Support NeoGAF

[Crocodile]

Teen Vogue yet again doing the work that the traditional media should be doing. Unreal.

What did they write?

Joe Biden absolutely would have been a serious contender, but we all know why we didn't run. And it wasn't the DNC's fault.

Like, sorry I guess that Martin O'Malley wasn't popular enough to pose a challenge to Clinton? The DNC didn't clear the field for Clinton - she was just the most well-known and popular candidate in the party. Obviously she would receive overwhelming support.

There's no invisible primary. Hillary Clinton, just like Gore at his time, was the Dem with the biggest name.

The way doesn't need to be cleared. These are politicians, their decision to run is weighed against their chancess of losing. When there's somebody in the race with a name as big as Hillary Clinton, who had only GROWN in stature from the first time she ran by being Secretary of State, it's obvious that a lot of politicians would opt not to run.

Guys, like, this ain't hard.

The truth is, the vast majority of Senator's, Congresspeople, and Governors thought Hillary would be the best candidate and even if they didn't, they knew they had no reasonable chance against Hillary because of her campaign, fundraising ability, and organization. Why take the obvious L in 2016 when you can run in 2024 if Hillary is successful or is she loses, 2020 will be a wide open race.

Like the above seem like the obvious takeaway of what happened. Clinton was qualified, well-known, well liked (at the time and within the Democratic party) and could raise a lot of money. Occam's Razor dictates that most other Democrats didn't run because they liked Clinton, legit thought she would be a good president AND/OR they thought they had little chance of beating her in a primary. Maybe they were wrong on the last part but its seems obvious why many would think that? Not because of the DNC machinations. The latter requires some hard proof or it borders on conspiracy.

THAT BEING SAID, none of the above really matters as 2020 will be a pretty wide open field without a candidate with as much name recognition as Clinton and everyone can run as a change candidate vs. Trump. Furthermore, the DNC will be under new leadership soon. So let's talk about the future?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Is this because there is a "successor candidate" or because the American people are fickle and like to change up the party in charge? I'm inclined to think the latter.

Could it be both? Each of the historical party systems favors one candidate over another and I'd imagine one of the advantages of being the non-incumbent party is that you aren't running on the past record of your party because it wasn't in power. If that's the case, not handing the nomination to whoever is the successor by default might not be a bad way to try and avoid some of that problem!

Like do you guys really think that Booker and Warren just saw this election and went "yeah it's her turn and she's unbeatable"? Obama didn't in 2008 and beat her, she clearly showed that she wasn't some unstoppable powerhouse of appeal but she consolidated basically all of the party support and fundraising immediately to suck the air out of the room for the real threats to her nomination, which is why her only serious contender was someone unworried about being punished by the party who raised all his money outside normal Democratic fundraising mechanisms.

It's part of the game but pretending like it doesn't exist isn't smart.

 

[royalan]

What did they write?

A pretty good article about Mar-a-Lago selling access on New Year's Eve.

 

[kirblar]

The easiest way 2020 could get screwed up is if Bernie runs.

Warren needs to talk him down and get him to sit out like she did this year. She understood her position/power and why she had to sit on her hands.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Could it be both? Each of the historical party systems favors one candidate over another and I'd imagine one of the advantages of being the non-incumbent party is that you aren't running on the past record of your party because it wasn't in power. If that's the case, not handing the nomination to whoever is the successor by default might not be a bad way to try and avoid some of that problem!

Like do you guys really think that Booker and Warren just saw this election and went "yeah it's her turn and she's unbeatable"? Obama didn't in 2008 and beat her, she clearly showed that she wasn't some unstoppable powerhouse of appeal but she consolidated basically all of the party support and fundraising immediately to suck the air out of the room for the real threats to her nomination, which is why her only serious contender was someone unworried about being punished by the party who raised all his money outside normal Democratic fundraising mechanisms.

It's part of the game but pretending like it doesn't exist isn't smart.

Your implication it's some sort of shady underhanded thing is the thing that I and other people aren't getting.

