Why is it an awesome idea for Biden to run, but Hillary not only shouldn't run, but must go away?

[EffieBlack]

[SMC22307]

1. Neither should run.

Same with Sanders. We need fresh blood.

[tblue37]

4. Yes. nt

[paleotn]

6. Bingo.

Too many bad memories from 2016. I don't think the country wants to go back there in any fashion.

[democratisphere]

10. Agreed.

[X_Digger]

65. Yup. n/t

[Neema]

131. Couldn't agree more.

We need new players in the game.

[Gothmog]

175. I agree that sanders should not run but I doubt that he will anyway

sanders is busy selling books right now. I doubt that sanders would actually comply with the new DNC rule and formally agree in writing to become a member of the Democratic Party, agree to run as a member of the Democratic Party and agree to govern if elected as a member of the Democratic Party. I also doubt that sanders will release his tax returns so as to get onto the ballot in a number of key blue states

[SMC22307]

182. We get it -- you don't like Sanders.

Regardless, no Biden, Clinton, or Sanders because they'd all be considered re-treads. Fresh blood is what we need.

[blue cat]

281. He's not going to show his tax returns

So it’s a mute point.

[SMC22307]

293. Moot, even.

[blue cat]

296. Thank you

Even for what?

[blue cat]

297. See:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/06/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-has-released-few-tax-returns-compar/

[D23MIURG23]

185. +1

[KentuckyWoman]

199. I'm with you.

Our party has a wealth of talent. We don't need the same ol same ol.

[whistler162]

207. Neither should Bernie Sanders or

Elizabeth Warren all for the same reason, age.

[SMC22307]

209. I mentioned Sanders in my post. Disagree about Warren.

I have no qualms about voting for someone "old," I just want the nominee to be someone beyond the usual suspects. Aren't there any successful Democratic governors ripe for the pickin'?

[earthside]

210. I'm sorry ... just too old.

This sentiment:

“Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Pres. John F. Kennedy

[Adrahil]

211. Yup! NT

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

229. Yes. With all due respect, we need younger candidates.

[Raine]

238. TOTALLY agree

I want all three of them to go away..

[Sunsky]

256. I agree nt

[LanternWaste]

288. It's a great bumper sticker lacking any evidence at all to support it.

"We need fresh blood..."

Yeah, let's the Tide Pod kids to take over.

[SMC22307]

294. That's quite a leap...

from no Biden, Clinton or Sanders to what "Tide Pod kids" want. Surely there's got to be a happy medium.

[marylandblue]

2. That's a good question

Neither should run. Neither has to go away.

[Hortensis]

53. With the same answer as why Nancy needs to leave or

(my personal favorite for the hypocrisy it blares) agree to a special women-only term limit of one or two more years, while the 5 top men go unmentioned.

[tblue37]

3. +1. I don't think either should run, but you're absolutely right on this! nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. Don't forget Bernie in this equation, too!

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. In terms of age, absolutely. All of them are in their seventies...

However having only run for President once puts Sanders in the same category that Hillary was in after losing to Obama in 2008 The same is true of Al Gore, John McCain, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan before that. It is pretty common in Presidential politics for someone to win a presidential nomination and sometimes the presidency also the second time they try.

[Hortensis]

71. Tom, age just isn't the same factor it once was.

We're in the middle of a revolution in what it means to be older.

A concentration of power in one age group is a problem, but it doesn't only arise from highly skilled people being unwilling to turn power over to to comparative amateurs (or just to give it up) but from the fact that they're NOT becoming decrepit, not dropping dead in the numbers they used to, and that when they will has become a lot more predictable.

People who (ridiculously imo) imagined they were seeing a new leader challenging entrenched power in Senator Sanders didn't care that he was heading into the second half of his 70s. They saw him as new blood. Well, what if a septuagenarian who was the real thing stepped up? A dynamic outsider with decades of impressive achievements and all the right answers?

If one shows up, I'll look at him or her, but in the meantime Hillary still fits that bill with the single exception of being an outsider. Finally, after decades. Hillary was dismissed by most in male-dominated power circles of course as a female but also as a female with a passion for improving society by improving the rights and wellbeing of women and children.

To our male-dominated power structures on both right and left, that subject has always been strictly for irrelevant lightweights, family law a low-pay joke of a choice for women and other losers. And then she wasn't dismissed, but it wasn't their choice.

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. Actually I agree with you and for that reason I would consider any of them (and Warren too.)

I consider age as just one of many factors. All other things being equal, I think it is time for another generation to move to the forefront of leadership (fully supported by their "elders" who should NOT "go away). However all things are never equal. For example I strongly support Nancy Pelosi returning as speaker of the House - she is the right woman for that job at this time, period.

In my post above I was gently differentiating Sanders from Biden and Clinton only in regards to the fact that Sanders has only run for President once himself, and in so doing was also acknowledging that none of them now are seen as "new blood". But new blood as you aptly point out is not the end all in political leadership, though in some political cycles the public seems to crave it - in others not so much.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

99. All true.

[Hortensis]

126. :) Yes, same here. You know, it's actually the press who crave

new candidates more than anyone because covering them sells better, both for individuals trying to get their articles featured and the big businesses they work for. They have a long and strong pattern of playing up the new and badmouthing the old. Exactly as you pointed out, Clinton and Biden have been "old" boring stories for some time, and now Sanders is no longer new.

Most of those who clamor for new leaders are really part of the wave of populist negativism, and, as we've seen, even old establishment figures can attach them if they style themselves as new, sound strong and promise to overset "the establishment." Ergo Sanders' success. And Jimmy Carter's.

But they use the word "new," and believe they're looking for new, so to defuse the danger of a spoiler candidate throwing the nation to the Republicans in 2020, I'd love to see a newish candidate of good character, principle and judgement who excites and peels away a critical number with rhetoric that manages to combine populist notes with positive messages -- and pleases the press.

Of course, none of the three we're discussing could fulfill that particular role, would have to be someone else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

133. Yep, well put

And you express my leanings also

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

147. Except Bernie has the energy and drive of politicians HALF his age.

[Baltimike]

151. and Hillary doesn't? nt

[EffieBlack]

154. She's too ambitious ...

[Baltimike]

157. Ooooh, and she's "bitchy" and we do want a woman, just not her

[OBrien]

152. Is his doctors name Jackson?

Who used to be White House physician.

[trueblue2007]

186. NO HE DOESN'T. And don't forget, Bernie isn't a Democrat.

[obamanut2012]

196. lol yeah, no he doesn't

People need to stop claiming this about him and Biden -- it isn't true.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

217. Biden is in pretty decent shape too... runnin' laps, the guy could easily keep up with Obama...

which is sayin' something.

[blackdove78]

216. LMAO

[Trumpocalypse]

299. Too bad he's not a Democrat

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

300. Yes, even though every year, Bernie is consistently ranked among the Senate's top progressives...

when compared to his Democratic colleagues. Guess that makes him a "super-Democrat," which is even better!!

[Trumpocalypse]

303. Still not a member of the Democratic Party

And this is Democratic Underground, not Progressive Underground.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

305. I had forgotten... thanks for the reminder!!

[Trumpocalypse]

318. You're welcome

Too many forget that the purpose of this site is to support the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, not independents who regularly attacks the party.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Because one has already lost to Trump

[oberliner]

11. And the other lost to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich

[BeyondGeography]

14. Are they running in 2020?

A lot of people think Biden would haved fared better than HRC against Trump. That’s why it’s a topic. Personally, I think both should have run their last race.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

278. I don't think there's any question Biden would have...

He certainly was the one who could've made the best case for an "Obama third term."

[treestar]

92. Losing to Obama should not be held against anybody

Obama is exceptional.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

192. True dat... why Michelle Obama should also run. Talk about exceptional!!!

I don't think Michelle would have the slightest trouble beating the livin' shit out of the Racist-in-Chief in the 2020 presidential race and, finally, breaking the glass ceiling!!

[EffieBlack]

193. He didn't just lose to Obama

He lost to most of the Democratic field.

But let's keep moving those goalposts ... We can't hold it against Biden for losing to Obama in a fair fight, but we'll hold it against Hillary for actually beating Trump but having her victory stolen from her by Comey, the Russians, voter suppression, biased media, etc. ...

[treestar]

240. How did he lose to the other Dems though -

they were not the nominee either.

I don't hold it against Hillary for losing to Obama in 2008. I was fine with her running in 2016. I don't recall many people arguing she should not run in 2016 because she had lost in 2008.

[EffieBlack]

244. They got more votes than he did in each primary and then he dropped out while they stayed in

I can't believe you don't really understand that.

[karynnj]

148. Biden lost to Dukakis and Obama -- not to the names you mentioned

I agree he would have lost to Clinton had Obama not run in 2008, but that is not what happened. Edwards was totally over hyped -- in both 2004 and 2008 -- in fact, other than the Carolinas in 2004, he never won a state in the primaries. (In 2008, no one other than Obama or Clinton won a state.)

That said, the ONLY reason Biden might have a shot for the nomination is that there might be a sufficient number of people who want a very familliar person, with enormous experience. Yes, you can say that that was what Clinton brought to the table in 2016 and lost. However, many might have not voted because - "there was no way Trump would win". As to who would do better - Biden or Clinton -- even in 2016, Biden polled better against Trump in the short window when he played with jumping in and was polled. Both have baggage - you can't be in politics for decades without gathering some, but his reputation is that of an "ordinary guy" and as an honest man.

What I would find attractive is if a younger candidate, who could inspire people and express a vision for how to get out of the mess we are in domestically and in the world, who enlisted the support of people who are extremely experienced, have excellent contacts and spoke of wanting to use them as special envoys (foreign policy) or to help in crafting domestic policy on issues where their vision was compatible with the "President".

Why? This would recognise and use the statesmen/legislators who have proven their ability, while having a younger, inspiring, person with a new view on the world.

[EffieBlack]

155. Biden actually did lose to all of them

They all beat him in primary after primary until he dropped out fairly early while they all remained in.

Hillary's the only one of the lot who lost only to Obama.

