Support NeoGAF

[Y2Kev]

Jeb wasn't a particularly great choice for them either thanks to the Bush name being trash. He's better than Trump, and would have given Hillary an even race, but Rubio or Walker or Kasich would probably be leading her right now.

I think the fact that Jeb and Hillary were the clear choices of party elites going into the primary really shows how party insiders don't really care about electability as much as they say they do. It's more about who had the most connections than who had the best chance of winning the general.

I personally like Hillary a lot more than Biden, but Biden really would have a much easier time in the general. Doesn't matter if Hillary's untrustworthiness is well deserved, or a result of an unfair decade long targeted campaign, or a result of sexism, that perception is there and it can't be undone.

I think people are way too soft on Biden. His general likability and approval are functions of the fact he just doesn't do much. This guy has had two failed presidential campaigns. He's a genuinely poor candidate, and I struggle to think how the Bernie-left would receive someone to the right of Hillary.

I like Joe and I think most people like Joe. I think the minute he steps into the foray, way fewer people like Joe. Now, obviously no one likes Hillary. But she comes with the network and the machine (at least!) to mitigate that. Biden had time to decide if he was going to run for president and he did nothing. I think it's clear that people who think he elected not to run because of his son are romanticizing his general poor candidacy.

I think this is sort of a lost year for analyzing the Democratic bench's potential. I don't think anyone wanted to step in Hillary's way. I would have liked to see how someone like Kristen Gillibrand would poll against someone like Marco Rubio.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

General Michael Flynn thinks the U.S. is in danger from Cuba and Venezuela and fucking sure, dude, lol.

 

[Grief.exe]

General Michael Flynn thinks the U.S. is in danger from Cuba and Venezuela and fucking sure, dude, lol.

This guy shouldn't be within 400 miles of any kind of ordnance, let alone the Commander in Chief.

That is one of the more radical opinions I have read in a long time.

 

[Y2Kev]

pick him trump!!!! PICK HIMMMM

 

[kadotsu]

In other unrelated news: Abenomics will continue.

 

[itschris]

pick him trump!!!! PICK HIMMMM

Hehe, agreed. I've seen some pundits call Flynn a "high-risk, high-reward" pick, but I'm not seeing the high reward.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I think people are way too soft on Biden. His general likability and approval are functions of the fact he just doesn't do much. This guy has had two failed presidential campaigns. He's a genuinely poor candidate, and I struggle to think how the Bernie-left would receive someone to the right of Hillary.

I like Joe and I think most people like Joe. I think the minute he steps into the foray, way fewer people like Joe. Now, obviously no one likes Hillary. But she comes with the network and the machine (at least!) to mitigate that. Biden had time to decide if he was going to run for president and he did nothing. I think it's clear that people who think he elected not to run because of his son are romanticizing his general poor candidacy.

I think this is sort of a lost year for analyzing the Democratic bench's potential. I don't think anyone wanted to step in Hillary's way. I would have liked to see how someone like Kristen Gillibrand would poll against someone like Marco Rubio.

I mean, Biden was completely destroyed by Mike Dukakis of all people. The plagiarism story in particular, which was somewhat overblown, got away from him. He's also quite prone to gaffes.

 

[Y2Kev]

Hehe, agreed. I've seen a lot of pundits calling Flynn a "high-risk, high-reward" pick, but I'm not seeing the high-reward.

Terrorist attack from Muslins near election = reward?

 

[j_k_redtail]

Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but seeing even non-Rand-Paul republicans acknowledge the police issue we have in this country seems like a very good sign that police reform on the federal level could happen within the next 5 years. Even if you take the cynical angle of "oh they are just doing it to look good" that tells you that moderate republicans are feeling the pressure to support fixing these issues because they are convinced that not doing so would ruin them.

You know, we've said the same thing about immigration for nearly a decade now. It's entirely possible that opposition to immigration reform and opposition to police reform are the two policy positions which animate the GOP in 2018 and 2020. It would be return of the Law and Order Right.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Breaking news, Iran is allied with al Qaeda? Lollllll

 

[KingK]

They'll talk about foreign policy until November which Warren has even stated she doesn't have much interest in. I guess she'd maybe have to go with Kaine then. I don't really know who's good in that arena.

