Elections I believe Hillary will run as VP in 2020

[Sir Galahad]

I doubt it.

Bernie vs. Hillary rematch in 2020. @bobgeese

 

[silicavaginitis]

Run?
Bitch can barely walk!

 

[Jack V Savage]

It doesn't matter if Jack defends her or not, what's important is if she'll garner enough votes to win a primary.

Obviously she's still going to have a lot of admirers, but I'd be very, very surprised if it's anywhere close enough what she needs to win another primary.

My concern is not to defend or offend anyone, and I'm not an admirer. Gunny's comments were simply illogical and/or false. Note his inability to defend them (and the consistent inability of anyone to defend similar comments). It's something that people try to make stick through social pressure (attacks) rather than logical or empirical arguments.

And, again, the forward-looking argument is moot as she won't run again. But looking backward, it is important to get things right if we don't want to be misled. Whoever is seen as the biggest threat will get a lot of dishonest smears that will be wholly accepted by maybe 30% of the electorate and partly accepted by another 30%. You can already see this brewing with Warren.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

 

[Sir Galahad]

It will be Mark Cuban running as a democrat against Trump!

It'll be these two assholes. @KillMeGod

 

[KillMeGod]

It'll be these two assholes. @KillMeGod

the dream team... hah!

 

[Gutter Chris]

You can already see this brewing with Warren.

I wish she never said that stupid Indian line. we got a lot of dummies in our country that wont even look at what her platform would be and just will hurl memes and bray like donkeys

 

[Jack V Savage]

I wish she never said that stupid Indian line. we got a lot of dummies in our country that wont even look at what her platform would be and just will hurl memes and bray like donkeys

But what actually happened--she repeated something she heard growing up informally--is getting blown up to to a ridiculous degree. So my point is that there is no person alive who could avoid being smeared in a way that is effective for a lot of the population. It's not a particular failing of the object of the smearing, it's a background fact of politics. Clinton's a fundamentally decent human being, who ran a well-respected charity, kept her nose clean for her whole life, and had 65% approval before the (most recent) smear campaign kicked into gear. By the end, half the country was convinced she was the anti-Christ. If those of us who want higher middle-class incomes and lower poverty, etc. think that the key for next time is to pick someone who is "likable" or can't possibly be smeared, we're deluding ourselves and dooming our efforts. Anyone can be made unlikable, and anyone can be successfully portrayed as corrupt.

The key is to vote instrumentally (who is going to advance policy you want) and push back against the smears when they are false. And I think Clinton's big mistake in 2016 was highlighting the ways that Trump was uniquely bad rather than the ways he was typically bad. He's vulgar, unusually dishonest, disorganized, inept, clueless, easily riled, etc. But the main case against him was that in terms of policy, he's W.2--regressive tax cuts, deregulation of finance and energy, destructive healthcare policy, etc.

 

[Gutter Chris]

But what actually happened--she repeated something she heard growing up informally--is getting blown up to to a ridiculous degree. So my point is that there is no person alive who could avoid being smeared in a way that is effective for a lot of the population. It's not a particular failing of the object of the smearing, it's a background fact of politics. Clinton's a fundamentally decent human being, who ran a well-respected charity, kept her nose clean for her whole life, and had 65% approval before the (most recent) smear campaign kicked into gear. By the end, half the country was convinced she was the anti-Christ. If those of us who want higher middle-class incomes and lower poverty, etc. think that the key for next time is to pick someone who is "likable" or can't possibly be smeared, we're deluding ourselves and dooming our efforts. Anyone can be made unlikable, and anyone can be successfully portrayed as corrupt.

The key is to vote instrumentally (who is going to advance policy you want) and push back against the smears when they are false. And I think Clinton's big mistake in 2016 was highlighting the ways that Trump was uniquely bad rather than the ways he was typically bad. He's vulgar, unusually dishonest, disorganized, inept, clueless, easily riled, etc. But the main case against him was that in terms of policy, he's W.2--regressive tax cuts, deregulation of finance and energy, destructive healthcare policy, etc.

She needs to own it and talk mad shit back when people call her pocahontos or it will swallow her alive.

Democrats never get nasty when republicans run this jive and it gets them beat every time. you have to go out there and not even talk policy but just cut a wrestling promo on your opponent until you win and until democrats learn this lesson republicans are going to continue to beat them with stupid shit

 

[Jack V Savage]

She needs to own it and talk mad shit back when people call her pocahontos or it will swallow her alive.