But also, if only Hillary Clinton had done something in the past 8 years that might've changed the likelihood of somebody beating her in a primary - something like say, be a Secretary of State in a popular Democratic President's administration.

The truth is, if Hillary had voted 'no' on the Iraq War, Obama like wouldn't have ran in 2008 or if he did, it would've been a lot harder to beat her.

 

[mo60]

The easiest way 2020 could get screwed up is if Bernie runs.

Warren needs to talk him down and get him to sit out like she did this year. She understood her position/power and why she had to sit on her hands.

Wouldn't bernie be to old to run in 2020?

 

[Wilsongt]

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-spo...-on-punishing-clinton-c41f54ade530#.rb21b0rav

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Do to clinton what should be done to Trump.

LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP

 

[Grexeno]

Wouldn't bernie be to old to run in 2020?

That's not something people who support him would care about.

 

[Retromelon]

That's not something people who support him would care about.

FEEL. THE. BERN

 

[Aaron Strife]

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-spo...-on-punishing-clinton-c41f54ade530#.rb21b0rav

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Clinton tried to influence the election by being a candidate and campaigning!

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I'm not implying it's shady but just how being a powerful figure in the organization works? Both Clintons have a lot of power and influence within the Democratic Party and the party has institutional controls it can exercise over its elected officials. Promises of being considered for VP or committee positions or even just lack of resources because of how Clinton could consolidated them early helps keep out potential threats to her presidency. And again, it's not that it was "rigged" against Sanders but he was bypassed these roadblocks because he wasn't a Democrat and he raised his own money without normal party donors.

But whatever, I'm sure every ambitious Democrat thought even trying to run at all was a mistake and that they shouldn't try.

 

[kirblar]

I'm not implying it's shady but just how being a powerful figure in the organization works? Both Clintons have a lot of power and influence within the Democratic Party and the party has institutional controls it can exercise over its elected officials. Promises of being considered for VP or committee positions or even just lack of resources because of how Clinton could consolidated them early helps keep out potential threats to her presidency. And again, it's not that it was "rigged" against Sanders but he was bypassed these roadblocks because he wasn't a Democrat and he raised his own money without normal party donors.

But whatever, I'm sure every ambitious Democrat thought even trying to run at all was a mistake and that they shouldn't try.

That's because it was 100% the correct call to make for every ambitious Dem. You don't get second chances on the D side. You win on your first shot or you're done.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

That's because it was 100% the correct call to make for every ambitious Dem. You don't get second chances on the D side. You win on your first shot or you're done.

So it was simultaneously Hillary's turn because she lost in 2008 and it was a good decision to not run against her because it would handicap their future chances?

 

[Vixdean]

I'm not implying it's shady but just how being a powerful figure in the organization works? Both Clintons have a lot of power and influence within the Democratic Party and the party has institutional controls it can exercise over its elected officials. Promises of being considered for VP or committee positions or even just lack of resources because of how Clinton could consolidated them early helps keep out potential threats to her presidency. And again, it's not that it was "rigged" against Sanders but he was bypassed these roadblocks because he wasn't a Democrat and he raised his own money without normal party donors.

But whatever, I'm sure every ambitious Democrat thought even trying to run at all was a mistake and that they shouldn't try.

All of this was true in 2008, Obama ran and won anyway.

 

[kirblar]

So it was simultaneously Hillary's turn because she lost in 2008 and it was a good decision to not run against her because it would handicap their future chances?

Yes, Hillary was the "VP" candidate of the Obama admin and running against her was political suicide.

This isn't hard. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was people acting in their own best interest.

There was no outgoing popular admin in '08. It was a vacuum.

 

[Vixdean]

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-spo...-on-punishing-clinton-c41f54ade530#.rb21b0rav

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

This is actually kind of heartening. If all these idiots have is "but look at Hillary" even after the election, they won't be credible for long.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yes, Hillary was the "VP" candidate of the Obama admin and running against her was political suicide.