[karynnj]

163. You could argue that Edwards did win a small number of delegates ... but not Richardson or Kuchinich

Obviously, the real contest in 2008 was just between Obama and Clinton. NONE of the rest of them were significant.

Not to mention, consider in 2008, that the Democratic PTB were ok with Edwards running, but not Kerry -- even though Kerry beat Edwards decisively in 2004. If you would have been here in 2005/2006, you would have seen hundreds of threads bashing the idea that Kerry should not run again. Many as negative as the terrible Clinton threads now --- and many op writers were supporting Clinton 2008!

I do not think that Clinton will run in 2020 and if she did, I doubt that she would get the nomination. Consider that in 2016, when she had no serious Democratic opposition, Bernie Sanders, who almost everyone I knew thought would do about as well as Kuchinich did when he announced here in Burlington got about 45% of the delegates. I suspect that many votes in 2016 were either against Sanders or against Clinton -- while for some Bernie or Hillary were the candidate they connected with the strongest in their lives. I doubt either would get the share of the vote they got in 2016.

[StevieM]

203. If Biden had been the nominee in 2016 he would have been swiftboated like crazy,

just like Clinton was. And it would have been much more thorough than what they did to John Kerry in 2004, which I assume still haunts you.

I don't know the specifics but there certainly would have been a scandal, however imaginary, that would have weighed down his candidacy.

Biden may have polled better than Hillary, but back in 2013 and 2014 she was outpolling everyone against potential GOP candidates.

We also don't know if Trump would have looked as bad coming out of the debates as he did after HRC destroyed him. Biden might not have done quite that well. She was brilliant getting him to make himself look crazy.

[EffieBlack]

212. Thank you

This idea that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate whom Trump could have beaten and just about any other nominee - be it Biden, Bernie or anyone else - would have smoothly sailed past him unscathed straight to the White House - is ridiculous. In fact, Hillary is probably the only person who could have beaten him - and still occupies luxury rent-free space in his empty head.

[erpowers]

279. That Is My Argument

I do not see why so many people, especially so called moderate Republicans, are pushing for Joe Biden to run for President. How many times has he attempted and failed to get the Democratic nomination? If on multiple occasions he cannot convince the majority of Democrats to vote for him to get the party nomination how can he get the majority of the country that votes in the presidential election to vote for him.

I do not see Joe Biden as a strong candidate. I often wonder if some of the Republicans who are pushing Biden are dong so because secretly they want the Democrats to lose in 2020.

[EffieBlack]

24. She got 3 million more votes than he did

And probably only lost the Electoral College because if election fraud and Russian meddling.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. That's simply not true

She got more votes AND Trumputin cheated their way in.

[triron]

39. No! She won. Election was compromised bigtime.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

48. And lost TWICE IN A ROW... Biden WON his last 2 elections as VP with Obama.

While Obama, of course, gets the lion's share of the credit for those victories, no one can dispute that Ole Joe contributed mightily to getting the vote out for the ticket in the mid-west states, the rust-belt, especially Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin... areas that didn't turn out so well in 2016.

While Joe might not be my first choice as the Democratic nominee for Prez in 2020, he certainly deserves his turn at bat, plain and simple. Maybe he too strikes out in the primary... but, given his two terms as VP, and three decades in the Senate, including Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he would be the most qualified presidential candidate in history and on that basis alone, deserves his shot at the presidency.

[EffieBlack]

58. OBAMA won those elections

And Hillary won in 2016. The election was stolen.

And Biden has had two solo turns at bat. And whiffed both times.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. As I said, Obama deserves the lion's share of the credit for those victories...

but Biden deserves at least a little credit too and, most certainly, credit for the experience he gained as VP for 8 years. While Joe is not my first choice to be our presidential nominee, I'm not going to take those attributes away from him.

[EffieBlack]

72. I don't take those attributes away from him, either

I'm just sick of people - especially progressives - giving him credit and kudos for them and then turning around and insisting the same qualities are disqualifying negatives for Hillary Clinton (and Nancy Pelosi, among others).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. I see your point... and, of course, the right experience is a valuable asset, regardless.

[Caliman73]

98. Amen Effie!!

I like Joe Biden. I think he is a good guy and a good public servant, but Obama and Obama alone won in 2008 and 2012. He could have had anyone as his running mate and been fine.

Joe couldn't even make it out of the gate in the primary the two times her ran and dropped out early.

I don't think that either should run, but if Biden is getting the benefit of the doubt then Hillary should throw her hat in the ring as well.

I don't think that either of them should go way either. They have a lot of wisdom to impart on the younger generation of leaders and both are assets to the Democratic Party.

[delisen]

123. The Obama/Biden ticket won when the Democratic Party was super strong

Unfortunately during the administration of Obama/Biden the party lost an amazing amount of its strength and the focus of the administration seemed to be on getting the president and vp re-elected rather than maintaining and building up the party.

By 2016, the Republicans had taken over much to that rustbelt and gerrymandered.Clinton had to prop the party up in order to run.

No politician deserves "his turn at bat" when it comes to the presidency.

I don't know whether Biden was part of the decision to let McConnell decide that the voters would not be told about Russian interference in the 2016 election, so I can't speak to that-but if he wants to run for president he should tell us now whether he did play a role.

I don't care if he runs-it will be a crowded field but I would not vote for him in a primary.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

142. I agree with you that Biden should speak to the issue of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

[UniteFightBack]

173. Who can beat rump is all that matters....people clearly aren't getting that. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I don't think it is awesome for Biden to run, nor do I think Hillary has to go away

Biden ran for President twice but never got far in that process, having withdrawn early in the primary process each time (for different reasons.) Biden gained significant stature subsequent to his last presidential run though from having served as Vice President in a popular Administration. Hillary ran for President twice also, but she got much further each time and much much more exposure in the process. She actually became the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. She should be President today and she would be an excellent one. But in addition to Trump cheating and Russia interfering etc. there is some evidence that the general public was already suffering from what has been called Clinton and Bush fatigue in 2016. Jeb Bush got knocked out fairly early in the primary process. Hillary had significantly negative public approval ratings as a presidential candidate.

Adlai Stevenson would have made an excellent president also but it didn't work for him to be nominated again by Democrats after losing in his bid for president four years prior. But by all means Hillary should run again if she wants to. She is superbly qualified to be President, and the same can be said for Biden. I will trust Democratic primary voters to sort out our nominee from a wide open field.

[StevieM]

12. I assume that Biden and Sanders will both run again, and they will start out as the front runners.

But ultimately I think Tom Steyer and Beto O'Rourke will emerge from the pack and put forward strong campaigns.

[still_one]

27. The ghosts of 2016, and the divisions from that are alive and well. Because of that, I do not

believe that the candidates that were involved in that election will make it very far in 2020 if any of them decide to pursue it.

The divisions from that time aren't going away, and it will result in someone who was NOT part of the 2016 election

[GWC58]

277. Personally I really don't believe Hillary is going to run.

Why the hell would she want to go through that crap again, anyway? I do think Hillary should have a top speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention. I don’t think she should “go away,” either.

[still_one]

284. She said as much. I suspect Sanders will, but for the reasons I gave I don't think he will make it

Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2018, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

very far

[GWC58]

295. I agree.

And to those that think Sanders would’ve defeated Trump in the general election I say he might have. But does anyone think the cries and shrieks of “socialist” would not have been thrown at BS? They would have, with Trump being the main shrieker! 😡

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. Yes, but the experience Joe got as VP for 8 years, plus his 3 decades in the Senate...

including, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, would make him the most qualified candidate ever. That's the difference... Joe's a proven winner - to which Obama can attest, having put him on the ticket in 2008 and 2012 - and is now more prepared to be President than before and deserves another shot. Yet, some would dismiss that amazing experience and say he's too old. That's ridiculous... Joe still has lots of energy, certainly equal to that of Bernie, showing no signs of showing down.

[EffieBlack]

64. Longevity and experience are attributes for men

But they make women "Establishment," "old blood," "non-fresh faces," etc.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

75. Yes, and those attitudes are certainly unfair and should be put on the proverbial "scrap heap"...

though I've never heard anyone argue against Joe being a "non-fresh face." Just the opposite... everybody recognizes the fact that Joe has been around forever and a day and, thus, many of those folks would like to see a fresh face run in his place. I just disagree based on the experience he would bring to the table... as I said, the same should be true for prospective women candidates.

[Jim Lane]

237. IOW, there's no possible reason to oppose Clinton except misogyny, right?

Of course, if you look at this very thread, or the one about a Biden-O'Rourke ticket, or any of numerous others, you'll find plenty of people who don't think that a Biden candidacy is an awesome idea.

But that fact doesn't fit the hypothesis of sex discrimination, so it must be overlooked.

Also if you look at this thread, you'll see that, for some people, Clinton's sex is a plus. While she certainly faced some misogyny in 2016, she also benefited from being a woman (let's crack the glass ceiling, special place in hell, etc.). I haven't seen any good data about whether it was a net plus or a net minus.

For my part, I think both Clinton and Biden are too conservative. Neither would be an awesome candidate in my book.

[StevieM]

9. HRC is subject to misogyny, as she was in both 2008 and 2016.

Hillary has made it pretty clear that she is not running again. Biden has made it pretty clear that he is strongly leaning towards running again.

[Hortensis]

74. Hillary has proven she has an enormously hard head

and a pile-driver will, though, and that top glass ceiling still has to be cracked. I'd like to see her run in the primary and see what our electorate thinks.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Hillary is certainly welcome to run, like any other prospective Democratic candidate...

but, obviously, given her decision not to run, no doubt, she has her reasons after giving much thought to her desires and prospects.

[Hortensis]

83. If she has. Remember, she would consider she has

a duty to fulfill, whether that is to not run or to run, and a lot would depend on what she thinks of those who step up.

