I'm not saying she should run or it's not selfish of her, but look at Biden. Voted for Iraq? Yeap. Spotted history with sexual abuse ( i.e Anita Hill hearing)? Yeap. Corporate friendly? Yeap. Inefficient campaigner and fundraiser? Yeap. If that guy is the front-runner, the only case to be made preventing her to run is she lost to Donald Trump, and you aren't exactly confident it won't be the case for Bro Biden as well.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
But Clinton and her emails seem to galvanize Republicans, maybe Biden won't.
Republicans are going to be galvanised regardless. Biden will be tied to Obama (imagine Trump: a vote for Biden is a vote for Obama back into the WH)
You need a novel, exciting candidate who is unburdened with scandals and past votes, and also disciplined and effective in his/her communication. Trump hasn't started a new conflict and the economy is still going well, against an old face those good points will be accentuated.
Good points. I just hope that Dems treat this as the last chance before Armageddon instead of a powerplay between factions.
There are lots of problems with the party, we can agree on that
Great, finally learnt you lesson?
I didn't mean it as an insult, you can take it however you want. I was basically talking about the section of Bernie supporters who think he can do no wrong and somehow Hillary is root of all evil in the world.
Personally, honesty is not one of the quality I rank very highly regarding politicians, efficiency is far more important.
If Trump can whip turnouts for a mid-term using a fecking caravan thousand miles away, I'm sure he can do it in 2020 against anyone.
It's not about trying to depress GOP turnout.
she lost twice and got nothing passed as a senator
Except for the fact that I've pointed out many of Hillary's flaws...
I don't think she's an efficient campaigner at all.
But @Cal? is a leisure class investor, therefore Clinton is appealing because that clan offers the most predictable and reliable ROI of any potential Democrat and most Republicans
Lock her up, for real this time.
I suspect she is having polling carried out - focus groups etc and seeing if its viable to run - to my mind her relative silence on trump since he took power may play against her - If she had been consistently standing up against him instead of plugging a book it may have given her a bit more credibility.
But with the name recognition and a proven ability to fund raise she is certainly somebody who could be in the race - I personally doubt she will win but I guess its not beyond the realms of possibility that should a younger more progressive candidate get sufficient momentum that she becomes their joe biden and brings the experience to the ticket
plus then she only has to kill one person to be president
But with the name recognition and a proven ability to fund raise she is certainly somebody who could be in the race - I personally doubt she will win but I guess its not beyond the realms of possibility that should a younger more progressive candidate get sufficient momentum that she becomes their joe biden and brings the experience to the ticket
plus then she only has to kill one person to be president
If she was more vocal recently you can bet the farm that both Trump and the usual Hillary hating left would’ve both criticized her for speaking out of turn after she lost. She was therefore quite right to lay relatively low and avoid excessively talking about Trump or 2020.
Didn't they usually also follow up with the committed delegate count? I always saw the super delegate count and then also the ones who couldn't change.
Selfish from her. Happy that it is happening though, it will divide the centrist vote between her and Biden, and give an easier victory to some progressive (hoping either Bernie or Beto).
However I find it weird how she dares running again. Losing once against Trump is unforgivable, but losing twice?! And yes, she'll lose (even with a higher margin) if somehow she wins the primaries.
I like this guy, hasn't got a chance ,but nice to see him give it a go.
I don't know how selfish it is on her part given that she has just as much right to run as any of the other contenders. She would almost certainly cull the centrist herd and reduce things to just her and Biden (barring any other centrists who emerge).
It worked for Nixon - lost in 60 and won in 68. And lets face it, she should've won last time so its not as if she's someone who finished 8th in the primaries and delusionally thinks she can win the Presidency this time around. If she runs (and despite the article, which is basically little more than an OP-Ed by a Trump leaning Dem) then it would be similar to her seeking a 2nd potus term which she would've done in any case.
The concern would be though that Biden drops out if he fears Sanders will win otherwise and allows her to run uncontested. Astonishing conversations like this are even still happening though.
