Making The Case For 2020 Hillary Clinton

[Rustyeye77]

Okay, before I go any further, let me state unequivocally for the record that I believe Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in modern political history. Her management was inept, her messaging misguided, and her character terribly flawed. Let’s put this into proper perspective: she lost to Donald Trump, for fuck’s sake! A colossal joke of a candidate who by all accounts should’ve lost to a chair. As the saying goes, the election was Clinton’s to lose... and she lost it. So why on Earth would I want her to run again in 2020?


The answer is rather simple: I remain committed to the belief that Clinton would be an incredible president. And I believe she not only will run again, as her recent and outspoken re-launch onto the public stage indicates, but that she will also win. No, I’m not crazy. I just believe that history repeats itself. And for that we simply need to look to Richard Nixon.


It was 1960. The first televised presidential debate. Nixon refused make-up. John F. Kennedy, well, he was JFK. The battle pitted the young, charismatic Democratic upstart with the movie-star looks against the nervous, sweaty, 5 o’clock-shadowed, beady-eyed, prematurely-aged Republican. The rest is history. As is Nixon’s startling comeback eight years later to win not one but two presidential elections. Times change. Situations change. People change. Can Hillary? My money’s on yes.


Clinton is perhaps the most qualified candidate in history. A prestigious legal career, eight years as First Lady, another eight as U.S. Senator from New York and four years as Secretary of State. A die-hard progressive who voted 93 percent of the time with Sen. Bernie Sanders when both served together. And, she’s a woman... and it’s fucking time America is led by a woman.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/making-the-case-for-2020-hillary-clinton_us_5900f9ace4b00acb75f18443


count me in !!!!!!!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Only if the Dems want to lose.

It's over, done. Time to move on.

[enough]

9. +1. NT

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. +1,000,000

[geek tragedy]

2. We don't have the luxury of running a terrible candidate who would make a great president

in the unlikely event that she or he won.

The party needs new leadership, not failures from the past.

[FBaggins]

29. I like the way that you put that. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. Can we get an "Amen!"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Hasn't she suffered enough?

[dembotoz]

10. haven't we all?

[boston bean]

35. That comments makes me angry.

[dembotoz]

77. ok

[hrmjustin]

4. I love Hillary and if she ran I would strongly consider voting for her but at this point I think

she should not run for president again. Same for Bernie.

I think we need a new candidate.

[Caliman73]

30. I agree with you wholeheartedly, on both counts.

I think Hillary Clinton is one of the smartest, most qualified people on politics in the modern era, period! She would be a great president and I would certainly vote for her as I did in the general. In the primary, I voted for Bernie because I loved his message and his energy. I would vote for him in the general as well should he be the nominee. However, both candidates are in their late 60's and mid 70's respectively. Their time has come and gone regarding the presidency. I think that they can both be more effective outside the White House than in it at this point.

We need a strong woman of color who carries the traditional Democratic platform and has the fire of populism that Bernie has.

[Vinca]

5. No. It's time for a new face. No Hillary, Bernie or Joe.

[smirkymonkey]

16. Agreed.

I like Hillary, but no. Just no. It's not going to happen.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. Not sure bout your including Bernie on the list. I mean he's ONLY the most popular politician today.

[Vinca]

61. I love Bernie, but he isn't aging in reverse. Surely, there must be viable younger contenders.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. Oh, there's no doubt... but Bernie is spry for his age.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[Ken Burch]

129. Bernie's great, but he'd be 79.

A candidate who combined Bernie's economic ideas and the social justice agenda is what we really need.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

139. My dad was 94 when he passed and was as active & lucid as he was in his 60's...

Bernie's never gonna lose it... he's never gonna lose me!

[Ken Burch]

141. My mom is 91, and she's still amazing.

I meant no disrespect to older people.

My point was simply that it's problematic to expect the country to elect someone of that age, not that Bernie was past it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

145. Okay, gotcha... would your mom consider being Bernie's running mate? haha

[Ken Burch]

147. You never know.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

131. Agreed. n/t.

[Pisces]

6. Troll bait! Go away

[Rustyeye77]

18. Oh pleeease.

nonsense

[Hortensis]

44. "One of the most inept campaigns of all time?"

Pure anti-Hillary garbage. Didn't bother reading the sugar meant to help put this over.

She may not be truly brilliant, but she's an extremely experienced campaigner and an extremely competent and hard-working person who's famous for decades of always having done her homework and for never walking into a meeting without being fully and extensively prepared, very unlike most of her colleagues.

My guess is two of her old days would send most of us to bed to recuperate. We're not used to running for 12-14 hours in high gear day after day.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. "Inept" is little harsh... but not too far off.

