Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, say what you will about the DNC, but I really don't think they're this stupid.

Sure, its tempting to think that we could get a "do-over", especially when by all rights Clinton should have won. But she's had two failed shots at the Presidency. I doubt very many people are going to want to give her a chance to go three for three.

[FireNexus]

I think it's important to note what this "theory" actually says. It expects a Clinton 2020 bid to only come if the pickings on the Democratic side are so slim she's begged to throw in. Which, I truly believe a 2020 Clinton run could win in a landslide all other things being equal if she were only younger. And the bench is plenty shallow.

But it isn't that shallow. And nobody is going to beg Clinton to run. Myself included. And I am a full on Clinton supporter who would love to see her sworn in, and who unabashedly thinks it would be good for the country, all the more post-Grab Them By The Pussy. But the idea that ANYONE wants Clinton to run again, or can be convinc d to want that, is so stupid that the author of that "think" piece is just throwing shit at the wall so he can puff himself up on it if it happens to stick.

[Ralin]

That's...the exact fucking point, you moron. Eventually, they lost the war. Put down the rattling sabre for a minute, would you?

What the hell are you on about? He's clearly implying that the Republicans are going to crash and burn. My point is that it's a lot more likely that we're all going to crash and burn.

[Iroscato]

That's...the exact fucking point, you moron. Eventually, they lost the war. Put down the rattling sabre for a minute, would you?

What the hell are you on about? He's clearly implying that the Republicans are going to crash and burn. My point is that it's a lot more likely that we're all going to crash and burn.

Apologies for mis-reading then - I've sifted through so much chest-thumping, brash MURICA FUCK YEAH over the last few weeks that I've been on a bit of a hair trigger when it comes to the subject

[Flagg]

I think it's important to note what this "theory" actually says. It expects a Clinton 2020 bid to only come if the pickings on the Democratic side are so slim she's begged to throw in. Which, I truly believe a 2020 Clinton run could win in a landslide all other things being equal if she were only younger. And the bench is plenty shallow.

But it isn't that shallow. And nobody is going to beg Clinton to run. Myself included. And I am a full on Clinton supporter who would love to see her sworn in, and who unabashedly thinks it would be good for the country, all the more post-Grab Them By The Pussy. But the idea that ANYONE wants Clinton to run again, or can be convinc d to want that, is so stupid that the author of that "think" piece is just throwing shit at the wall so he can puff himself up on it if it happens to stick.

Pretty much. The only good thing to come from the 2016 primaries is that Secretary Clinton got a taste of her own medicine when Senator Crazyhair refused to concede even loooooong after he couldn't get the nomination short of Secretary Clinton having a stroke and dying/ becoming a potato just like she did to Obama in 2008.

[Guardsman Bass]

Clinton more or less dropped out of national politics after the election, only popping up occasionally. It's extremely unlikely she'll be running again in 2020.

There's no lack of potential Democrats for the 2020 slot, either. Cory Booker is very obviously going to run, and the same goes for Kirsten Gillibrand. Kamala Harris could go the Obama route and run as well, and I wouldn't put running past Al Franken either (he'd be as old as Hillary was last year). Hell, even Bernie could make another go at it if he's feeling healthy at 78, although he'd absolutely have to pick a good running mate as insurance in case he got sick.

[The Romulan Republic]

No mention of Warren? Barring perhaps Bernie, she's probably the first choice for a lot of progressives. Certainly the second biggest name progressive politician. And probably less likely to inspire a major hostile backlash than Bernie, since she won't have made the enemies that he did in the last primary (unless their are some hard core Bernie supporters holding a grudge for her not endorsing him, though I'd expect that to be fairly minor). Though I suppose in her case its a question of weather she wants to run. She didn't, last time.

I have very mixed feelings about the likely Booker candidacy. On the one hand, he's a fine speaker, personally charismatic. On the other hand, I don't think the Democrats need another Wall Street-friendly candidate right now.

I think all things considered, Warren would be my preference right now, should she choose to run.

[SCRawl]

I think all things considered, Warren would be my preference right now, should she choose to run.