[StevieM]

124. I don't think she has given much thought to the matter.

She lost in 2016 and that was that. She was never planning another run.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

143. Your probably right... she certainly gave the last election everything she had.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

307. As Biden should... he's earned it!

[StevieM]

312. I have no problem with Biden, Sanders, Warren or anyone else running.

I will be voting for Tom Steyer. People can dismiss his candidacy all they want, but I believe he is going to be a strong candidate and I hope he will be our next president.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

313. Have to look more into Steyer... don't know much about him.

[still_one]

13. Hillary isn't going away, but she also isnt going to run again. All the abuse she has put up with

from the right, the left, the media, etc. was a disgrace. She didn't deserve that. She has made it very clear that she has no intention to run again, and I can't say I blame her.

President Obama was also treated disgracefully for 8 years as President by the same groups. Both Hillary and President Obama were referred to every foul name in the book.

The Our Revolution group contains some of those same people who behaved disgracefully toward both Hillary and President Obama, which not only included NOT voting for the Democratic nominee in 2016, but actively encouraging other to either vote third party, or not voting.

Those things will not be forgotten from those that supported both Hillary and President Obama, and that will be reflected in whoever the Democrats choose as their nominee in 2020.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. If we don't unite for the fight in 2020 vs the Nazi-in-Chief, the results could again be disasterous

[still_one]

56. That may be, but in my view it would be prudent to choose a Democratic nominee that wasn't part of

the 2016 election.

It should obvious to anyone who observes that the bitterness still exists, which is why if the Democrats want to unite they should choose a new face that wasn't involved in 2016.

Whether that will occur or not, I have no idea.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. You have a point, though I respectfully disagree somewhat but then that speaks in favor of Joe Biden

who chose not to throw his hat into the ring in 2020. While not a "fresh face," Joe's substantial political experience would set him apart and, thus, he deserves serious consideration.

[still_one]

68. I am pretty sure if Biden is able to run he will, and while he did NOT run in 2016, he isn't a new

face, and personally I think we need a new face to unite the party.

No one really has any idea what the Democratic party will end up doing though

[ismnotwasm]

162. I'm not going to be forgetting any of it

Because it’s still happening.

[oberliner]

15. Great question

Hillary should absolutely run if she feels like it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. It's certainly her absolute right!

[WeekiWater]

16. I would take Clinton over Biden in a primary.

There are a lot of other names being mentioned I would put before either of those two. I don’t thing either of them has a shot. If both entered, they wouldn’t make it long in the process.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

93. I'd hafta go with Joe... eight years as VP gives him a leg up on Hillary...

plus, I think Joe does much better in securing the votes of Independents and folks in mid-west states and the rust belt, which proved to be so decisive in 2016.

[WeekiWater]

204. Solid case.

I would never disparage someone for voting for him. It would be a great vote cast. I still can’t imagine a field developing that would leave me voting for either. I do have great respect and admiration for both.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

219. Same.

[mn9driver]

17. The only person in modern politics who ran again after losing and won:

Was Nixon. At least I think that is correct. It’s certsinly possible for Clinton to run again and win, but it doesn’t happen very often.

[Sherman A1]

21. I would much prefer Joe Biden to Hillary, but if she wants to run

that is her choice. Who I vote for in the primary is mine. It will be a crowded field and they will all have to make their case to the public. If they do, they win, if they don't they lose.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. Wow, sounds an awful like democracy... hey, I'm all for it!!

[dsc]

40. reagan

lost the primary of 76 but won in 80.

[EffieBlack]

42. I think they're referring to previous nominees who came back to win the presidency

Which, of course, doesn't include Biden, because he never even came close to winning a nomination.

[Croney]

54. Romney redux is not impossible.

[treestar]

97. And Nixon had not won the popular vote the first time

though it was really close.

[Sneederbunk]

18. Like it or not, HRC has baggage.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

20. So does Biden.

[Sugarcoated]

100. Unfortunately

there are many Democrats that just won't vote for her.

[lapucelle]

127. HRC handily won the Democratic nomination and the GE popular vote.

The only candidate to have gotten more votes than HRC in a presidential election is Barack Obama in 2008. Democrats have shown up for her and would again for her if she were running.

That said, as a Democrat I will work and vote for a Democrat in both the primary and in the GE.

[uponit7771]

117. Most of it created by Russians that's not true and could be done to anyone

[delisen]

128. You see "baggage" I see luggage.

I don't let the corrupt Republican Party determine my vote; nor would I have let Republican leader McConnell decide that the voter had no right to know that a foreign power was deeply involved in our election process.

[Garrett78]

139. So does Biden.

Some seem to only remember Biden as lovable Uncle Joe who pals around with Obama buying burgers and ice cream.

Biden has baggage and a penchant for gaffes. There are reasons he's failed to so much as win the nomination on more than one occasion. And he'll be the age Reagan was when Reagan *left* office. Whereas the average age of the last 5 Democratic presidents was 48.6 upon taking office. We should consider that along with appreciating the moment we're in with Me Too, Black Lives Matter and an increasingly diverse electorate/Congress.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

301. Not nearly as much, as small as it is.

[Garrett78]

309. Arguably more, actually.

[EffieBlack]

310. Sheesh

[Garrett78]

311. The anti-Clinton, pro-Biden people are so transparent with their sexism.

Many of them actually think Bernie Sanders will be president, so grains of salt and all that, I guess.

[HipChick]

164. Who had more baggage than Trump?

[Buckeyeblue]

19. The optics are important. We need a new face.

We need a forward looking face that stands in stark contrast to 45's backward way of thinking.

That was the formula for Obama to beat McCain. It was also the formula for Clinton to beat Bush.

When we run our old against their old, we loose.
-Mondale vs. Reagan
-Gore vs. Bush
-Kerry vs. Bush

Maybe one of the newly elected House members will emerge or a governor.

[msongs]

22. the main diff is she ran as nominee and lost nt

[EffieBlack]

26. As opposed to running twice for the nomination and not making it through the primaries?

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I'm not supporting Biden, but a relevant data point is he then went on to win the Vice Presidency

And as a result he became a truly national figure AFTER having been eliminated in presidential primaries, not as a result of failed presidential bids. Biden currently is far better known for those two winning national campaigns that for his prior short primary campaigns from which he exited early. However, as has been stated elsewhere, he too has baggage in addition to his age.

[EffieBlack]

52. Hillary was a national figure before she even ran for president

And remained one after a losing bid and is still one despite having an election stolen from her.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Correct

My only real point above is that to the average voter Biden was not much of a national figure until after he won the Vice Presidency (twice) and served as a popular Vice President to a popular President. Very few associate him with prior short lived failed runs for President. The same can not be said for Hillary {in many minds) even though she should legitimately be President today.

At this point Biden, according to polling, is more popular nationally today than is Clinton. But that can always change if one or both of them chooses to run again. And neither one needs to go away.

[John Fante]

161. Good point.

Reagan lost two GOP primaries before winning the nomination (and the presidency) on his third attempt. Fair or not, losing a primary doesn't carry the same stigma that losing a presidential election does.

Note: I would prefer it if Hillary and Biden not run. If ever an election screamed for new blood, it's 2020.

[Garrett78]

30. Whereas Biden twice failed in an effort just to become the nominee.

Biden has more baggage than is realized by those who only seem to think of him as lovable Uncle Joe who pals around with Obama buying burgers and ice cream.

Not to mention he'll be as old as Reagan was when Reagan *left* office. The average age of the last 5 Democratic presidents? 48.6. In addition to keeping that in mind, we should recognize and appreciate the moment we're in with Me Too, BLM, and an incoming Democratic class that is very diverse.

[Quixote1818]

23. I personally like her, she can do what she wants but her favorability ratings are still very low

At 36% she is even below Trump. Don't ask me how on earth this could be possible but that is what polling says:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

Also, her approval with Democrats is too low now:

To the extent that Clinton's image has shifted with any of the major political groups, it is among Democrats. Clinton's favorable rating among Democrats fell 11 points to 76% just after the election; it has not improved significantly in the ensuing months, and currently stands at 77%.

[jalan48]

37. One of the reasons I don't think she would run.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

308. Clearly... Hillary is obviously politically savvy & knows the difficult challenge of that reality.

[jalan48]

316. I hope so.

[cwydro]

25. I think we all know the answer to that.

Don’t we?

[hueymahl]

29. Not this again

[EffieBlack]

41. Yes, THIS again

Funny that you don't respond similarly to any of the numerous Biden 2020 OPs. You seem perfectly fine with people pushing his candidacy in post after post but you have a problem with anyone questioning the double standard plodding around the room.

I guess - like Hillary - some of us are just supposed to be quiet while other folks tell us why the septagenarian white guy who's been in politics for the past 40 years is the Democrats' best hope for the future ...

Gotcha.

[hueymahl]

113. Not Gotcha

Though it seems a bit like stalking that you seem to know to which posts I respond and to which I do not, I just happened to respond (contemporaneously with the post to which you are responding) to a Biden post that I thought his time had past.

You may want to check yourself before making unfounded assertions in the future.

[Turbineguy]

31. It could be a trick.

Front a candidate who will put the RW Hate Machine in full-boost bi-turbo mode and then switch candidates.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. A trick by who?

[Turbineguy]

69. By the Democratic Party.

[lapucelle]

146. I'm not understanding this either.

It what alternative reality does the Democratic Party "front" candidates and then "switch" them as a trick?

[lapucelle]

134. The candidate is elected in the primaries. How would "the Party" "switch" candidates? N/T

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

280. Huh??

[Ms. Toad]

32. Why do people keep asking when did you stop beating your mother questions?

Your question assumes, as fact, something many people who suggest Clinton should not run believe is false (that it is an awesome idea for Biden to run).

If you are truly interested in a discussion, rather than scoring points about Clinton being treated differently, you need to confirm that the people who believe Clinton should not run really believe Biden running is awesome. My suspicion is that most of us who believe Clinton. Should not run ALSO believe Biden should not run.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. Aren't you making the same sort of assumption you just criticized the OP for?

[Ms. Toad]

103. I mistakenly assumed everyone understood the problem with "When did you stop beating your mother"

questions.