[WinkyDink]

121. Hmmmmm. Good argument

[Volstagg]

7. Oh, please, no.

We will hand Trump his second term.

[loyalsister]

125. Or worse

If 45 were to bow out and they run a younger candidate who distances themself from him it would be a much tougher election.

[DrDan]

8. I'd vote for her, work for her, contribute to her campaign

I agree - she would make a great President

She needs a smart campaign staff, a message, and a well-thought out strategy

[H2O Man]

11. Adlai Stevenson

[Cooley Hurd]

109. .

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. Yes, the "blueprint" that's been redrafted dozens of times is certainly dead...

Enough's enough.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. No, it's time for someone new.

I like Hillary but she had her chances and lost both times. And we need to follow the lead of Canada and France, which just elected the next generation of leaders. Hillary will be 72 in 2020. That's not necessarily too old in the biological sense, but maybe it's too old in the ideological sense.

[Big Blue Marble]

14. Clinton's time has come and gone.

Her legacy stands. She is remarkably qualified and yet not able to connect with enough voters
to become elected. Nothing changes three years from now except her age. She will still have
her assets and her liabilities.

The Clintons are the past; the Democratic Party and our country need new and fresh leadership.
After this current debacle, we will turn to future leaders with new vision and purpose to unite
this country. Or at least, that is my hope.

[Orsino]

15. Well, the Republican playbook is a thick one.

Be a shame for them to have to update it.

[Locrian]

17. NO. Just.... no.... n/t

[JHB]

19. I recommend using the block quote function to better distinguish...

...which words are yours, and which words are something you're quoting.

[tblue37]

111. Better to use the "excerpt" function, to set off the quote in a gray box. nt

Last edited Mon May 8, 2017, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

[JHB]

116. Ironically, that's what I meant. I plead "Monday".

[tblue37]

117. LOL. nt

[Kentonio]

20. Absolutely not.

[mnhtnbb]

21. No. Just no.

[stevenleser]

22. At this point only Biden and Buttigieg are interesting as alternatives

I'm open to seeing other new folks but they need to start positioning themselves now.

[BeyondGeography]

23. The Clintons are done, so are the Obamas, and Biden and Kerry

Let's move on.

[Va Lefty]

48. Agreed

[NewJeffCT]

56. Agree that the Clintons are done

as is John Kerry. (I supported nobody in the primaries and then donated to Clinton after she won the nomination)

However, I think most Democrats would love it if Michelle Obama ran for president. And, I think Biden is still pretty popular despite his age. While I'd rather see somebody young run for the presidency, I could get behind Biden.

[BeyondGeography]

72. Michelle has already said no (many times)

And will probably have to keep saying no because, you're right, she's wildly popular. I love Joe, too, but he's also on the record as a "no."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rawstory.com/2017/05/joe-biden-says-he-wont-run-for-president-in-2020/amp/

[NewJeffCT]

74. politicians change their minds all the time

I'm guessing neither one will, but you never know...

[loyalsister]

120. Michelle is not a politician

and has too much to give to be constrained by party politics and public office.

[Cha]

88. You forgot sanders. And, Michelle doesn't want to run

for President or she wouldn't be "done".

[Rustyeye77]

24. I may be in the minority here..

but I think she would be a great president.

[KPN]

34. Yeah, but would she get elected?

Maybe, maybe not. Why risk it? Time to move on.

[Caliman73]

46. Not sure that people doubt she would be great.

There are some on the forum who think that she is only a step above Trump, which is ridiculous, but them notwithstanding, I think many people think that she would be a wholly effective and probably great leader. Her knowledge of the intricacies of government is unmatched except for by President Obama in the modern era.

The problem with Hillary is perception at this point. The water is so muddy with lies, and there is a perception that she is such a compromised person, that it would be difficult for her to be considered.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. That's not the question... it's could she get elected? That question's been asked and answered.

[scheming daemons]

25. 72 years old. No. Same goes for Biden and Bernie. We need YOUNG blood.

[WhiteTara]

37. Yeah, old women like Nancy Pelosi only

get the job done. "There is no greater force than a post menopausal woman with zest." Margaret Mead

[treestar]

55. Had she won 2016 she would have been 72 also

And we would have wanted her to run for re-election.

[Cha]

89. I think so too.. there must be some great Democratic Leader

who has the fire in their belly who will go all the way to the White House.

[hamsterjill]

26. I don't think she ran a bad campaign.

I think the election was stolen from her. I'm just not ready to forego all of the "Russian involvement" at this point. Do I think the results will be changed in some mystical way? No, but I am not going to start blaming Hillary or her campaign for going up against impossible odds. Donald Trump won because he brought out the asshole in all of the assholes left in this country. If someone lost because they didn't stoop to being an asshole, well, I'm not going to denigrate that candidate.