Nobody. I've liked Obama on foreign policy quite a bit, but it seems like the rest of the Dem bench is either incompetent, uninterested, or both. Some of the older party members like Kerry and Biden aren't bad, but obviously aren't going to be relevant in another year. Kaine would probably be the most competent, realistic choice for that arena though. I've liked what I've seen/heard from senator Murphy about foreign policy, but he doesn't really bring anything else to the table as VP and would be best left in the senate. Tulsi Gabbard is obviously angling for a higher position in the party and she seems pretty competent, but the shallow bench of Democrats with any knowledge or interest in this is pretty sad.

Yeah, Kasich was terrifying because of his perception of being so likeable and reasonable too despite his flaws. He would have been by far the most difficult and competent GOP candidate to beat, even more so than Rubio.

Kasich scared the shit out of me, but I never got worried because it was clear there was no way he got nominated. But I think he would have easily beat Clinton this year, imo. Rubio or Bush could have made it close (Rubio probably could have won).

I am a little worried about the 2020 election though, tbh. I know it's waaaaaay too early to seriously speculate, but with it being a census year, it's a hugely important election. I doubt anything of significance happens in the next four years in Congress, so I foresee an incredibly difficult reelection campaign. Especially when, regardless of who the Republicans throw up as their nominee, it will be portrayed in the media as a party of "moderation" compared to Trump in 2016. My friend's dad is convinced that Clinton isn't planning on seeking reelection, and that she'll be priming someone, likely whoever her VP is, to run in 2020. I told him I thought that was ridiculous.

 

[User 463088]

Hillary advertising on ESPN during the Euro. How Communist can you get.

 

[Plinko]

Nobody. I've liked Obama on foreign policy quite a bit, but it seems like the rest of the Dem bench is either incompetent, uninterested, or both. Some of the older party members like Kerry and Biden aren't bad, but obviously aren't going to be relevant in another year. Kaine would probably be the most competent, realistic choice for that arena though. I've liked what I've seen/heard from senator Murphy about foreign policy, but he doesn't really bring anything else to the table as VP and would be best left in the senate. Tulsi Gabbard is obviously angling for a higher position in the party and she seems pretty competent, but the shallow bench of Democrats with any knowledge or interest in this is pretty sad.


Kasich scared the shit out of me, but I never got worried because it was clear there was no way he got nominated. But I think he would have easily beat Clinton this year, imo. Rubio or Bush could have made it close (Rubio probably could have won).

I am a little worried about the 2020 election though, tbh. I know it's waaaaaay too early to seriously speculate, but with it being a census year, it's a hugely important election. I doubt anything of significance happens in the next four years in Congress, so I foresee an incredibly difficult reelection campaign. Especially when, regardless of who the Republicans throw up as their nominee, it will be portrayed in the media as a party of "moderation" compared to Trump in 2016. My friend's dad is convinced that Clinton isn't planning on seeking reelection, and that she'll be priming someone, likely whoever her VP is, to run in 2020. I told him I thought that was ridiculous.

I kind of agree about 2020.

I know Cruz is setting himself up to be "Reagan 1976" this year and come back 4 years later, but unless he drastically tones down his rhetoric and stances, he has no shot at a general election.

Kasich, though? Rubio? I think those guys could easily give Hillary a run in 2020 if she wins this year. Romney, again, too.

 

[kingkitty]

Dems are gonna get wrecked in 2018. And then Clinton will lose in a moderately close election in 2020. Obamacare will finally be repealed.

Unless the 2020 nom is Cruz.

 

[RustyNails]

Dems are gonna get wrecked in 2018. And then Clinton will lose in a moderately close election in 2020. The presidency can't be held on forever. Unless the 2020 nom is Cruz.