"When did you stop beating your mother?" assumes, as a factual premise, that you are - in fact - beating your mother. The question does not make sense without that factual assumption. If you are not, in fact, beating your mother there is no way to answer the question, "when did you stop," because you never started

People who are honestly seeking answers (or discussion, in this case) first explore the factual predicate: Are you, in fact, beating your mother? (Because there is no further discussion about "when" if there is no beating going on in the first place.}

The OP's assumed that people who oppose Clinton runing think that Joe Biden running is awesome, and asked the questin, "Why?" As in the beating your mother question, "Why" makes no sense in the OP, unless you first establish that people opposing Clinton running think that Biden running is awesome.

I did not posit the same kind of question or, in fact, any question at all.

I merely challenged the premise of the OP's question - effectively, I said, how do you know there is any beating going on in at all, by suggesting that people who opposed Clinton are also likely to oppose Biden. Before you ask why, you need to establish it is true.

Essentially, in language you may be more familiar with in a political context, the OP's question is a push poll, "given that {insert negative not necessarily factual assertion about Candidate A}, are you more or less likely to vote for Candidate A?

Or, to rephrase the OP, "Given that it is an awesome idea for Biden to run, explain whyHillary not only shouldn't run, but must go away?"

Again - all I did was challenge the premise (that beating is, in fact, going on; i.e. that people suggesting Clinton should not run think it is awesome that Biden is running) - I did not ask the follow-up question that would have turned it into the "When did you stop beating your mother" kind of question - that I was criticizing.

[hueymahl]

116. Agreed. It's a false premise.

I happen to think neither should run again. I'm sure there are some that that want Biden but don't want Hillary, just as there are plenty that want Hillary but don't want Biden. The OP improperly insinuates that there is some biased or anti-demcoratic motive behind not wanting Hillary to run again.

[Ms. Toad]

122. I assumed it was gender - but it wasn't a question inviting discussion.

I agree that neither should run again - which is why I reacted the way I did.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

191. Or, that those who believe Joe has the right to run, also believe Hillary does too.

I just choose to believe Hillary when she says she's not running, and Joe, who says he's mulling it over. Does that mean he would be my 1st choice? Heck no, but he's earned the right to run and change my mind.

[Ms. Toad]

205. Not the point I was making, but certainly a possibility.

My point was that the,"When did you stop beating your mother" framing is not intended to actually invite conversation.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

218. I gotcha... fair point.

[kennetha]

33. Part Misogyny; Part Clinton Fatigue; Part Pent Up Frustration

The Misogyny needs no explanation.


The Clinton fatigue needs no explanation.


The Pent Up Frustration is a very big part of it.

The last three democratic Presidents - Obama, Clinton, Carter -- have been 'centrists.," "moderates,' third way types. Left Progressive think of those sorts as sell outs. They want it all. And are willing to go for it all or die trying. They think this is their moment --- finally, at long last -- to purge the party of its "neoliberal" accommodationist, tactical wing, They think the party learned the wrong lesson from the McGovern defeat of 1972. And they want finally to seize the day and return the party to its true roots.

They see Clinton as standing in the way of the triumph of uncompromising and uncompromised progressivism. So did Obama. So did Carter.

Forward to the 1960's. (except in foreign policy, of course. They have no real or coherent foreign policy, except their instinct is that the US is no better and often worse than other global players.)

Now do the same thoughts apply to Biden ... well not the Misogyny and not the Clinton fatigue. But the pent up frustration with decades and decades of "compromise" ... that does apply.

[EffieBlack]

45. Interesting - but Biden isn't a progressive

He's a fairly conservative Democrat.

[kennetha]

47. which was my point.

So there are three considerations that weigh against Clinton but only one of the three weights against Biden.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. If Hilary were to primary against Biden (or that old NotADemocrat guy), I'd be all in for HRC.

To your point: Come on Effie, you know damned well what the answer is!

[MineralMan]

43. But, she's a girl, see...

I mean, really. We don't need a President with cooties, after all.

[Paladin]

44. I'm supporting and voting for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020.

End of story.

[LongtimeAZDem]

46. Who said those things?

I do think that Clinton is toxic to independents in a way that Biden isn't but we could work with that.

I haven't considered her because she said she won't run.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

88. I'm not sure "toxic" is the right word... but, clearly, Joe does much better with Independents...

and that's certainly a consideration in his favor.

[Loki Liesmith]

51. Because she's polling below Trump

And Biden isn’t

[pnwmom]

55. Biden is still bathing in Obama's reflected glory. That won't continue

once people learn of Biden's personal record. And it isn't pretty.

[standingtall]

85. Biden's Pre-Obama record will not hurt him much

because being Obama's Vice President will give him cover to shift away from some of the the positions he took in the past.

[EffieBlack]

87. The Obama cover will only go so far

He was given a pass because Obama was the top of the ticket and it was his policies and record that mattered. When Biden had to stand on his own, he can't hide behind Obama and he will have some 'splainin' to do.

[standingtall]

94. It will go a lot further than you think

Once he does explain I'm pretty confident Democrats will stick with him and everyone not buying his explanation might be a good thing with some right leaning independents and the fact that his Son died in Iraq could make him a pretty sympathetic figure.

[pnwmom]

109. Something tells me you're not a woman who remembers the Anita Hill hearings.

Millions of women will never be enthusiastic about him because of his utter failure then.

And millions of young people will NOT be drawn to him once they learn he was the main Democrat behind the push to keep them from ever being able to get out from under student loan debt, even in bankruptcy.

And African Americans haven't forgotten his fight against desegregation in the 70's.

He's got the old-white-male-centrist-Democrat vote, yes. But that, and Obama's reflected glory, won't be enough.

[standingtall]

118. Anita Hill hearings were almost 20 years before he was Vice President

and quite frankly the influence of the me too movement has been oversold he will do fine with women voters and he will especially do fine with African American voters he will get 90 plus percent just like most Democrats. I do not think whatever his stance on those issues were in the 70's will be all that relevant the African American community is incredibly forgiving.

[pnwmom]

125. Without Obama at the top of the ticket, he will NOT do fine.

His past, in all its centrist glory, will come back to haunt him with women, with young people, and with minorities -- as it should.

[standingtall]

135. He will do fine with minorities

he will not be hurt over something 40 plus years ago in which it is obvious he has had a radical shift in views sense then. Let's not forget he would be running against Trump and besides he could alleviate a lot of these concerns with enthusiasm by picking someone like Harris or Holder as Vice President.

[pnwmom]

138. It could help him to have an African American as VP, but this won't help

him with his problem with women voters (who DO care about #metoo) or with young people, once they learn about his student loan record and his ties to the financial industry.

[EffieBlack]

140. You're speaking for all minority voters?

I don't know about you, but many of the minority voters I know have serious problems with these aspects of Biden's record and aren't nearly as besotted with the "Scranton Joe" persona as some white folks are. And they're not going to be so quick to give him a pass when Barack Obama is not on his ticket.

And it's interesting that minority voters are supposed to just look the other way, discount problems Biden has had on race in the past, and vote for him anyway, but certain other candidates aren't aren't desireable, notwithstanding their records, just because they're minorities and, thus might not sit well with white voters.

[standingtall]

144. Not sure what your inferring

but the reality is voters want to win. So candidates need to convince people they can win to build a base of support.

[EffieBlack]

153. True - and that base of support is not limited to white people

It also includes minorities - who shouldn't be told or expected to ignore things that trouble us and have never been answered to or explained.

[standingtall]

158. Agreed if Biden is going to run

he should give voters an explanation of the positions he took in the past although I still think he is a better option than Hilary, but I'm not opposed to Hilary running again either.

[EffieBlack]

168. If Hillary had to answer for - again and again - 20-year-old legislation she didn't even vote for

other candidates surely should answer for things they actually did ... even the men.

[betsuni]

181. Yes. I want to know why Hillary giving a speech about that 1994 crime bill is responsible for

mass incarceration, but Biden who was one of the authors of the bill and Bernie Sanders who voted for it never get heat.

Hillary's speeches sure are powerful. Gives a speech about drug cartels and crime and then everybody had to go to jail, gave a speech on Wall Street and Goldman Sachs took all our money.

[EffieBlack]

188. This what Betsuni said ... Every single word

[JHan]

317. +++++ infinity

[xor]

270. Biden's son didn't die in Iraq.

Didn't he have a brain tumor?

[pnwmom]

96. His legislation has helped to put millennials under a mountain of student loan debt

that can never go away. He was the top Democrat behind the successful push to make student loan debt non-dischargeable during bankruptcy. (He was motivated by the financial industry in his home state of Delaware.)

That position is hurting millions of people today and will come back to haunt him.

[standingtall]

102. Would only hurt him in a primary

millennials will not have a better alternative in the general.

[pnwmom]

108. Millennials always have an alternative -- they can decide not to vote at all.

The Republicans WILL attack Biden for this position. It could strongly weaken young people's enthusiasm for him, and we need their support more than ever.

[standingtall]

110. And he will be able to deflect the right wing attacks

by referring back to Obama era federal debt relief programs.

[pnwmom]

112. Obama didn't make student loan debts dischargeable during bankruptcy.

And millions are still suffering under a mountain of student loan debt.

[treestar]

246. but how many of them specifically want to discharge them

in bankruptcy? Most people resist bankruptcy as long as they can.

[pnwmom]

260. Many, like me, know of someone who did have to take bankruptcy

at some point, whether they wanted to or not.

Almost all of them could have EMPATHY for their peers for whom bankruptcy isn't an option, no matter how bad the circumstances. Even during a national recession, even after a serious and permanent disability. It is up to a judge to determine that the person faces a "certainty of hopelessness." One judge ruled that there is always hope, because you could win the lottery! As a result, even among people who DO file for bankruptcy, almost none of them file for the separate Federal procedure to discharge their student loans, because lawyers advise that it's almost impossible to win.

So young people and older Democrats won't be impressed to learn about Biden who, because of his ties to the financial industry, was a Democratic leader among the mostly Republican members of Congress in the 1990's who were determined to make it almost impossible to discharge student debt, even in bankruptcy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/trump-administration-considers-bankruptcy-for-student-loan-borrowers-.html

Denise Sparks graduated from college in 1995 with $30,000 in debt. Then her life turned challenging.