This isn't hard. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was people acting in their own best interest.

There was no outgoing popular admin in '08. It was a vacuum.

My point was that if running a second time was suicide, Hillary probably shouldn't have run this year!

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm saying that Hillary used her power and influence to try and remove as many competitors from the field and would have succeeded from having a real challenger if Sanders hadn't been successful. Sanders got like 44% of the vote starting the race as a virtual nobody, why didn't a better candidate than him run instead and get that extra 6% to get the nomination?

 

[kirblar]

My point was that if running a second time was suicide, Hillary probably shouldn't have run this year!

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm saying that Hillary used her power and influence to try and remove as many competitors from the field and would have succeeded from having a real challenger if Sanders hadn't been successful. Sanders got like 44% of the vote starting the race as a virtual nobody, why didn't a better candidate than him run instead and get that extra 6% to get the nomination?

Because people inside the party knew that the Clinton '08/Sanders '16 path was a losing one?

You can't run a campaign targeting only white people and expect to win.

 

[BoosterDuck]

You can't run a campaign targeting only white people and expect to win.

mmm.. you sure about that?

 

[kirblar]

mmm.. you sure about that?

"win the Democratic Primary"

Context is important.

You can win a national election only targeting white people if you convince enough white "moderates" that both sides are the same.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Only Dem nominees that can win are Warren or Sanders. I'm going with the Simpsons timeline where a woman takes over after Trump leaves us bankrupt(in all possible ways, most likely).

I don't think Bernie will run. I think he will encourage Elizabeth to run. If she doesn't decide to run then I think it's likely he will find someone else suitable to run and if he can't find them (they don't exist from the current crop)...then he'll run again himself.

 

[Crocodile]

My point was that if running a second time was suicide, Hillary probably shouldn't have run this year!

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm saying that Hillary used her power and influence to try and remove as many competitors from the field and would have succeeded from having a real challenger if Sanders hadn't been successful. Sanders got like 44% of the vote starting the race as a virtual nobody, why didn't a better candidate than him run instead and get that extra 6% to get the nomination?

A) I mean, there is nothing immoral or unethical about that. It's what Ellison is trying to do for the DNC chair position and I don't think anyone is (or should) fault him for that. It would be up to donors and other big players in the Democratic party themselves to say "no, we'll throw our own challenge into the ring".

B) We just spent this past page discussing why few other people stepped up to the plate. Like I feel its easy to say, "someone should have Obama'd Clinton in the primary" now that we know she loses the GE. I don't think most people can say that easily or with a straight face 24-18 months ago.

Because people inside the party knew that the Clinton '08/Sanders '16 path was a losing one?

You can't run a Democratic primary campaign targeting only white people and expect to win.

FTFY

 

[thepotatoman]

Yes, Hillary was the "VP" candidate of the Obama admin and running against her was political suicide.

This isn't hard. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was people acting in their own best interest.

There was no outgoing popular admin in '08. It was a vacuum.

So democrats all knew that Hillary was going to lose the general election?

Because if hillary won, then the second place would have been in that same "VP" slot hillary got by her primary loss.

 

[kirblar]

Only Dem nominees that can win are Warren or Sanders. I'm going with the Simpsons timeline where a woman takes over after Trump leaves us bankrupt(in all possible ways, most likely).

I don't think Bernie will run. I think he will encourage Elizabeth to run. If she doesn't decide to run then I think it's likely he will find someone else suitable to run and if he can't find them (they don't exist from the current crop)...then he'll run again himself.

Liz knows not to run. She doesn't have the personality for it.

So democrats all knew that Hillary was going to lose the general election?

Because if hillary won, then the second place would have been in that same "VP" slot hillary got by her primary loss.

What? No. It's that if they lose to her, their presidential ambitions are done. No one wants to sit around for 8 years as VP.

This should NOT be hard to understand.

 

[Plinko]

Only Dem nominees that can win are Warren or Sanders. I'm going with the Simpsons timeline where a woman takes over after Trump leaves us bankrupt(in all possible ways, most likely).