Any GOP nominee will face an uphill electoral battle, with or without Trump. Marco imo is still the biggest threat despite Christie taking his brains out on live tv. There needs to be a Ross Perot spoiler or a party realignment to make things feasible for GOP.

If there is an economic bust, its better to have it early in Hillary's presidency. That's the only wildcard I could think of.

I kind of agree about 2020.

I know Cruz is setting himself up to be "Reagan 1976" this year and come back 4 years later, but unless he drastically tones down his rhetoric and stances, he has no shot at a general election.

Kasich, though? Rubio? I think those guys could easily give Hillary a run in 2020 if she wins this year. Romney, again, too.

Kasich is never making it out of GOP primaries alive. He's 10 times worse than Jon Hunstman to the primary electorate.

 

[kingkitty]

I agree. Little Marco could evolve into Big Marco by 2020, if he wins reelection.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Dems are gonna get wrecked in 2018. And then Clinton will lose in a moderately close election in 2020. Obamacare will finally be repealed.

Unless the 2020 nom is Cruz.

Obamacare's kinda like Brexit in that I don't believe that conservatives actually WANT a repeal to happen, much like the Tories didn't really want to leave the EU; Obamacare is much more useful as a scare tactic.

 

[Third Strike]

Any GOP nominee will face an uphill electoral battle, with or without Trump. Marco imo is still the biggest threat despite Christie taking his brains out on live tv. There needs to be a Ross Perot spoiler or a party realignment to make things feasible for GOP.

If there is an economic bust, its better to have it early in Hillary's presidency. That's the only wildcard I could think of.

I think Cruz is next in line. Rubio's wishy wash stance on immigration will haunt him, and I don't think Republican voters are ready to face the reality that they need someone that is even slightly to the left, even if Rubio is an inch apart from Cruz. Cruz will use Trump as an example of a "Democrat" that masqueraded as a Republican, and subsequently lost in 2016. That's good, since that will be a freebie for Clinton in 2020, even if Cruz does a little better than Trump does this year.

I just want sixteen years of a Democratic White House.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Ok, so we are saying that there is a good chance of a recession in the next election cycles.

However, what if Clinton gets a major infrastructure reform bill passed? Wouldn't that create a huge amount of jobs due to the amount of rebuilding and refurbishing that would need to be done?

 

[User1608]

Kasich scared the shit out of me, but I never got worried because it was clear there was no way he got nominated. But I think he would have easily beat Clinton this year, imo. Rubio or Bush could have made it close (Rubio probably could have won).

I am a little worried about the 2020 election though, tbh. I know it's waaaaaay too early to seriously speculate, but with it being a census year, it's a hugely important election. I doubt anything of significance happens in the next four years in Congress, so I foresee an incredibly difficult reelection campaign. Especially when, regardless of who the Republicans throw up as their nominee, it will be portrayed in the media as a party of "moderation" compared to Trump in 2016. My friend's dad is convinced that Clinton isn't planning on seeking reelection, and that she'll be priming someone, likely whoever her VP is, to run in 2020. I told him I thought that was ridiculous.

We are very fortunate, to an extent (because of him riling these people up) Trump voters didn't realize a thing called electability.

I think Hillary will be okay, as long as some stuff gets done, the economy continues to truck along well and no major scandals occur under her watch. I doubt the entire Republican party will get its act together in over four years. It'll probaby be a bit longer than that. Their base isn't going anywhere for some time to come.

 

[Ecotic]

Unless the economy is booming, the world is calmer, and she has consistently high approval numbers, I think Hillary needs to serve one term and let a contested primary find someone else. She would lose this year to basically anyone but Trump, Carson, or Cruz. Democrats just got lucky twice over. In retrospect she stood a nearly even chance of being indicted and throwing the party into disaster.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Unless the economy is booming, the world is calmer, and she has consistently high approval numbers, I think Hillary needs to serve one term and let a contested primary find someone else. She would lose this year to basically anyone but Trump, Carson, or Cruz. Democrats just got lucky twice over. In retrospect she stood a nearly even chance of being indicted and throwing the party into disaster.

dat 50/50

 

[NeoXChaos]

You dont have to worry about Marco if he loses to Murphy.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Unless the economy is booming, the world is calmer, and she has consistently high approval numbers, I think Hillary needs to serve one term and let a contested primary find someone else. She would lose this year to basically anyone but Trump, Carson, or Cruz. Democrats just got lucky twice over. In retrospect she stood a nearly even chance of being indicted and throwing the party into disaster.