First, there was the divorce from her husband, which left her to raise two children on her own. Then she fell ill and had multiple operations. Along the way, a psychiatrist diagnosed her with depression, bipolar and post-traumatic stress disorder.

She often missed work and didn't have enough money to send in her student loan payments. Today her debt, with interest, penalties and fees, is more than $230,000.

"I can't plan for retirement," Sparks, 53, said. "I'll die before this could ever get paid back."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/business/shedding-student-loans-in-bankruptcy-is-an-uphill-battle.html

Before the mid-1970s, debtors were able to get rid of student loans in bankruptcy court just as they could credit card debt or auto loans. But after scattered reports of new doctors and lawyers filing for bankruptcy and wiping away their student debt, resentful members of Congress changed the law in 1976.

In an effort to protect the taxpayer money that is on the line every time a student or parent signs for a new federal loan, Congress toughened the law again in 1990 and again in 1998. In 2005, for-profit companies that lend money to students persuaded Congress to extend the same rules to their private loans.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-student-loan-borrowers-should-pay-attention-to-these-two-court-cases-2015-10-21

Borrowers shy away from trying to get their debt discharged both because of the perception that it’s impossible to do and because of the challenges involved, including filing a separate federal lawsuit within the bankruptcy case, Austin said.

“The structural impediments are overwhelming,” he said. “I have seen cases where you look at the debtors’ numbers on paper, you can show with mathematical certainty that they will never be able to pay this, yet they don’t bring the cases.”

https://www.demos.org/publication/no-recourse-putting-end-bankruptcy%E2%80%99s-student-loan-exception

Doing so would simply be a small step in reducing the burden of student debt, and would not constitute in any way an incentive for reckless or irresponsible behavior, as some have suggested. Even if the bankruptcy code were reformed, individuals with student loans would still have to satisfy the same Chapter 7 “means test” as other distressed borrowers, meaning that discharge would only be available to those individuals who, based on their monthly income and expenses, truly cannot pay their debts. It would simply apply the same last-resort protection on other debts to the increasing ranks of student debtors.

SNIP

The example of Doug Wallace Jr., a legally blind 33-year-old man who suffers from diabetes and underwent several major surgeries, demonstrates how difficult the “undue hardship” standard is to satisfy in practice, and underscores how hard it can be to know in advance if it’s worth the prolonged legal proceedings.31 In 2012, Mr. Wallace had been unemployed since leaving a job in 2005 due to his medical condition.32

Upon filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2006, Mr. Wallace’s medical debt and other loans were discharged, but the $89,000 in student loans he owed has been the subject of litigation for years.33 In 2010, the bankruptcy court postponed its determination of whether or not Mr. Wallace had met the “undue hardship” standard citing the need for further hearings on his medical condition and efforts to find work.34

A number of recent empirical studies have clarified what student loan discharge and the “undue hardship” standard look like in the aggregate.35 Fewer than one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of bankrupt individuals with student loans even attempt to seek discharge of their student loans.36 That means that 99.9% of individuals with student loan debt who filed bankruptcy do not even bother to allege an “undue hardship.” Of the 0.1% of bankrupt student loan debtors who seek discharge, a significant percentage receives at least partial forgiveness.

[treestar]

262. It's the kind of thing average and independent voters

think will never happen to them, so it doesn't seem like it would be a big issue. The average vote is probably like: pay your debts or something like that. And it is still possible to do where enough hardship is shown. It just affects a subset.

Biden probably has a lot more danger from the stupid claim he is a sexual harasser (based on right-wing strained interpretation of photos where he was in public). That's about the temperature of the voters these days.

[pnwmom]

263. It is so close to almost impossible that 99.1% of people IN BANKRUPTCY

don't even attempt the required separate procedure to discharge student debt.

The heartlessness of Biden's leadership on this matter, in support of Delaware's financial industry, will come to light during the primaries. It won't reflect well on him.

[EffieBlack]

141. That applies to ANY Democratic candidate ...

[JonLP24]

159. There are people older than millenials hurt by his bankruptcy reform

[pnwmom]

165. Yes, that's true. But millennials often don't vote in high numbers,

and we need them to, to have a chance to win 2020.

[JonLP24]

167. I don't know if I'm a millenial

I vote in every election
There is also turn out gaps among poorer and minority. Populations as well. I also know of older people that never voted. One 52 yard never voted calls politics "a big scam".

[delisen]

130. I rather vote for Anita Hill n/t

[standingtall]

136. Maybe you encourage her to run

[EffieBlack]

57. She is?

What polls are you referring to?

And are opinion polls today the determinant of who should run in 2020?

[still_one]

63. It sure isn't a poll of Democrats I can tell you

[Quixote1818]

111. Actually it is her standing amung Dems that has caused her to drop so much

Snip: To the extent that Clinton's image has shifted with any of the major political groups, it is among Democrats. Clinton's favorable rating among Democrats fell 11 points to 76% just after the election; it has not improved significantly in the ensuing months, and currently stands at 77%.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

[Loki Liesmith]

223. Here's one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nearing-100-days-trumps-approval-at-record-lows-but-his-base-is-holding/2017/04/22/a513a466-26b4-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_poll-1202am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4d40b6f10e85

It’s not every poll that she’s behind but she always runs behind the median democratic performance.

Look, she can run or not. Obviously her call. But I have zero interest in helping her be the nominee. She’s dead weight and it’d take too much effort to get her up to baseline afaiac.

[EffieBlack]

225. You're going to be just as exhausted trying to get any other Dem "up to baseline"

when their numbers drop after they announce their candidacy and the press, Trump, the GOP and other Dems sink their teeth in them - just as it happened to Hillary (and yet she persisted and got 3 million more votes).

[still_one]

61. What poll is that? Obviously it isn't a poll of Democrats. You know, Democrats who determine who

their nominee will be?

Regardless, Hillary has made it very clear she has no intention of running again, and I would hope anyone involved in 2016 would not run again because the differences between the two groups are not forgotten, and the way you unite the party is to bring in someone new

[EffieBlack]

67. I'm not pushing a Hillary run or discouraging a Biden candidacy

I'm just pointing out the glaring double standard at play here ...

[still_one]

80. I realize exactly the point you were making Effie. It was brilliant, though I think

based on some of the responses in the thread that may have been lost

[JonLP24]

150. I don't think it is progressives pushing Biden

I'd rather have Hillary Clinton than Joe Biden myself if I had to pick one.

[treestar]

101. How can that be?

I'd like to see those polls, because that makes no sense.

[Quixote1818]

114. Here you go

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

[treestar]

119. It is higher than it appears to have been in 2016

though hard to tell from that graph. Which again makes no sense, that was the year she won the popular vote.

[CrispyQ]

66. I would like neither of them to run & both of them to campaign for dem candidates. -nt

[elocs]

73. I reject your premise since I don't think it's an awesome idea for Biden to run.

You don't get unlimited opportunities to run for president, not when we have plenty of fresh, younger candidates ready to take up the cause.
Both Biden and Clinton have had their chances.

[sellitman]

79. I want them both to run.

So should the myriad of younger up and coming Democrats. Let them all show us the way and then lets pick out the best qualified.

What's so hard about this?

I agree with you!

[violetpastille]

82. People are really high on a Biden/Beto ticket.

They think that

1. Beto's relative youth will "rub-off" onto Biden. (Though when I see a man dating a woman young enough to be his daughter it makes them both look older.)

2. We need a "unifying voice". Or they will just come out and say, "This is too important to lose. We have to run an old white dude."
That always works. Except when it doesn't.

3. Everybody likes Biden as much as they do. "Uncle Joe". Well...erm..yeah..see..

4. We need "someone who can stand up to Trump". Hillary did stand up to Trump. She did great in the debates. In retrospect AMAZING.

"Standing up to Trump" may not be an issue in 2020. Trump may be dead or imprisoned for all we know.

We need someone who can rebuild our reputation abroad and restore our democracy and environment. Trump is nothing compared to that.

[LexVegas]

84. Biden is a white dude. A white dude will rescue us nt

[bitterross]

86. What a stupid fucking question made just for clickbait

First, the right-wing media is the voice that began all the suggestions the Democrats kick Hillary to the curb. Why we let them drive our narrative is beyond me and irritates me to no end. It is ignorant and stupid that anyone should adapt their meme and allow them to drive our narrative as the OP does.

Hillary is a valuable, experienced asset. She has a place in our tent.

If one is unable to see the US is more divided now than it was in 2016 then one is not paying attention. Putting up Hillary again is not a winning proposition. The country overall has not become more favorable to Hillary as a person. Just because people have moved to the unfavorable column for Trump does not mean they moved into the favorable column for Hillary.

The hatred of Hillary as a person in 2016 was far greater than I understood. It wasn't just about a woman it was about her specifically. The right-wing/GOP has been very successful in demonizing her specifically - more than for her just being a Democratic candidate.

Even though she is the most qualified person in the nation to be President the electorate doesn't vote based on qualifications. They vote based on emotions. If one didn't see that reality in the 2016 election then one was not paying attention. Emotions are higher and more divided into camps now than in 2016.

As for Biden. He's part of the establishment that people want to get rid of. The otherwise reasonable people who voted for Trump to change things will not be happy with Biden as a candidate. He's certainly qualified and could do the job. I just don't think he's someone that people can rally behind.

[EffieBlack]

90. Thanks for taking the time to write a 6-paragraph response to my "stupid fucking clickbait" question

[bitterross]

95. You're welcome.

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2018, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I do my best to explain any assertion I make. I try not to just post some random thought as an OP with no context, no thoughts, no arguments for my position.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

314. Your explanation actually made a lot of sense... well done!!

[treestar]

104. IMO it is possible people want the establishment back

after the horrible experience of a non-Establishment figure in the Oval Office.

[bitterross]

105. I'd like to think you are correct.

I'm not going to say you are wrong. I'd like to think people would favor a return to sanity.

At this point in time I'm just not sure though. I couldn't say one way or the other with any authority or evidence.

[still_one]

235. Gee, for a For a "stupid fucking question made just for clickbait", you sure gave a long response

As for YOUR assessment that "he's part of the establishment that people want to get rid of", that is the same bullshit that those self-identified progressives used to demonize Hillary and President Obama, and refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting.