I don't think Bernie will run. I think he will encourage Elizabeth to run. If she doesn't decide to run then I think it's likely he will find someone else suitable to run and if he can't find them (they don't exist from the current crop)...then he'll run again himself.

I like Warren but feel like she may be somehow more unrelatable than Hillary.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

A) I mean, there is nothing immoral or unethical about that. It's what Ellison is trying to do for the DNC chair position and I don't think anyone is (or should) fault him for that. It would be up to donors and other big players in the Democratic party themselves to say "no, we'll throw our own challenge into the ring".

B) We just spent this past page discussing why few other people stepped up to the plate. Like I feel its easy to say, "someone should have Obama'd Clinton in the primary" now that we know she loses the GE. I don't think most people can say that easily or with a straight face 24-18 months ago.

Sure, this is what I'm saying. I just don't think we should act like the reason Sanders was her only credible challenger was that she was just that good, and I don't think it's unfair that voters would be disappointed that their candidate was largely chosen before they could vote.

What? No. It's that if they lose to her, their presidential ambitions are done. No one wants to sit around for 8 years as VP.

This should NOT be hard to understand.

What? Why were Clinton's presidential nominations not crushed in 2008 when she lost, but anyone who lost to her this year was done? If being a successor to a Democratic president is the surest way to get the nomination, why would that be a bad thing at all?

 

[royalan]

Sure, this is what I'm saying. I just don't think we should act like the reason Sanders was her only credible challenger was that she was just that good, and I don't think it's unfair that voters would be disappointed that their candidate was largely chosen before they could vote.

But Hillary WAS "just that good."

Like, did you miss 08? That was a MUCH tighter primary than this one.

Hillary finished that primary just a quarter of a million votes behind Obama, compared to the nearly 4 million she demolished Sanders with.

Another myth that needs to die in a fire: that Bernie was a credible challenger. Once he threw away the south, he was fucking done, and everyone but his diehard supporters knew it.

You. Do. Not. Win. The. Democratic. Nomination. Without. Minority. Support.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Only Dem nominees that can win are Warren or Sanders. I'm going with the Simpsons timeline where a woman takes over after Trump leaves us bankrupt(in all possible ways, most likely).

I don't think Bernie will run. I think he will encourage Elizabeth to run. If she doesn't decide to run then I think it's likely he will find someone else suitable to run and if he can't find them (they don't exist from the current crop)...then he'll run again himself.

If you think Elizabeth Warren can win anything but a Senate seat in one of the bluest states in the country then you're even more deluded than I could have ever imagined. Does she increase turnout among hispanic and black voters? Does she win over working class whites? Is she more likeable or charismatic than Clinton?

She is the worst candidate of all the names being mentioned by miles. If she had any clue or gave a damn about Trump being defeated she wouldn't run.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

If Sanders, a nobody who entered this with basically zero name recognition or organization, could get 43% of the vote, why couldn't a more politically savvy candidate who properly understands the importance of the minority vote go for it this time? Why didn't Corey Booker run?

Sure, Sanders was pretty far away from winning, but people act like he didn't vastly outperform expectations. Remember when he wasn't going to win a state, or win anything on Super Tuesday? He miscalculated and lost the minority vote too heavily, but why wouldn't Corey Booker outperform that?

 

[thepotatoman]

What? No. It's that if they lose to her, their presidential ambitions are done. No one wants to sit around for 8 years as VP.

This should NOT be hard to understand.

It should NOT be hard to understand why what you're saying sounds like a complete double standard.

I know you say it's different because bush was president in 2008 and obama was president in 2016, but you really need to go into more detail to say why that matters where in 2008 the loser becomes the clear next in line while the loser in 2016 is politically dead.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Schumer wants to go to war with most of Trump's cabinet picks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ocrats-plan-to-target/?utm_term=.b1f5db7346e0

I have no idea how Mnuchin gets confirmed. He's a nepotism/quid pro quo pick who has no qualifications and really seems to have no political opinions at all?