Well yes, but Nixon was up against a highly popular candidate unlike Trump, and while he won in 68 I'd argue a huge amount of luck factored in for him insofar as RFK would've stood a decent chance of beating him had he not been killed. The fact she 'should' have won last time is the concerning part: she's more than capable of beating Trump in the popular vote but was unable to win key areas where her message didn't carry. There's little to suggest that's changed because she remains highly unpopular.
The bottom line is that you can narrowly lose in one cycle and recover to win in another one. US history has quite a few examples of people losing then winning dating back from Jefferson to Reagan
Trump will have a field day if Clinton runs again. He was bad enough with her last time but he’ll insult her far more voraciously in 2020.
Mind you, whoever runs against him will get a full frontal assault.
Mind you, whoever runs against him will get a full frontal assault.
I'm not denying that you can. I'm saying that examples like the Nixon one aren't particularly great because they ignore the fundamental differences between Nixon and Clinton. She could win - nevertheless it's an absurdly stupid risk to even consider taking despite her unpopularity. Not to mention there's a decent chance she'd be out in a term, either to Trump or someone with similar views to him. The GOP had a field day with her when she was just campaigning to be President - they'd be in heaven during a campaign where they have an actual Presidential record they can criticise.
Clinton as failed twice now.Maybe third time is the charm.Biden is also a proven loser in elections everywhere apart from his hometown Delaware.
Not to mention that he'll have the full backing of the party this time - in 2016 they were reluctant when it came to the assault allegations etc, but this time they'll be united behind him irrespective of his tactics with Hilary.
Her unpopularity is something she can modulate based on her policy positions, funding sources, and general frankness in how she communicates. If for instance, she were to come out in favor of several policies Sanders pushed last cycle then that would almost certainly help her cause. If on the other hand she basically attempts a carbon copy of last time, then we shouldn't expect better results.
I'd argue her moderating her policy positions would have the potential to go both ways. On the one hand it'd give her a greater appeal among left-leaning voters, but by the same token one of the criticisms of her in 2016 was that she wasn't transparent at all and was a power-hungry politician who didn't have any genuine convictions - if she changes her entire platform she'll be playing into that narrative completely. Trump would target her as being weak and spineless, unable to hold her own against inner party elements with their own wishes and desires. It's something that could backfire.
I think this is overstated. Dem primaries are proportional and delegates can be pledged to other candidates once someone drops out. You could even imagine Biden taking some votes from Bernie, dropping out and endorsing Clinton.
I say imagine because it's all clearly not gonna happen.
A brokened convention would be insane, and would guarantee a Republican win. I don't think that they would be that insane as to go for it, despite not liking Bernie.
Is that Cal?
Worth noting that while Mark Penn was Clinton’s chief strategist in 2008, he’s long been left out of her close circle and had no involvement in both her tenure as Sec State and the ‘16 run. He’s most likely just guessing, like everybody else.
Of course, we shouldn’t preclude the possibility that Clinton herself or someone in her circle used him to test the water for a run. Plausible deniability and all that.
Of course, we shouldn’t preclude the possibility that Clinton herself or someone in her circle used him to test the water for a run. Plausible deniability and all that.
This is going to be a packed primary.
Clinton
Biden
Sanders
Booker
A lot of big names
Clinton
Biden
Sanders
Booker
A lot of big names
I met someone who is fairly progressive the other day, who I thought may be interested in Sanders or Warren. Instead, he talked about how Booker is his number one choice. Unexpected to say the least.
If there's no majority of delegates, it has to be done on multiple rounds. I can't remember if withdrawn candidates have to keep hold of their delegates till the convention or if they can do it after withdrawing.
In reality though, I think the field would winnow by super Tuesday anyway.
What's the issue with Booker? I don't know enough about him and haven't got time for a proper read up at the moment so a quick digest would be appreciated.
Moneeeeeey.
He's the former mayor of Newark New Jersey before becoming Senator. Hardcore Clintonite who is well dialed into establishment Dem politics and fundraising. Oddly enough Jared and Ivanka apparently gave him money before Trump became Prez. He's been aggressively putting himself into the public spotlight for what many think is a prelude to a Presidential run.
- Status