It was those damn establishment Democrats, that gave us Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil
Rights Act, the Voting rights Act, ACA which got the foot in the door for the path to healthcare for everyone, expanded Medicaid, committed to the Paris Accords, and I could go on and on, but of course those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting for third party or not voting sure showed us how great it is to have two SC nominees appointed by a degenerate, and encouraged enough people so that every Democrat running for SENATE in those critical swing states, lost to the incumbent, ESTABLISHMENT, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard.

[treestar]

91. I don't think Biden meets with much approval on DU

It's usually that he is too old.

Though I think he would be able to beat the Dotard. I think his support is not at Hillary's expense but presumes she is not interested.

I think the Hillary re-match would be awesome too. She would have been running for her second term anyway. I think she would beat the Dotard in the EC this time since we can learn from the 2016 debacle.

[Mike Nelson]

106. I mostly hear...

… both should not run, but Hillary more so... if they think they are the best hope to win the Presidency in 2020, both should consider running. I can't tell, yet, but lean toward no.

I see age mentioned - haven't noticed any age-related issues with either Hillary or Biden. It's not combat duty.. and a strong, experienced mind is an asset.

I see Bernie mentioned and I believe he has decided to run. He was an exciting candidate last time, but not sure he can win the primaries... also, the Democratic primaries and especially caucuses were very welcoming - that may not happen, again...

Good luck to all - we have great potential!

[Baconator]

267. Biden has a shot...

If Hillary couldn't win with the playing field cleared out for her against the most unpopular candidate of all time....?

Why would we do it again?

[dlk]

107. It's the Misogyny and It's Not Just Directed at Hillary

[hueymahl]

120. You know, that is pretty offensive

And borders on a TOS violation. You are insinuating that the people on this board are misongynists if they don't support Hillary.

There are an awful lot of Hillary supporters who can't say anything positive about other female democrats (AOC, for example). I don't think it would be appropriate to insinuate they are misogynists, either.

[Grasswire2]

115. Don't assume that Dotard will be running again.

That is a mistake.

Think of the election in terms of a new Republican candidate who has to beat back the stench of the Trump criminality and RW stupidity.

And then envision the proper Democratic candidate.

[violetpastille]

121. +1

I'm thinking it will be Ben Sasse.

[R B Garr]

198. You also shouldn't assume that divisive figures won't

be used and propped up by the RW to divide Democrats.

[RichardRay]

129. Because he's a great campaigner, and she's not.

She’s one of the most qualified people to ever seek the office, but she’d struggle to get s drowning man to grab a life ring if he’d never seen one before.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

145. It's certainly true that Joe's one helluva campaigner; another check in the plus column for him.

[EffieBlack]

149. She's a better candidate than he is

At least if you judge by results, considering she came in a close second in her first run for the nomination and first in her second - something Biden never came anywhere close to doing in either of his races - and then managed to win her presidential race, which took massive voter suppression, Russian interference, a meddling FBI director, an antagonistic, complicit media to wrest from her.

And she did all that while dancing backwards and in high heels as the first woman presidential nominee.

So, no. Joe Biden - whose only national victory was on the coattails of Barack Obama, who likely would have won regardless who his running mate
was - has done nothing to demonstrate he is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton was.*

*Unless you mean that some white guys like him better.

[JHan]

178. I'll never understand, it's a very weird "inconsistent" metric that is applied.

He's a "Great campaigner" the person you're replying to says, and then you look at the actual results and you really have to wonder.

And then you look at the actual record of both and one is actually touted by some self-proclaimed progressives...

look I can't anymore with people outchere.

[EffieBlack]

189. I know, right?

[Garrett78]

222. I can only think of 1 explanation for the pro-Biden, anti-Clinton crowd.

Sexism.

And as for Biden being the best candidate for 2020, see post #214.

[EffieBlack]

224. I have no doubt

that if Biden had been our nominee in 2016, had all the sh!t thrown at him that Hillary had yet he still beat Trump by 3 million votes, the same people who now insist that Hillary was supposedly such a terrible candidate would be jumping up and down demanding Biden was fully entitled to a do-over.

[JHan]

236. agreed. It's fairly transparent.

The Clinton critiques in comparison to him are not sincere at all.

Things that would get some folks frothing at the mouth has them notoriously silent where he is concerned or very conciliatory.

Simply put it's shallow, at least they could admit to that.

His identity for some is very much a factor for them ( there goes that identity politics thing *we* get accused of)

If he is the nominee he gets my support,. The next coming months we're gonna get a lot of talk from potential 2020 candidates and their exploratory committees and after that maybe we'll get a sense of where he stands on things. At this point, I'll wait.

[RichardRay]

220. She just BARELY beat Trump

and got outmaneuvered by him (or somebody) in key Electoral College contests. She couldn’t find the tune to keep the snarling pack of the deplorables comatose while waking up a major part of the Democratic vote.

Hillary Clinton is one the smartest, most knowledgeable, courageous, and politically astute people to ever appear on the national scene. We will be well-served with her in any capacity that she will accept. Unfortunately she is a pretty poor campaigner. She had the political and organizational skills and contacts to win difficult races. In none of those races was she campaigning in the way a progressive, popular, and successful candidate will need to win.

[EffieBlack]

221. Just "BARELY" - by 3 miillion votes (not counting the stolen ones)

But if any other Democrat had run - especially Uncle Scranton Joe - THEY would have run a flawless, winning race and would never have been "outmaneuvered" because Trump and the Russians and Comey and the complicit media and the GOP vote suppressors wouldn't have had the nerve to throw any mud, manufacture any BS, create any "baggage," use any negative aspect of their records, history or behavior on them, or engage in any dirty tricks against them because said candidate would have been too smart to get tripped up by that and also because Hillary is the only Democrat any of that would have worked on ...

(You should be careful not to strain your back dragging those goalposts hither and yon like that)

[RichardRay]

282. My back is fine, thank you.

How’s your nose doing? It seems slightly out of joint...

[EffieBlack]

285. Yes, it often gets out of joint at the powerful odor of hypocrisy ...

But it will be fine - thanks for asking.

[StevieM]

292. She destroyed Trump in all three debates, even with the media spinning for him

as hard as they could. None of the Republican candidate could do that in their debates with Trump.

She was a good campaigner, but Comey made the election impossible to win.

[RichardRay]

320. Yep, she did

She clearly won the debates as debates. Unfortunately, DJT won them as campaign events. Again, her clear superiority of intellect and experience were not the winning elements.

[StevieM]

321. I disagree that Trumop won them as campaign events. I remember them benefitting her at the time

and as events that damaged her candidacy.

2016 was dominated by the fake email scandal. There was nothing else to Donald Trump's victory but that.

[alphafemale]

132. I don't think either should run.

But Biden would be the better bet against trump.

What.

It's her turn?

Again?

People don't like entitlement.

Deal with it.

[BlueWI]

137. Not feeling Biden either.

On the other hand, anyone can run. Clinton and Sanders have been discussed with remarkable thoroughness and repetition on this forum, so maybe it's time for a new round of wheel-spinning with Biden and Clinton. Why not???

Honestly, the party needs to get beyond cults of personality and think about strategies for broadening the core of voters and responding to big issues such as climate change, wealth inequality, the endless war on terror, the bloated Cold War sized defense budget, infrastructure, etc. I couldn't care less who the candidate is as long as they have clear priorities on these issues and can put together a stellar campaign. So, as we champion our favorite candidate, hopefully this is done with pressing issues, past legislative records, and election map in mind.

My favorites so far are Warren, Kloubochar, Brown, and Harris, with a leaning towards the Midwestern candidates Kloubochar and Brown. The election map needs to expand in order to win in 2020.

[PJMcK]

156. This is a waste of time

Mrs. Clinton has already made it clear that she isn't running again. Accordingly, why re you discussing it?

Whether Senator Biden chooses to run or not, he'll participate in the Democratic primaries. That's where our nominee will come from.

Jeez.

[kennetha]

160. Where did she definitively rule out another run?

I missed it. If she ran again, I'd sign up on the first day she announced to work for her again.

[EffieBlack]

169. You completely missed my point

But thanks for the kick

[Nanjeanne]

166. Neither should run. Nor go away. Just help other Dems get elected as needed.

[lunamagica]

170. Misogyny

[Drunken Irishman]

171. I mean, it's pretty clear - Dems have already lost a presidential election with Hillary.

If you think it's something else entirely, you're looking for a reason to be angry.

Hillary is tainted with the loser label. Just as John Kerry was and Al Gore was and Dukakis and other Democratic candidates. I don't want any of them running, either, because it's pretty obvious they lack what it takes to actually win a national campaign and I'm terrified of what happens if the Democrats lose again.

Is Biden a better option? Well we don't know 100% but there's two things to indicate he is:

1. He's not a general election loser. Losing a primary can hurt your cred, even if multiple times, but it's not a presidential killer like the dreaded general election loser. Only Richard Nixon recently was able to come back from a general election loss but even he had to wait a whole election cycle to do so. But there have been more recent presidents who lost a primary but went on to win the presidency later down the road, including George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Beyond that, Biden is a two-time general election winner on the Obama-Biden ticket. He's already established himself in that regard.

2. He polls better than Hillary.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/411310-biden-leads-crowded-field-of-dems-in-potential-2020-matchup-poll

That poll had him up 12 over Trump.

https://www.axios.com/trumps-women-problem-2020-poll-05a62799-a63d-422b-afb7-59b0139794f1.html

A different poll there but Hillary only leads by five. A much similar result to 2016. No thanks. It's a big reason I'm not sold on Elizabeth Warren, either.

Hillary only beating Trump by a margin not too off her 2016 totals tells me there just isn't a lot of room for her ceiling as a candidate to grow. I think she can beat Trump but I also suspect it'll be so narrowly close again that there's a chance she won't win. Where is she going to be able to improve her numbers? People have solidified their view of her, right or wrong. I think they have with Biden too, but he's far more popular nationally than Hillary. Because of that, I think his ceiling as a candidate is higher.