That a month after he was nominated, no one seems to know anything about what Mnuchin believes seems bad.

 

[kirblar]

It should NOT be hard to understand why what you're saying sounds like a complete double standard.

I know you say it's different because bush was president in 2008 and obama was president in 2016, but you really need to go into more detail to say why that matters where in 2008 the loser becomes the clear next in line while the loser in 2016 is politically dead.

What double standard?

People who win the presidency coming out of democratic primaries are always either incumbents or on their first attempt. Period. End of story. If you're not running as an incumbent or virtual incumbent (as Clinton was this year), then you have one shot to win. If you use it up and fail to secure the nom, your ambitions are dead.

There is no goddamn double standard, this is how Dem politics have worked for eons. (As we're discovering, largely because D presidencies make new D voters soft.)

If Sanders, a nobody who entered this with basically zero name recognition or organization, could get 43% of the vote, why couldn't a more politically savvy candidate who properly understands the importance of the minority vote go for it this time? Why didn't Corey Booker run?

Sure, Sanders was pretty far away from winning, but people act like he didn't vastly outperform expectations. Remember when he wasn't going to win a state, or win anything on Super Tuesday? He miscalculated and lost the minority vote too heavily, but why wouldn't Corey Booker outperform that?

Because if he runs and loses, he's never going to be President. Ever.

The ignorance about the realities of Democratic primary campaigns is shocking here.

 

[TestOfTide]

I like Warren but feel like she may be somehow more unrelatable than Hillary.

You aren't wrong. And Elizabeth Warren has been painted negatively by right wing media for years now.

Picking her is learning NOTHING from 2016.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

What double standard?

People who win the presidency coming out of democratic primaries are always either incumbents or on their first attempt. Period. End of story. If you're not running as an incumbent or virtual incumbent, then you have one shot to win. If you use it up and fail to secure the nom, your ambitions are dead.

There is no goddamn double standard, this is how Dem politics have worked for eons. (As we're discovering, largely because D presidencies make new D voters soft.)

Because if he runs and loses, he's never going to be President. Ever.

Why did Hillary run then if losing a primary makes you politically dead? If it's because she then positioned herself as a successor to Obama, why wouldn't anyone else do that?

 

[thepotatoman]

What double standard?

People who win the presidency coming out of democratic primaries are always either incumbents or on their first attempt. Period. End of story. If you're not running as an incumbent or virtual incumbent, then you have one shot to win. If you use it up and fail to secure the nom, your ambitions are dead.

There is no goddamn double standard, this is how Dem politics have worked for eons. (As we're discovering, largely because D presidencies make new D voters soft.)

So you're saying Hillary was a bad choice for democrats because she lost in 2008? If so, then you'd think it'd be a good idea for someone else to run.

 

[kirblar]

Why did Hillary run then if losing a primary makes you politically dead? If it's because she then positioned herself as a successor to Obama, why wouldn't anyone else do that?

Because Obama gets to pick who he supports as his successor?

This is not some shadowy Cabal, this is Obama making it clear for years he was supporting her in '16. (This is also why the "BUH BUH THE DNC" stuff is bullshit - Bernie just wanted to wrench control of the party away from Obama.)

So you're saying Hillary was a bad choice for democrats because she lost in 2008? If so, then you'd think it'd be a good idea for someone else to run.

Yes. She shouldn't have run, but she wasn't self-aware enough to stop her sefl. Given that she ran, though, it was in everyone else's best interests to get the fuck out of the way.

 

[Plinko]

I feel like the "Biden is too old" stuff is laughable.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Schumer wants to go to war with most of Trump's cabinet picks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ocrats-plan-to-target/?utm_term=.b1f5db7346e0

I have no idea how Mnuchin gets confirmed. He's a nepotism/quid pro quo pick who has no qualifications and really seems to have no political opinions at all?