She's not as young as she appears; in November, 2020, she will be 71 years old, which would give her the new record for someone elected to the presidency for the first time.

[The Romulan Republic]

True, but on the other hand, life expectancies are higher now than they were in the past (and female life expectancies are higher than mens'), she seems in good shape, and she'd be three or four years younger than the Bern was when he ran.

Edit: And she'd only barely be beating out the 70-year-old Donald.

[Flagg]

I think all things considered, Warren would be my preference right now, should she choose to run.

She's not as young as she appears; in November, 2020, she will be 71 years old, which would give her the new record for someone elected to the presidency for the first time.

Wait, wasn't Ray Gun pushing 75?

[Gandalf]

I think all things considered, Warren would be my preference right now, should she choose to run.

She's not as young as she appears; in November, 2020, she will be 71 years old, which would give her the new record for someone elected to the presidency for the first time.

Wait, wasn't Ray Gun pushing 75?

At his second inauguration, yes.

[Flagg]

She's not as young as she appears; in November, 2020, she will be 71 years old, which would give her the new record for someone elected to the presidency for the first time.

Wait, wasn't Ray Gun pushing 75?

At his second inauguration, yes.

Damn, he looked like he was auditioning for a zombie extra on The Walking Dead at the first one!

[SCRawl]

Wait, wasn't Ray Gun pushing 75?

At his second inauguration, yes.

Damn, he looked like he was auditioning for a zombie extra on The Walking Dead at the first one!

He was a young man of 69 when he was elected to the presidency for the first time, which had been the record at the time. Bob Dole is (I think) the oldest to get a major party nomination for president and run for the first time. Bernie had a chance to break that one, except that he didn't really have a chance (thanks DNC).

[Gandalf]

Wait, wasn't Ray Gun pushing 75?

At his second inauguration, yes.

Damn, he looked like he was auditioning for a zombie extra on The Walking Dead at the first one!

Pretty much. He wasn't really one of those people who was "young for his age." He was seventy and looked closer to eighty. Thankfully all he needed to do was look friendly in front of a camera and pretend not to know about stuff. The cult builds itself.

[Gandalf]

He was a young man of 69 when he was elected to the presidency for the first time, which had been the record at the time. Bob Dole is (I think) the oldest to get a major party nomination for president and run for the first time. Bernie had a chance to break that one, except that he didn't really have a chance (thanks DNC).

Also, the millions of people who voted for Clinton. They deserve some credit.

[SCRawl]

He was a young man of 69 when he was elected to the presidency for the first time, which had been the record at the time. Bob Dole is (I think) the oldest to get a major party nomination for president and run for the first time. Bernie had a chance to break that one, except that he didn't really have a chance (thanks DNC).

Also, the millions of people who voted for Clinton. They deserve some credit.

The Clinton wing of the party genuinely preferred her politics to his. That's what the primaries are for: to let the voters have a say about who will represent the party. It's not who I would have voted for, but different people have different opinions, and I don't have a fundamental problem with it. It's the DNC's thumb on the scales I have a problem with.

[Flagg]

He was a young man of 69 when he was elected to the presidency for the first time, which had been the record at the time. Bob Dole is (I think) the oldest to get a major party nomination for president and run for the first time. Bernie had a chance to break that one, except that he didn't really have a chance (thanks DNC).

Also, the millions of people who voted for Clinton. They deserve some credit.

The Clinton wing of the party genuinely preferred her politics to his. That's what the primaries are for: to let the voters have a say about who will represent the party. It's not who I would have voted for, but different people have different opinions, and I don't have a fundamental problem with it. It's the DNC's thumb on the scales I have a problem with.

I would care even a half a cunthairs worth if the DNC wasn't essentially protecting the party from an outsider who didn't raise a dime for them until he decided to run for President when he saw an opening. And at that point every dime he raised for them was really a dime for him assuming Bernie Fever Dream was catching and the people who voted Obama in 2008 with the expectation of voting Clinton in 2016 along with the superdelegates who it was apparent from day 1 without question were going to vote Clinton. It's intraparty politics, if you want fair, they have one every fall and the rollercoaster is not safe.