I want to win in 2020. I'm not convinced Hillary can win.

[Voltaire2]

172. Biden hasn't lost yet.

He has not been defeated in a presidential election. So he has that as a plus.

In general I think candidates should get one shot at proving they can win. It is not a rule, but McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry: none of them got a second chance.

The last time we ran a candidate who previously lost was Stevenson in 56. That did not go well.

[Gothmog]

174. If Hillary wants to run again, then she should

The race was stolen from her. I would support Clinton if she wants to run

[Hermit-The-Prog]

176. her choice; I'd vote for her

After what she's been through, I wouldn't dare ask her to run. If she chooses to do so, I'd campaign for her!

[caraher]

177. Good question

I'm super excited by the prospect of Biden. If age is a factor, Biden will be 78 in 2020, Clinton 73 and Sanders 79.

I'd pick Clinton over Biden in part because she already beat Trump by 3 million votes once. Let's not forget that. It should have been much more, and only some of that could be laid at the feet of her campaign. And 2016 Trump voters are dying off faster than 2016 Clinton voters.

I also think she'd make a better President. That also matters!

[John Fante]

179. Biden doesn't have the stigma of a presidential loss

hanging over his head, and he isn't polling lower than Trump right now. I'm not particularly giddy about a Biden presidential run, but he cleary has a better chance of defeating Der Fuckstick in 2020.

[EffieBlack]

190. No one does, other than Clinton, Kerry, Mondale, and Dukakis

If that's the standard you choose to use to define "stigma."

Of course, you can also say that Biden is the only potential candidate who bears the "stigma" of twice being rejected by their fellow Democrats to be their party's nominee.

Yeah - you could say that, too. It all depends on the point you're trying to make or the excuse you're trying to create ...

[John Fante]

194. Losing a primary doesn't have the same negative effect.

That's why few batted an eyelid when HRC (who lost the 2008 primary) announced her candidacy in 2016. She became the immediate frontrunner.

LBJ, Goldwater, Reagan, HW Bush, Gore, McCain, Dole, Romney, and Hillary Clinton all lost primaries before eventually securing the nomination.

Now how many defeated candidates mountain another challenge after losing a presidential election? Including defeated incumbents Carter and HW Bush? Nixon, Humphrey, and Stevenson are the only three that come to mind over the past 90+ years. Kerry, Mondale, and Dukakis certainly didn't.

[KayF]

180. if she ran again, would she be the presumptive nominee?

would other candidates be expected to drop out of the race, so as not to weaken her?

And if other candidates do run against her, will opposing her viewpoints and criticizing her record be portrayed as out of line, again as weakening the presumptive candidate?

If so, then I think that would be bad for the party. But if not, then I think she will be at such a disadvantage in the primary that she probably wouldn't run.

[Vinca]

183. Anyone should run if they want to, but the party should in no way prefer one

candidate over the other. The primary votes are the primary votes are the primary votes. No thumbs on the scale.

[D23MIURG23]

184. I don't know that I want Biden, but Hillary already lost to dump.

That means we have a better argument for why Hillary shouldn't be the next candidate we put against dump than we do for Biden.

Personally, I would prefer someone new to either of them (and also someone who isn't Bernie Sanders). Elizabeth Warren is my current favorite (although no one knows who our choices will be, obviously).

[betsuni]

187. Because Uncle Joe is seen as a white working class hero.

His actual record, all the establishment centrist status quo elite stuff Democrats are accused of has mysteriously disappeared.

On the other hand, they're still mad at mommy.

[obamanut2012]

195. Duh -- because of a penis

I am serious -- people twist themselves into pretzels to say why he or Sanders should run, or BETO, for goodness' sake.

He is also older than her, and has baggage. I personally will never vote for him in a primary because of Anita Hill -- EVER.

I want Kamala Harris to run.

[LBM20]

197. No, because she has too much baggage and is too polarizing. Biden is Biden and Hillary is Hillary.

It is not about the gender, it is about the best PERSON to run.

I am all for Klobucher and Harris. But Hillary has too much baggage. Fair or unfair, she's just too polarizing. We don't need to go there.

[Hekate]

201. I have watched the RW use her as a punching bag for almost 30 years. There's your "baggage" and

..."polarization" -- it all comes from the VRWC. Despite everything they could throw at her, she STILL won the election against Trump by millions of votes.

[Garrett78]

206. That Biden's baggage gets ignored sort of proves the poster's point.

The anti-Clinton, pro-Biden people crack me up.

Some seem to only remember Biden as lovable Uncle Joe who pals around with Obama buying burgers and ice cream. If he makes yet another attempt at winning the nomination, you can be sure that everyone will be reminded of why his previous attempts were miserable failures. And this time his age will be an additional factor.

[treestar]

247. society finds women's baggage heavier

women are judged more harshly without people doing the judging even realizing it. They'll find something on Klobuchar, Harris or any other woman.

[mcar]

200. This

[Hekate]

202. Misogyny dressed up as political punditry

[erpowers]

283. It Somewhat Seems that Way

How many men have been asked to stop running for office and find a hobby after losing one, or two races? Mitt Romney has pretty much so made a career out of running for President. Then, this year he moved from one state to run for office in another state. I do not recall anyone telling him to get a life outside of politics. As I recall, someone wrote an article detailing why Mitt Romney running for Senate was a good thing. I may be wrong, but I thought I saw, but did not read, an article about that subject.

How many times has Joe Biden run for President and lost in the primaries? However, people are saying he is the best Democratic candidate for 2020. Bernie Sanders lost the 2016 primaries, but for some reason people are pushing for him to run for the Democratic nomination again.

[njhoneybadger]

208. Because some people think Joe Biden can win the swing states.

When Fifty percent of American voters hear the name Hillary they have a reflexive brain response that overrides logic and reason. That's a problem

[EffieBlack]

213. That seems to be more of a problem on DU than among actual voters

Considering Hillary won the most votes in 2016 and would have carried a majority and more swing states had the GOP not cheated - something Biden is not immune from - that's very broad speculation.

And given the current politics in the country, it is certainly reasonable to predict that enough voters who either went with Trump or didn't vote at all last time would surely vote for any Democrat this time around making it likely that the Democratic nominee - whether it's Biden, Kamala, Booker or Hillary - can win the swing states and more than 50% of the vote. So assuming Biden is deserving of a run while Hillary isn't because some people think he is more viable is a fallacy

But then, some people often do give white men the benefit of the doubt that is both undeserved and unavailable to women and people of color.

[Garrett78]

214. Some, without saying it outright, seem to think we must nominate a white male.

There's this assumption that Biden would just sail through the process as lovable Uncle Joe, the guy who pals around with Obama buying burgers and ice cream. When, in fact, his history with the Thomas-Hill hearing would become a big issue in this Me Too era. His ties to the financial industry would become a big issue. His penchant for gaffes would become an issue. You can be sure we'll all be reminded of why his previous attempts (plural) at winning the nomination were short-lived. His age (he'll be the age Reagan was when Reagan *left* office) is also a factor--the average age of the last 5 Democratic presidents was 48.6 when taking office. 48.6.

There is this notion, though few Biden proponents would admit this, that our nominee must be a white male in order to win back MI, WI and PA. PA and MI were blue for 6 straight presidential elections prior to '16, and WI was blue for 7 straight. There were factors at play in 2016 that won't be in 2020. There's this notion that we must appeal to Trump voters or so-called "independents" (even though studies show "independents" to be highly partisan--in other words, they aren't actually independent, and they're also unreliable voters).

Instead, we should be recognizing and appreciating the moment we're in (Me Too and Black Lives Matter), and recognize the significance of the diversity (and youthfulness) of our electorate as well as that of the incoming class of Democratic members of Congress. No Biden. No Sanders, who has no shot at the nomination anyway.

[EffieBlack]

215. I think you nailed it.

They won't admit it, but one need only look at the gymnastics going on in this thread to know you're right.

[LongtimeAZDem]

226. I'll say it outright; I think it gives us a better shot.

I voted for Secretary Clinton (enthusiastically, I might add; I didn't "hold my nose" as so many here said), and I'll vote for whomever wins our nomination.

But I think a white male buys us a few extra points, and it cost us a few in swing areas last time. I don't like that, but political reality isn't about what I like.

[Garrett78]

227. I think turnout for our nominee will be greater if we nominate a woman or person of color.

Trying to win over Trump voters didn't work so well for Joe Donnelly, Phil Bredesen, Claire McCaskill, etc.

And so-called "independents" are both unreliable and highly partisan (in other words, they just like calling themselves 'independent'), according to numerous studies.

There were factors at play in 2016 that won't be factors in 2020.

We need to focus on turning out our base and young people.

[BlueStater]

228. Donnelly and McCaskill voted against Rapey Brett.

Even while knowing that wouldn't make them remotely popular with their deranged constituents.

At least credit them for doing the right thing there.

[LongtimeAZDem]

230. Obviously, I disagree, but I'm open to possibilities. /nt

[EffieBlack]

231. A woman or person of color is just as likely to pull in plenty of extra votes

It boils down to which votes you value more.

I, for one, am tired of chasing around after the votes of bigots and unreliable (and apparently terribly confused) "swing" voters. It's long past time we stop fetishising those voters while ignoring and insulting minority voters - and then expect black and brown folk to pull our asses out of the fire when our white working class outreach plan fails - again.

[LongtimeAZDem]

242. I don't believe that will be the case until we fix the gerrymandering

but I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment.

[EffieBlack]

232. People said that in 2008 back when America wasn't ready for a black president

We don't overcome racism by replicating it.

And refusing to run a minority candidate in order not to alienate white voters may have a different motivation than not running a minority candidate because you don't like minorities, but if you put both in a paper bag and shake them out, you couldn't tell them apart.

[LongtimeAZDem]

250. Neither do we overcome it by irrational pandering

Barack Obama was a far superior candidate to anything we have in the field right now, IMO, and even so, a lot of things had to break our way to elect him.

First off, Clinton conceded right away, and worked her ass off to bring the PUMAS around to support Obama; something that did not happen last election, and I'm already seeing the same attitudes as then.