Democrats never get nasty when republicans run this jive and it gets them beat every time. you have to go out there and not even talk policy but just cut a wrestling promo on your opponent until you win and until democrats learn this lesson republicans are going to continue to beat them with stupid shit

I disagree that would work (the two sides, and moderates, have different characters; and making it personal and identity-based inevitably helps the side with the less-popular ideas), but I might be biased because I think that even if it did work, the cure would be potentially worse than the disease. I think politics should be elevating--for the nation and the souls of the participants. I agree that some level of personal nastiness is inevitable, but it should be regarded as unfortunate and something to be minimized.

BTW @Giblert, this relates to our previous discussion and why I found your "cyberbullying" charge to be so off-base.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I disagree that would work (the two sides, and moderates, have different characters; and making it personal and identity-based inevitably helps the side with the less-popular ideas), but I might be biased because I think that even if it did work, the cure would be potentially worse than the disease. I think politics should be elevating--for the nation and the souls of the participants. I agree that some level of personal nastiness is inevitable, but it should be regarded as unfortunate and something to be minimized.

BTW @Giblert, this relates to our previous discussion and why I found your "cyberbullying" charge to be so off-base.

You can think what you want but if I had to put money on it I would say Liz Warren more than likely gets steam rolled because of that comment.

The electorate in this country is a bunch of high functioning retards and you cant win if you dont bring them along for the ride

You have to be vicious to beat a republican and they sure as hell arent showing the democrats any mercy or gentlemens agreements. Tell the morons what they need to hear to get elected .... do what you need to do once you win. Thats the game dude

The alternative to playing this game is that the republicans are going to continue to win

If I may be so bold .... Do you think if I was about to smash you over the head with a bat that the best defense would be pulling out your acoustic guitar and singing me a song about how we all should get along or would it be to pull out your pistol and stop me dead in my tracks before I clubbed you. This is the democrats problem and why they always lose . Get clubbed every time. At also shows what a ninja obama was cuz no matter how hard they tried they couldnt club him.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You can think what you want but if I had to put money on it I would say Liz Warren more than likely gets steam rolled because of that comment.

The electorate in this country is a bunch of high functioning retards and you cant win if you dont bring them along for the ride

You have to be vicious to beat a republican and they sure as hell arent showing the democrats any mercy or gentlemens agreements. Tell the morons what they need to hear to get elected .... do what you need to do once you win. Thats the game dude

The alternative to playing this game is that the republicans are going to continue to win

If I may be so bold .... Do you think if I was about to smash you over the head with a bat that the best defense would be pulling out your acoustic guitar and singing me a song about how we all should get along or would it be to pull out your pistol and stop me dead in my tracks before I clubbed you. This is the democrats problem and why they always lose . Get clubbed every time. At also shows what a ninja obama was cuz no matter how hard they tried they couldnt club him.

Doesn't Obama's success undermine the point? He was widely hated and did have a lot of bullshit thrown his way ("palling around with terrorists," Birtherism, "arrogance," "empty suit", etc.), and it did work to a large extent (as much as non-crazy Republicans try to dismiss it, Birtherism was a majority view among Republican voters, and I believe it still is). But he won anyway, and without going negative. And I think the real reason was that the left was more united, and he got people who disliked him, partly because Bush had so discredited Republican ideology and then because Romney was the perfect representation of unpopular GOP policy. Unlike Clinton, who was killed among voters who disliked both candidates, Obama got votes from a lot of voters who disliked him, and it's because of the policy focus. It was easier because Romney was clearly a really smart, capable, decent guy, so the natural focus was on how fucked up his policy was, while Trump created a dilemma with his personal horribleness, but the campaign chose wrong.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Doesn't Obama's success undermine the point? He was widely hated and did have a lot of bullshit thrown his way ("palling around with terrorists," Birtherism, "arrogance," "empty suit", etc.), and it did work to a large extent (as much as non-crazy Republicans try to dismiss it, Birtherism was a majority view among Republican voters, and I believe it still is). But he won anyway, and without going negative. And I think the real reason was that the left was more united, and he got people who disliked him, partly because Bush had so discredited Republican ideology and then because Romney was the perfect representation of unpopular GOP policy. Unlike Clinton, who was killed among voters who disliked both candidates, Obama got votes from a lot of voters who disliked him, and it's because of the policy focus. It was easier because Romney was clearly a really smart, capable, decent guy, so the natural focus was on how fucked up his policy was, while Trump created a dilemma with his personal horribleness, but the campaign chose wrong.