That a month after he was nominated, no one seems to know anything about what Mnuchin believes seems bad.

Carson goes unscathed. Oh god. Ben Carson will be in charge of HUD.

 

[mo60]

People really still love to talk about how trump won more landmass(counties) then hilary in this election. I don't think it matters much if the republican candidate wins more landmass then the democratic candidate because a democrat has not been able to win more landmass then a republican candidate in decades even though Bill came close twice to winning more landmass then his republican challengers. Usually a democrat needs to win between 600 and 700 counties now to win the election even though you could have argued that hilary would have won the election with somewhere between 490 and 505 counties if she did win it.

 

[thepotatoman]

Because Obama gets to pick who he supports as his successor?

This is not some shadowy Cabal, this is Obama making it clear for years he was supporting her in '16.

Yes. She shouldn't have run, but she wasn't self-aware enough to stop her sefl. Given that she ran, though, it was in everyone else's best interests to get the fuck out of the way.

Oh, ok. I get what you're saying now.

So if what you're saying was true, then it would have been in democrats like Obama's best interests to push for anyone but Clinton and Biden. I think the fact that Clinton and Biden had such widespread support from people within the party shows that your theory isn't widely held in the party, which also means that they probably weren't thinking about self preservation in the way you're talking about.

The reality simply is that Hillary had secured so much of the democrat's campaign funding and infrastructure that it was really hard for anyone else to map out a reasonable campaign effort. Sanders probably wouldn't have run either if he wanted more than Ron Paul style ideology spreading.

I don't believe losing the democratic primary is as bad for your career as you make it sound, but it probably would be if they get O'Malley levels of absolutely destroyed, which is honestly how someone like Corey Booker would have done in 2016 without the resources Hillary tied up. 2020 will be very different for that.

 

[kirblar]

Oh, ok. I get what you're saying now.

So if what you're saying was true, then it would have been in democrats like Obama's best interests to push for anyone but Clinton and Biden. I think the fact that Clinton and Biden had such widespread support from people within the party shows that your theory isn't widely held in the party, which also means that they probably weren't thinking about self preservation in the way you're talking about.

The reality simply is that Hillary had secured so much of the democrat's campaign funding and infrastructure that it was really hard for anyone else to map out a reasonable campaign effort. Sanders probably wouldn't have run either if he wanted more than Ron Paul style ideology spreading.

I don't believe losing the democratic primary is as bad for your career as you make it sound, but it probably would be if they get O'Malley levels of absolutely destroyed, which is honestly how someone like Corey Booker would have done in 2016 without the resources Hillary tied up. 2020 will be very different for that.

Look at who's won the Dem presidency over the course of the past century +.

It is as bad as it sounds. Young people don't like old and busted.

 

[PantherLotus]

Y'all still arguing about Hillary vs Bernie and you got 19 days to stop Obamacare repeal. time to wake up.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Look at who's won the Dem presidency over the course of the past century +.

It is as bad as it sounds. Young people don't like old and busted.

Young people just overwhelmingly voted for the older of the two Democratic candidates.

 

[royalan]

Y'all still arguing about Hillary vs Bernie and you got 19 days to stop Obamacare repeal. time to wake up.

It's not getting stopped.

The time to stop it was before the election.

It's happening.

The goal moving forward is to be loud enough to make Republicans (and any Democrats going along with it) pay a price.

 

[kirblar]

Young people just overwhelmingly voted for the older of the two Democratic candidates.

Who was new to the national stage.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Who was new to the national stage.

Then you're not saying anything interesting. Of course someone who has lost once before is likely to lose again - if they didn't make the cut the first time, why would they necessarily be ready the second time around? It's not because people don't want "old and busted", it's because last time that candidate ran, they lost for whatever reason, and given that candidates relatively rarely do a total 180, that reason will probably still persist next time around. Sometimes people get lucky and that's no longer a problem, sometimes they get lucky and there's a dearth of other good candidates, but normally anyone who loses twice faces the same problem both times and the party elite just try to pretend it isn't happening.