This post is beautiful.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Unless the economy is booming, the world is calmer, and she has consistently high approval numbers, I think Hillary needs to serve one term and let a contested primary find someone else. She would lose this year to basically anyone but Trump, Carson, or Cruz. Democrats just got lucky twice over. In retrospect she stood a nearly even chance of being indicted and throwing the party into disaster.

No she didn't Christ.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

George W. Bush got re-elected.

 

[Third Strike]

Reagan and Bush II both had to face recessions during their first terms, but they still ended up with a second term. I think it all depends on when, and how the next recession occurs. If it happens sometime early in Clinton's term, then I don't think she'll be affected. But if it happens as an October Surprise, then she's screwed.

Edit: But if the GOP is still driving the clown car in 2020, then I don't think she has anything to worry about.

 

[Ecotic]

No she didn't Christ.

Listening to Comey's speech the email problems were worse than Hillary advertised. The prediction markets had her chances of being indicted at 25-30% before that, so I don't see how "nearly even" is much of a stretch. It just came down to how Comey viewed the matter.

 

[User 463088]

Listening to Comey's speech the email problems were worse than Hillary advertised. The prediction markets had her chances of being indicted at 25-30% before that, so I don't see how "nearly even" is much of a stretch. It just came down to how Comey viewed the matter.

Well...that and, you know, the law.

 

[Suikoguy]

Ok, so we are saying that there is a good chance of a recession in the next election cycles.

However, what if Clinton gets a major infrastructure reform bill passed? Wouldn't that create a huge amount of jobs due to the amount of rebuilding and refurbishing that would need to be done?

That only has a chance of happening after the 2018 midterms. There is a ton of shit that needs to be replaced or updated. But to do it right, we need a project plan that lasts a couple of decades. Dumping billions to try to get it all done at once is terribly inefficient as there is simply not enough supply of labor to meet the sudden spike in demand. Then, when the spike subsides, the new supply of labor will suddenly have nothing to do.

dat 50/50

That never gets old, lol.

Listening to Comey's speech the email problems were worse than Hillary advertised. The prediction markets had her chances of being indicted at 25-30% before that, so I don't see how "nearly even" is much of a stretch. It just came down to how Comey viewed the matter.

They were presented in the worst possible way which made the hearing by Republicans all the more baffling since Comney set things up as partisan as he could. We don't know if they were universally classified and how many were actually sent out by Clinton.

 

[pigeon]

Stop talking about 2020 for God's sake, you're not Nostradamus

 

[Y2Kev]

Listening to Comey's speech the email problems were worse than Hillary advertised. The prediction markets had her chances of being indicted at 25-30% before that, so I don't see how "nearly even" is much of a stretch. It just came down to how Comey viewed the matter.

He said "no reasonable prosecutor" would have recommended charges, so unless you think you'd have a 50/50 chance of having an unreasonable prosecutor at the federal level, I think 25% seems about right.

But really who cares

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Hillary is so absurdly and ridiculously distrusted right now that if she even attempts to do half of what she's promising she might cruise to a re-election. I mean she's seriously hurt by people just thinking she's lying through her teeth about her entire platform that they actually agree with.

The bar is pretty fucking low for a Clinton first term, in terms of public perception.

 

[Ecotic]

Well...that and, you know, the law.

Ah, the law. Ironclad, always clear in meaning, never open to interpretation.

Whether or not she would have ultimately been convicted is another matter. But any prosecutor can indict and let the truth be revealed at trial.