No it shows that there was nothing to stick him with. Hillary and Liz dont have that option. You cant let people run game on you making you look stupid if they can show you on video or theres even a shred of proof its true. Hillary never should have even run and the dnc did everything in their power to finally get her that W. Liz needs to own the indian thing and point out how absurd it is

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Doesn't Obama's success undermine the point? He was widely hated and did have a lot of bullshit thrown his way ("palling around with terrorists," Birtherism, "arrogance," "empty suit", etc.), and it did work to a large extent (as much as non-crazy Republicans try to dismiss it, Birtherism was a majority view among Republican voters, and I believe it still is). But he won anyway, and without going negative. And I think the real reason was that the left was more united, and he got people who disliked him, partly because Bush had so discredited Republican ideology and then because Romney was the perfect representation of unpopular GOP policy. Unlike Clinton, who was killed among voters who disliked both candidates, Obama got votes from a lot of voters who disliked him, and it's because of the policy focus. It was easier because Romney was clearly a really smart, capable, decent guy, so the natural focus was on how fucked up his policy was, while Trump created a dilemma with his personal horribleness, but the campaign chose wrong.

I think Obama and Romney were clearly better at debates and fighting back.

Newt went low at Romney in the first debate and Romney came right back at him in the 2nd debate. And Obama was able to spar with Romney when the General election came about.

In 2016 it didn't seem like Jeb in the GOP side or Hillary in the General really tried to attack Trump. Like they didn't take him serious and didn't want o be caught rolling around in the mud with him.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No it shows that there was nothing to stick him with. Hillary and Liz dont have that option. You cant let people run game on you making you look stupid if they can show you on video or theres even a shred of proof its true. Hillary never should have even run and the dnc did everything in their power to finally get her that W. Liz needs to own the indian thing and point out how absurd it is

They did stick him with stuff. And they didn't have anything to stick Clinton with (or Warren), but they still did it (are doing it). Why shouldn't Clinton have run? She was more than qualified, and had 65% approval before the campaign against her started, despite being in the public eye for a long time. The notion that the DNC had anything to do with her win is silly, as the race wasn't even close, and they only got involved after they started getting nervous that Bernie staying in long after he was clearly cooked would hurt her in the general (his rationale--reasonable enough--was that he wanted leverage to affect the platform), which was absolutely correct.

I think Obama and Romney were clearly better at debates and fighting back.

Newt went low at Romney in the first debate and Romney came right back at him in the 2nd debate. And Obama was able to spar with Romney when the General election came about.

In 2016 it didn't seem like Jeb in the GOP side or Hillary in the General really tried to attack Trump. Like they didn't take him serious and didn't want o be caught rolling around in the mud with him.

Clinton's ad campaign was very much anti-Trump, rather than anti-Republican or anything else. On a more personal level, I think the thinking was rightly that as a female, she couldn't really go too negative because it would backfire.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

not even the incompetent DNC would choose to back her again. She lost twice FFS, once to a relatively unknown and inexperienced guy w/ a muslim name, and then to a no experience having troll......

That's what happens when you get handed shit you didn't earn (such as her Senator seat in a state she hadn't resided in since when?), you end up being the worst candidate in modern US political history (unless we count Palin at VP)

 

[Gutter Chris]

Why shouldn't Clinton have run? She was more than qualified, and had 65% approval before the campaign against her started, despite being in the public eye for a long time. The notion that the DNC had anything to do with her win is silly, as the race wasn't even close, and they only got involved after they started getting nervous that Bernie staying in long after he was clearly cooked would hurt her in the general (his rationale--reasonable enough--was that he wanted leverage to affect the platform), which was absolutely correct.

She shouldnt have run because she was under investigation seen as a crook and just isnt likeable . I have no problems with her resume but look what the end result was. President Trump. The dnc and its voters chose the wrong candidate and now we all get to suffer the consequences

 

[Jack V Savage]

She shouldnt have run because she was under investigation seen as a crook and just isnt likeable . I have no problems with her resume but look what the end result was. President Trump. The dnc and its voters chose the wrong candidate and now we all get to suffer the consequences

She wasn't seen as a crook or unlikable until she ran and started getting smeared. Hence my point. Any candidate who loses is retroactively "the wrong candidate." What I'm saying is that we should take it for granted that whoever runs will be considered a crook and unlikeable, no matter how likeable or straight they are. The key is to find a way to win anyway, and certainly what doesn't work is splitting the coalition.

 

[Sir Galahad]

She's desperate, as of right now I'll say no. However that doesn't mean the DNC will get competent representatives. If they don't I do think she'll snake her way back in and run. If she does it will be hilarious because she'll lose again.

I believe it'll be a repeat of 2016 election for the DNC. They're in disarray right now and continue the downfall. Bernie vs. Hillary "The Rematch". @Burning Hammer

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

She wasn't seen as a crook or unlikable until she ran and started getting smeared. Hence my point. Any candidate who loses is retroactively "the wrong candidate." What I'm saying is that we should take it for granted that whoever runs will be considered a crook and unlikeable, no matter how likeable or straight they are. The key is to find a way to win anyway, and certainly what doesn't work is splitting the coalition.

lol, I guess you didn't see hillary vs obama back in 2008