it wasn't the only thing that mattered - there were a bunch of different things that went into what ended up being a loss by a hair.. If you think only 1 variable mattered, you are wrong and have an incredibly shallow view of the world.No, the election she lost because she thought campaigning in Arizona was more important than campaigning in one of the states (Wisconsin) critical to her path to victory. At what point are people going to admit that she and her campaign fucked up rather than continually blaming it on everything and everyone else?
Could have said the same during the Primary. But that would have made me a "sexist" back then.
At what point will her rabid detractors admit that the whole election was anything but ordinary, and that it hinged on factors totally independent of conventional strategy?No, the election she lost because she thought campaigning in Arizona was more important than campaigning in one of the states (Wisconsin) critical to her path to victory. At what point are people going to admit that she and her campaign fucked up rather than continually blaming it on everything and everyone else?
Cuomo is more progressive it seems as he is promoting Bernie ideas(free college, $15/hr, etc...) where Clinton doesn't believe in shit.
Would she want to do so though? After the grind and then disappointment of the election I wouldn't think she'd want to jump back into politics so soon (or ever considering her age). Particularly when she'd be going against an incumbent Democrat.
We're not making statements on her political or policy ability. We're reflecting on the simple fact that it would be very difficult to get her elected to that position after a very expensive and public ally shaming election. You and I feel similarly about the way the election went but there HAS to be a better candidate than her, she's tainted goods at this point to voters on both sides of the aisle.She still has loads of valuable experience, so why not?
You mean the election she lost by a hair due in large part to post-truth fuckery, a sustained campaign of hyperbolic bullshit over her emails, and Russia's intervention? The one where the popular vote fell in her favor by around 3 million?
Yeah her loss is totally definitely an indictment of her ability to serve competently and effectively in a political role.
Oh, no wonder people want him gone.
Cuomo is more progressive it seems as he is promoting Bernie ideas(free college, $15/hr, etc...) where Clinton doesn't believe in shit.
This logic obviously does not apply to other notable liberals who performed poorly in 2016. Her defeat is tragic but losing a political contest is not itself indicative of a politician's future worth. The most popular Democrat at the moment is a man who also lost his race by millions of votes and didn't make it nearly as far as her.I think at this point its been established that people don't really want Hillary Clinton anymore. Democrats didn't show up for her in the general election and she lost to Donald freaking Trump. Democrats should keep fighting, but I don't think they're fighting for Hillary
Right, the data that said Clinton had the presidency locked up. If that's your argument there's nothing I can say that would convince you of any trepidation on behalf of New Yorkers. Like I said earlier, I'd vote for Cuomo over her anyway if it came to it.
At what point will her rabid detractors admit that the whole election was anything but ordinary, and that it hinged on factors totally independent of conventional strategy?