 

[Grief.exe]

Hillary is so absurdly and ridiculously distrusted right now that if she even attempts to do half of what she's promising she might cruise to a re-election. I mean she's seriously hurt by people just thinking she's lying through her teeth about her entire platform that they actually agree with.

The bar is pretty fucking low for a Clinton first term, in terms of public perception.

If the Republicans continue holding the House, which barring a miracle they will hold onto, then Hillary is going to struggle to do anything for the first 4 years of her presidency. Which has the potential to dip her approval numbers even lower, which will make 2020 truly scary if the Republicans chose to run a legitimate candidate.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hillary is so absurdly and ridiculously distrusted right now that if she even attempts to do half of what she's promising she might cruise to a re-election. I mean she's seriously hurt by people just thinking she's lying through her teeth about her entire platform that they actually agree with.

The bar is pretty fucking low for a Clinton first term, in terms of public perception.

Can't wait for people to argue like, "Oh, well first term Hillary wasn't so bad, but in the second term the gloves will really come off!"

I guess there's something to be said that for her untrustworthy public persona her approval ratings are immensely high once she's in office. Hopefully the same will happen for her presidency.

If the Republicans continue holding the House, which barring a miracle they will hold onto, then Hillary is going to struggle to do anything for the first 4 years of her presidency. Which has the potential to dip her approval numbers even lower, which will make 2020 truly scary if the Republicans chose to run a legitimate candidate.

A close House led by Speaker Ryan would probably give way on some of her legislative agenda. Immigration reform, her infrastructure bill, criminal justice reform, college tuition/student loan reform - I think it all stands a chance of being reasonably considered.

 

[TestOfTide]

Ah, the law. Ironclad, always clear in meaning, never open to interpretation.

Whether or not she would have ultimately been convicted is another matter. But any prosecutor can indict and let the truth be revealed at trial.

Yeah, I'm sure the fucking FBI would love to waste their time on a case that has a very high likelihood of them losing.

 

[royalan]

What's up with this new "Hillary's lucky she's running against Trump" narrative?

I remember watching the first handful of Republican debates and laughing along with most of GAF about how easy Hillary would have it with ANY of those clowns. Most of them had glaring flaws that the Clinton campaign would have exploited almost as easily as Trump. The ONLY R candidate that gave me pause was Kasich (lol).

I think people are looking at Hillary's campaign through the lens of Trump's dumpster fire and thinking she's got it easy. Well, she kinda does with him, but don't forget: Last year the Clinton campaign was gearing up for an actual opponent of the traditional variety.

I guess anything to keep from saying Hillary is competent, though...

 

[pigeon]

If the Republicans continue holding the House, which barring a miracle they will hold onto, then Hillary is going to struggle to do anything for the first 4 years of her presidency. Which has the potential to dip her approval numbers even lower, which will make 2020 truly scary if the Republicans chose to run a legitimate candidate.

This assumes they don't choose to start compromising as part of the effort to rehabilitate the party.

It doesn't make sense to string together "GOP maintains complete unwillingness to govern" and "GOP manages to run a real candidate." The two are strongly related. If they don't do one its very implausible they can do the other.

 

[User 463088]

Stop talking about 2020 for God's sake, you're not Nostradamus

Nostradamus said "I predict that the world will end at half past six" What he didn't say was exactly when. Was he listening to the radio? Was he listening to the government?

Spoiler

Sorry. It's from an Elton John song

 

[Avon Barksdale]

If the Republicans continue holding the House, which barring a miracle they will hold onto, then Hillary is going to struggle to do anything for the first 4 years of her presidency. Which has the potential to dip her approval numbers even lower, which will make 2020 truly scary if the Republicans chose to run a legitimate candidate.

The Republicans had about four or five "legitimate" candidates this cycle and they all got beaten by guy who only had exactly two policy positions.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Stop talking about 2020 for God's sake, you're not Nostradamus

But what about:

 

[kirblar]

What's up with this new "Hillary's lucky she's running against Trump" narrative?