[Simon_Jester]

If the party, in a straightforward direct primary election, supports Candidate A over Candidate B, great.

But if they support B over A, then it does not matter if B is an outsider and A isn't. What matters isn't the 'party' as a structure of mutually supporting politicians. What matters is the voter base. Who do they want in charge? If they want someone different who doesn't have a long history of trading favors with the party's leadership... why is that a problem? Why does the party leadership somehow have a special claim to "protect the party" from a dark horse candidate who hasn't been on their speed-dial list since some time in the '80s?

[FireNexus]

The party was not stopping Bernie, Ok? They were propping up Clinton. Because Clinton shrewdly built a coalition so strong that trying to run against her was a last ditch for anyone in mainstream Democratic politics before they became irrelevant. Bernie was never a threat, and his performance being as strong as it was boiled down to there being a vacuum of challengers against Clinton and his funding being independent of the usual metrics of whether the money is being effectively set on fire.

The DNC emails (which never resulted in any actual action) were a reaction not to someone they thought could win, but someone they knew couldn't who could run forever in spite of that because the minority of the Democratic base which supported him had been convinced he could win even after California.

So Flagg's contention they were protecting the party from Bernie is wrong. All the real Clinton propping happened at the point where they were convincing literally everybody (except a guy whose claim to fame was being the basis for the corrupt mayor in the Wire, a guy who spent a whole debate bragging about killing my fiancé's grandfather in a tunnel, and Count Chocula) in the party to sit it out. They did nothing about Bernie with the exception of punishing him for improperly accessing data. And they bowed under pressure to be inclusive of his bullshit with the debates at least.

But Bernie was always going to lose. He was Howard Dean with a neverending money tap and a monopoly on Reddit love. He was never the enemy they stymied. He was a persistent rash that they refused to put cream on.

[Flagg]

The party was not stopping Bernie, Ok? They were propping up Clinton. Because Clinton shrewdly built a coalition so strong that trying to run against her was a last ditch for anyone in mainstream Democratic politics before they became irrelevant. Bernie was never a threat, and his performance being as strong as it was boiled down to there being a vacuum of challengers against Clinton and his funding being independent of the usual metrics of whether the money is being effectively set on fire.

The DNC emails (which never resulted in any actual action) were a reaction not to someone they thought could win, but someone they knew couldn't who could run forever in spite of that because the minority of the Democratic base which supported him had been convinced he could win even after California.

So Flagg's contention they were protecting the party from Bernie is wrong. All the real Clinton propping happened at the point where they were convincing literally everybody (except a guy whose claim to fame was being the basis for the corrupt mayor in the Wire, a guy who spent a whole debate bragging about killing my fiancé's grandfather in a tunnel, and Count Chocula) in the party to sit it out. They did nothing about Bernie with the exception of punishing him for improperly accessing data. And they bowed under pressure to be inclusive of his bullshit with the debates at least.

But Bernie was always going to lose. He was Howard Dean with a neverending money tap and a monopoly on Reddit love. He was never the enemy they stymied. He was a persistent rash that they refused to put cream on.

You're right in that they weren't protecting the party from Senator Dick-Rash (FEEL The Bern!!! ), but they were protecting the party from the membership who refused to recognize that the cream needed to be applied.

[The Romulan Republic]

If the party, in a straightforward direct primary election, supports Candidate A over Candidate B, great.

But if they support B over A, then it does not matter if B is an outsider and A isn't. What matters isn't the 'party' as a structure of mutually supporting politicians. What matters is the voter base. Who do they want in charge? If they want someone different who doesn't have a long history of trading favors with the party's leadership... why is that a problem? Why does the party leadership somehow have a special claim to "protect the party" from a dark horse candidate who hasn't been on their speed-dial list since some time in the '80s?

This. Entirely this.

That said, it is regrettable that the Left is still fighting itself over a primary that ended nearly a year ago. I know I've been guilty of it too, but at this point, the primary is long over, and continuing to fuel those divisions and resentments helps only one group of people: Republicans.