More significant, however, was the gift the GOP gave us when they made McCain take Sarah Palin as a running mate; she was so laughably incompetent that it scuttled their ticket. Had McCain stuck with his gut and named Lieberman as his running mate, I don't think we would have won.

So, veiled accusations of racism mean nothing to me; I will vote for the Democrat we nominate - whatever age, race, gender, religion, or shoe size. But I want one that can beat Trump, AND rebuild the government after this disastrous administration.

As Doug on The West Wing said, "I didn't drink the kool-aid; I came to win".

[EffieBlack]

253. Running a minority or female candidate is "irrational pandering?"

First of all, a party runs a nominee because they won the most votes in the primary. That's not pandering. That's democracy.

Second, white men run all the time and most of them LOSE yet no one accuses their parties of "irrational pandering."

Third, pointing to Sarah Palin as some kind of warning that we shouldn't run a woman or minority is ridiculous. As I said, all manner of white men run and lose all the time, but we don't warn other white men not to run because some incompetent white man made an idiot of himself at some point in time.

And, finally, I don't make "veiled accusations of racism." If I was going to accuse you of racism, I would just come out and say it. I don't know whether you're a racist, but I do think you need to check your assumptions, which have no basis in fact.

[LongtimeAZDem]

255. Yes, if that is the only reason for doing so.

Your comment about the primary system applies to all the candidates, including those that you are summarily dismissing.

As to: "pointing to Sarah Palin as some kind of warning that we shouldn't run a woman or minority is ridiculous." Where did you get that from what I said? She didn't fail because she was a woman; she failed because she was a blithering idiot, and I in no way said or implied anything else. And, Lieberman was a minority.

Finally:

"If I was going to accuse you of racism, I would just come out and say it."

My apologies then; I misinterpreted what you were saying. I withdraw the comment, and I am sorry for the accusation.

[EffieBlack]

258. Why did you bring up Palin?

We weren't talking about running blithering idiots. We were talking about running minorities and women - and the notion that we shouldn't because some people might not vote for them.

You warned against "irrational pandering" and then referred to Sarah Palin. If you didn't think she was an example of "irrational pandering" and that a man would have been a better choice (even though he was no help to Al Gore), why even mention her in that context.

Apology accepted. Thanks.

[LongtimeAZDem]

261. It was in response to your "America wasn't ready for a black president"

statement.

My point was that, if not for the fact of McCain's thoroughly toxic running mate, Obama would likely have lost. I thought my paragraph break was enough to show I was on a new point; I'll try to be more clear in the future.

And Gore/Lieberman won the popular vote, so i don't concede that he was "no help".

Regardless, has been far more rancorous than I wanted, or intended, and I will leave the thread to you.

Again, my apologies for derailing it.

[EffieBlack]

268. You rally believe that the only reason Obama won was because of Palin?

And if one of the most useless and uninspiring politicians in modern memory were McCain's running mate, Obama - being black and all - wouldn't have stood a chance
.
Ok.

[LongtimeAZDem]

271. No, I didn't say that was the only reason. You're just picking a fight, and I'm not interested /nt

[EffieBlack]

273. You keep denying you meant what you just said

"if not for the fact of McCain's thoroughly toxic running mate, Obama would likely have lost" certainly does mean that you think Palin is the only reason Obama won.

But ok.

[treestar]

245. Me Too not liking Biden for his actions

vs. The Orange Dotard's actions. The Dotard is worse in every category mentioned. Gaffes - the Dotards makes 100 for every Biden one.

Thomas-Hill was so long ago and Dotard has done far worse more recently.

Medical science is a lot better than in the 80s, too.

[Garrett78]

265. First of all, we're talking about getting the nomination. Not the general election.

Secondly, you can be sure the media will make much of Biden's baggage.

[treestar]

319. oh sure, I agree

the media will make much of whatever they can find for anyone we have running.

[Bucky]

234. I can't decide between Jerry Brown and Walter Mondale

But if Barbara Mikulski gets into the race, my decision is made, baby

[Dorian Gray]

239. It's not

Personally, I don't think either should run.


Though I do think the whole purpose of the primary is to sort this all out. So then... let them BOTH run.

[quaker bill]

241. Because 48 percent of the Country really loves her

not 51 percent. I think Hillary would be fine in the job, but 48 percent does not get her there. She should just enjoy retirement.

[Bettie]

243. I hope neither of them runs

I also don't want to see Bernie Sanders run again.

None of them should go away either.

[thesquanderer]

248. Who has said what your OP says?

I mean, yes, I've seen people say they want Biden to run, and I've seen people say Hillary should go away, but I'm not sure I've seen anyone say both things, so I'm not sure you're arguing against anything anyone has actually said...?

[tavernier]

249. Hillary has stated she is not running. Period.

Joe has not.

I don’t see any issues with either race or gender. It’s a simple I will or I won’t. I can’t vote for someone who won’t run.

[zaj]

251. Electability

Voters dont like voting for people who lost once before.

[EffieBlack]

254. Biden's lost twice before when he ran on his own

And being second on a winning ticket doesn't count for much, as Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon proved.

[zaj]

275. Biden reinvested himself... plus hes naturally charming.

Hillary still needs to figure out both.

We could be having the same argument about why or why not Gore. Hes no Biden, though hes probably reinvented himself already.

[GitRDun]

252. Simple

Her "not trustworthy" ratings.

In my mind it's not personal, but the public at large has some real issues with her.

Doesn't matter if it is earned or not.

It is what it is.

Run someone whose not starting with an anvil around their neck.

[lancelyons]

257. Even though I feel Hillary would be the best candidate

The crazy mis informed, ill informed RIGHT is united in their hatred for Hillary. This wouldnt be the best scenario for the 2020 elections.

[Victor_c3]

259. Is anyone really saying that? Or are two statements being confused for one?

I personally don’t think Biden should run, or Clinton, or Sanders - they all had their chance in 2016. It’s time for us to move forwards and field some different candidates.

FWIW, I was a huge Sanders supporter during the 2016 primaries, but I (obviously) voted for Clinton in the general election. I’m happy to see Sanders interject as much as any other older ranking democrat in our party, but his name shouldn’t be thrown around for consideration for president (or Biden or Clinton)

[Crazyleftie]

264. The republican hate machine was successful

against Hillary and this will continue...
...and Biden, although a true gentleman and statesman, is a big target as well because of his clowning/verbal fauxpas'

[Baconator]

266. We need our best candidate...

Presidents historically get beaten up in midterms and then go on to win a second term. Trump's got somewhere like 60/40 or even 70/30 odds to win again and we need someone to match.

I don't know if it's Biden but our best candidate certainly isn't Hillary.

[scheming daemons]

269. Because the only metric should be "WHO HAS THE BEST CHANCE TO WIN"

Biden would've won Wisconsin, PA, and Michigan in 2016.


We can't screw around this time. The metric HAS to be who has the best chance of beating Trump. No other metric matters, really.


Is Biden our best chance? I don't know. But I do know that Hillary has a lesser chance. Lesser than almost any serious Democrat who is considering running.

[LongtimeAZDem]

272. Exactly this /nt

[EffieBlack]

274. You must have missed the fact that the GOP and Russians STOLE WI, MI, PA from Hillary

And they would have stolen it from Biden or any other Democrat

[Yuorik57]

276. Because she lost once already

[MarvinGardens]

286. Hillary lost the general election. Biden never ran in the general.

There's a reason right there. And she didn't lose to any old R, she lost to that.

But, I don't think Biden should run either. He's too old.

[EffieBlack]

287. You're right - Biden never lost a General because he was never able to make it to the general

Men can lose and no one bats an eye when they try again.

Men fail up and excuses are made for them and they're encouraged to keep going and even go higher this time ('Beto for president even though he couldn't win his Senate race - but that race was HARD and he ALMOST won.&quot But not only can't women fail up - they can't fail at all. And when they do, they'd better not even think about getting another shot. AND every OTHER woman must also stand down because the woman who lost is proof that NO woman can win.

So now plenty of folks are saying the 2020 nominee should be a white man because that's the only kind of candidate who can win this time. Never mind that Trump beat 17 men - all but one of whom were white - got fewer votes than the woman he ran against, and the last Democrat to become president was a black man who beat every white person he ran against.

So, as you can probably tell, the Hillary lost but Biden didn't argument doesn't impress me at all.

[MarvinGardens]

289. Kerry shouldn't run either because he lost the general.

He's a man. You cool with it now?

Losing the primary is different, looking at recent history. Plenty lose primaries and go on to try again. The loser of the general for Prez is usually done. Nixon is the only modern exception. Before that, Grover Cleveland, and he had already served a previous term for president.

Why has this informal rule usually held? I think it's because presidential runs are infrequent, and they are arguably the single most important and expensive undertaking by a political party. Running a candidate previously rejected by the general electorate is an extremely big risk.

I think we should run the best candidate. I have no preconceived gender or racial preference.

[EffieBlack]

290. Since you brought up precedent ...

Former vice presidents tend to be rejected by voters when they run for president. only two of the eight vice presidents who have run for president in the last 160 years actually won: Richard Nixon and George HW Bush.

[MarvinGardens]

291. You're right.

Another reason Biden shouldn't run.

[BlueStater]

315. Carson, Cruz, and Rubio aren't white, so more than one. n/t

[Gothmog]

298. Beto been speaking to prominent black Democrats in recent days.

Link to tweet

[Polybius]

302. Because Biden never won the Democratic Party's nomination, Hillary has

The last person to run for President after losing in a Presidential election was Nixon. These things don't happen anymore.

[EffieBlack]

304. I know. Nixon was also the last vice president to win the presidency without directly following the

president he served under.

And he was also only one of two vice presidents elected president in his own right in the last 160 years.

So, there's that, too - since we're talking about anomalies and what "doesn't happen anymore" ...

[Polybius]

306. Nixon never should have run again

Wonder what the late 60's and 70's would have looked like if he didn't.

[Gothmog]

322. This explains why so many Bernie supporters came out swinging against Beto O'Rourke this week

Link to tweet