I remember watching the first handful of Republican debates and laughing along with most of GAF about how easy Hillary would have it with ANY of those clowns. Most of them had glaring flaws that the Clinton campaign would have exploited almost as easily as Trump. The ONLY R candidate that gave me pause was Kasich (lol).

I think people are looking at Hillary's campaign through the lens of Trump's dumpster fire and thinking she's got it easy. Well, she kinda does with him, but don't forget: Last year the Clinton campaign was gearing up for an actual opponent of the traditional variety.

I guess anything to keep from saying Hillary is competent, though...

She's a weak candidate running against weaker ones.

 

[User 463088]

What's up with this new "Hillary's lucky she's running against Trump" narrative?

I remember watching the first handful of Republican debates and laughing along with most of GAF about how easy Hillary would have it with ANY of those clowns. Most of them had glaring flaws that the Clinton campaign would have exploited almost as easily as Trump. The ONLY R candidate that gave me pause was Kasich (lol).

I think people are looking at Hillary's campaign through the lens of Trump's dumpster fire and thinking she's got it easy. Well, she kinda does with him, but don't forget: Last year the Clinton campaign was gearing up for an actual opponent of the traditional variety.

I guess anything to keep from saying Hillary is competent, though...

You know I love her...but she's been damaged by some shit over the last few years. Benghazi, although mostly a GOP witch hunt, is still not a great look, even though she technically did nothing wrong. The email thing is far from ideal. Again, even if she's technically been vindicated. Yes, part of this is the result of 25 years of GOP smears...but she didn't help herself.

I don' think shes' a weak candidate, though. She's insanely smart. She knows how to work the system. She has the money. She has the people. She has built a fairly strong coalition of voters. These things are all true, and would have been true no matter who she was running against.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

She's a weak candidate running against weaker ones.

On the flip coin, I think she's a weak candidate in terms of marketing herself and not being as charismatic as others, but I think she's going to be an amazing president.

If she does a good job, and people do actually see that, then that can easily change her narrative for re-election.

But... why the the hell are we talking about 2020?

 

[Goodstyle]

The Ghostbusters reboot is getting decent reviews, you may not think this belongs in this thread at first glance, but soon you will come to realize that it totally does.

 

[Diablos]

Fuck 2020. Let's worry about this year.

Part of the reason why I say that we need Hillary is because of the SCOTUS. If we get a left wing SCOTUS then even if a Republican in 2020 wins, the court could toss out some of the crazier things the next GOP Pres would do.

12 years is hard, 16 is damn near impossible. Even Bush/Reagan couldn't get 16 years.

 

[User 463088]

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Dcorps_WV_BG_063016.pdf

So, here's some battleground state polls. They were released on the 30th, I guess? In the field from June 11-20th. The margin of error in each state is like 5.66% so....grain of salt.

National across all Battleground States:
Queen 49
Trump 41

Arizona
Trump 48
Queen 43

Florida
Queen 52
Trump 39

Michigan
Queen 50
Trump 39

North Carolina
Queen 51
Trump 41

New Hampshire
Queen 51
Trump 47

Nevada
Trump 47
Queen 45

Ohio
Trump 48
Queen 47

Pennsylvania
Queen 49
Trump 39

Wisconsin
Queen 47
Trump 36

 

[sc0la]

Unless the economy is booming, the world is calmer, and she has consistently high approval numbers, I think Hillary needs to serve one term and let a contested primary find someone else. She would lose this year to basically anyone but Trump, Carson, or Cruz. Democrats just got lucky twice over. In retrospect she stood a nearly even chance of being indicted and throwing the party into disaster.

Hindsight is 50/50

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Fuck 2020. Let's worry about this year.

Part of the reason why I say that we need Hillary is because of the SCOTUS. If we get a left wing SCOTUS then even if a Republican in 2020 wins, the court could toss out some of the crazier things the next GOP Pres would do.

12 years is hard, 16 is damn near impossible. Even Bush/Reagan couldn't get 16 years.

In all possible futures, Democrats keep the presidency until 2028.

Though Kamala's win in 2024 will be a squeaker.