Did Gore get rejected in 2000 because he failed in the 1988 Democratic primaries? No. He got rejected in 2000 and got rejected in 1988 because both times he failed to design any positive message for his campaign and instead relied on trying to use negative advertising to tarnish his opponents. Did Clinton lose in 2016 because she lost in 2008? No, she lost both times because she didn't demonstrate she was in touch with the prevailing attitude of the times.

I'm reminded of the aphorism frequently attributed to Einstein - insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

So it was simultaneously Hillary's turn because she lost in 2008 and it was a good decision to not run against her because it would handicap their future chances?

Just to add some data here, saying "it was her turn cuz she lost before" is burying some important facts. Chiefly, as of 2015 (when people were thinking of running), she had the second most votes ever gotten in a primary for either party since primaries became open to voting, second only to the one guy who can't run (cuz he already won two terms as POTUS).

I get that the online space isn't really her demographic but these discussions lose a lot of important info when they're (subconsciously,I'm sure) skewed to the online community.

Hillary Clinton is the most popular female politician in our country (and we just had her win that again!), and she's the second-most popular Democrat to ever run in the primary.

Sure, the invisible primary exists. But it has nothing to do with secret machinations and everything to do with strategy. Remember this: for any candidate thinking about running against Hillary, you have to tell yourself "the only way she's ever lost was to the current record-holder for votes."

That sentence is 100% true, and no one is going to basically piss away their time and money on what amounts to winning the lottery.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Y'all still arguing about Hillary vs Bernie and you got 19 days to stop Obamacare repeal. time to wake up.

And how do we do that? It's over man.

People were saying they were voting for Hillary because Bernie couldn't win a GE. Well, maybe(not against Trump however) that's true but a horrible reason to vote for Hillary over Bernie because Hillary couldn't win a GE either. So even though Bernie is a labeled loser...if only those who wanted to vote for him but didn't for BS reasons(see above) they believed into as well as those who wanted to vote for him but were neglected to do so because of sheer calculated fuckery/suppression (see AZ, NY, etc..). Bernie could have very well been the winner of the primary and easily beats Trump. He pulls along Feingold and McGinty at least. Dems control the Senate.

 

[thepotatoman]

For republicans to repeal Obamacare, they pretty much either need to get rid of the filibuster, convince enough democrats to their side on a repeal and replace bill, or destroy it without replacement through budget reconciliation.

It seems like both sides are already preparing for the budget reconciliation option, with McCarthy saying repeal without replacement wouldn't be so bad and Schumer saying he won't bail them out.

Democrats can easily attack republicans for repealing it without replacement, but Republicans will be attacking Democrats for blocking their replacements. The deciding factor will probably be determined by how much people like the republican's replacement, but they might be willing to accept anything if the health industry is in chaos from the repeal without replacement.

 

[kirblar]

Then you're not saying anything interesting. Of course someone who has lost once before is likely to lose again - if they didn't make the cut the first time, why would they necessarily be ready the second time around? It's not because people don't want "old and busted", it's because last time that candidate ran, they lost for whatever reason, and given that candidates relatively rarely do a total 180, that reason will probably still persist next time around. Sometimes people get lucky and that's no longer a problem, sometimes they get lucky and there's a dearth of other good candidates, but normally anyone who loses twice faces the same problem both times and the party elite just try to pretend it isn't happening.

Did Gore get rejected in 2000 because he failed in the 1988 Democratic primaries? No. He got rejected in 2000 and got rejected in 1988 because both times he failed to design any positive message for his campaign and instead relied on trying to use negative advertising to tarnish his opponents. Did Clinton lose in 2016 because she lost in 2008? No, she lost both times because she didn't demonstrate she was in touch with the prevailing attitude of the times.

I'm reminded of the aphorism frequently attributed to Einstein - insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

Who cares if it's fucking interesting, what matters is if it's true or not. Winning Dem candidates tend to be fresh faced youngsters.