I wonder how many of that extra hundred thousand or so votes Clinton needed stayed home because they were so off-put by the infighting and mud-slinging in the primary? Its certainly no coincidence that Donald Trump tried to fuel those divisions by expressing sympathy with the Bernie supporters during the election.

Internal debates are a good thing in a party, to a point. We need to figure out how to restructure the primary system so we don't have the kind of complaints (real or imagined) that we had last time. But right now, it often feels like we're ignoring the advice from that one TOS episode: Only a fool fights in a burning house.

[FireNexus]

I wonder how many of that extra hundred thousand or so votes Clinton needed stayed home because they were so off-put by the infighting and mud-slinging in the primary? Its certainly no coincidence that Donald Trump tried to fuel those divisions by expressing sympathy with the Bernie supporters during the election.

That you are asking this question at all is fucking infuriating. Because this is exactly what you said continuing the campaign until the end of time would not cause last spring/summer.

"Bernie staying in despite having no opportunity to win, resulting in BernieBots insufferably starting shit with everyone on the internet who hasn't donated $27 while his campaign makes increasingly desperate allusions to her being a criminal, couldn't cause Clinton to lose, so he should stay in!" You're trying to spin it is as everybody's hands dirty, but there was one side primarily slinging mud, and it wasn't the establishment. You acted like we were fucking crazy or dishonest for suggesting this.

Dude, you are the fucking worst.

If you're going to sit there and suddenly take seriously an argument that you denied for MONTHS while it actually mattered, you had fucking BETTER place the blame squarely where it belongs. I may have been a mudslinging asshole, but my candidate didn't increasingly run her campaign on mudslinging. Bernie did.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nexus, you realize there's a difference between saying Bernie should continue to campaign during the primary, and saying that we should continue to pick on internal divisions long after the election has ended, right? The entire point of the primary is to focus the party's message for the election. Whether or not you agree with Bernie is irrelevant, because it's a clearly different situation to now, because the election is over, and continuing to use Bernie as a scapegoat (or whatever the hell Flagg has been trying to do) is silly.

Despite the fact that I have asked this in multiple threads, not a shred of evidence has been provided that Bernie continuing to campaign during the primary had any effect on Hillary's election chances at all. Regardless, that's still utterly irrelevant to what we are discussing now, which is how the American left should act AFTER THE ELECTION. Further note that even TRR supported Hillary in the election proper, despite his support for Bernie in the primary. It's a completely different situation, now.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be fair, I brought up nastiness during the primary specifically as a possible issue in the general election.

And on that note, I do acknowledge that their is some responsibility from people in the Sanders camp, though I'd put it more on the Bernie or Busters than on Senator Sanders himself. Certainly, Sanders and his campaign said some sharply critical things about Clinton and the DNC- and Clinton and the DNC said some decidedly nasty things about him and his supporters, although rehashing them would run counter to my overall message here.

Ultimately, people say nasty things in political campaigns, and we could argue until Judgement Day (which might not be so far off, the way things are going) about which ones were true and which ones weren't. But at this point, the primary is over, and it should be, as much as possible, treated as water under the bridge. It may be unpleasant to swallow ones' pride, but the bottom line is this:

Whoever wins the next Democratic Presidential Primary will need the votes of the other factions, as many of them as they can get. If its Bernie, or Warren, or another Progressive, they will need the Centrists. If its Booker, or another Centrist, they will need the Progressives. They will need every God damn vote that they can get, because the Electoral College favours the Republicans, and they will have had four years to cram as many voter suppression laws as they can think of down the throats of the nation. The same basic argument holds true for 2018, where we face a very steep uphill climb to retake Congress.

I would be entirely in support of putting aside all personal and minor policy disagreements, as much as possible, for the duration of Trump's Presidency/the Republican Congressional majority, for the sake of pragmatism and the good of the country.

[Simon_Jester]

That... would be a very good step.

There are elements of the far right that will predictably fall out among themselves over the next three years. It isn't a good idea for the left to join them.