That said, I have no idea who our choices will be in 2020, but I'll do like I always do. Listen to the candidates, get to know their platform and ideas, and pick the best person that I think could do the job of President. That person will definitely be pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-equality.

[StevieM]

31. I agree with your basic premise but I believe it is a bad idea to emphasize the Russians

more than James Comey and his shenanigans.

We have an FBI in this country that has been totally corrupted. It had become a weapon for Republicans to use against Democrats. And that is the ultimate danger to our future as a democracy.

[Kirkwood]

66. It was a bad. She stopped campaigning in the three states that lost it for her.

And it wasn't stolen. People eventually went with Trump because he wasn't part of the establishment.

It wasn't that hard to see if someone really cared to be honest about it.

[hamsterjill]

80. You'll pardon me if I wait for the full investigation, right?

Thanks for your opinion. And I mean that.

I can accept your idea that many voted for Trump because he was "different". But I still smell a rat. The polls showed Hillary way, way, WAY ahead up to and including election evening.

[WinkyDink]

122. Polls in my state of Pennsylvania?

[hamsterjill]

137. Nationwide polls.

Are you really trying to tell me that Trump's win was not a surprise? I live in deep red Texas and work with a bunch of crazy-ass, rich, Republican men. Even THEY expected Hillary to win.

[NewDealProgressive]

92. Exactly, I'm tired of this "she ran a terrible campaign" bullshit.

It took the RNC, Congress, the FBI, Russia, Wikileaks, the media, a twenty-five Year smear campaign and a whole lot of stupid people to deafeat her by fewer than 80,000 votes in the electoral college over three states in an election she won by theee million votes.

If she was that bad, they wouldn't have needed to cheat.

[hamsterjill]

94. Thank you!!!

You made my argument so much better than I did! Appreciate it!

[KTM]

99. Had she been a better candidate

None of those things would have been enough to swing the election. New blood, PLEASE.

[dalton99a]

27. Love Hillary, but NO.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. I didn't think that her campaign was horrible

I mean, she might have spent a little more time trying to shore up the Midwest prior to the Election but things were looking ok there right before the end and Comey. I think that she was crippled by external forces more than things that she actually did that harmed herself. People apparently wound up believing a lot of false stuff/smears about her, weren't able to differentiate between "real" and "fake" news. Comey also neglected to mention to everybody that Trump was under FBI investigation since July while trumpeting their "trumped up" investigation of Hillary's private e-mail server. Hillary's "fragile" medical status was hyped up after a singular episode of collapsing while suffering from Pneumonia while Trump had his clear sham of a doctor write up a statement of his health that was probably written by Trump himself. Hell, Trump basically just got a lot more press than Hillary did throughout the whole campaign and he managed to (somehow) sell himself as a "champion" of the WWC that union members could feel comfortable voting for out of a misguided hope that things would (somehow) get better for them under Trump rather than Hillary.

As for Hillary running again, I'm not really sure how I feel about it. On one hand, she's run and lost twice, she's aging, and not sure if it's best for our party for her to try again. OTOH we have no clear frontrunner and we need somebody formidable to win in 2020. It *should* be easy for pretty much anybody with a brain stem and anybody who has seen what Trump has done since before Day 1 of his (mis-)Administration to see that Trump was a huge mistake and shouldn't get to serve another 4 years (shouldn't have been able to serve 4 to begin with IMHO), but we can't afford to leave anything to chance IMHO. I guess that I'll just have to wait and see who all is in the running for 2020 before I figure out who to support but I don't know if I would categorically rule out supporting Hillary if she runs again (I tend to doubt that she actually will, though).

[leftofcool]

32. Nope! Hillary need to tell Democrats to take a flying leap.

Why should the most qualified candidate in modern history run when some Dems voted for a goddamn gorilla or wrote in someone else's name?

[brush]

33. Stop repeating the "horrible campaign" meme. It wasn't horrible. 3m more voters...

voted for Clinton. There was the unprecedented Comey, Putin, Assange, Interstate Crosscheck, et al phenomenon that this OP and many others go on about while ignoring the fact that no other candidate in the history of this country ever had to combat such determined, negative, immoral opposition yet still got way more actual votes.

No other candidate ever. Ever. The oft cited "deplorables" remark is no worse than Obama's "they cling to their guns and religion" remark or Romney's "47%" one.

I say that but I also say that it is time for a new generation of Dem presidential candidates to go against an aging trump who will be 74 in 2020, or quite possibly the also older looking Pence (don't know his age).

I doubt Hillary has any desire to run again anyway.

[loyalsister]

124. It was worse because after it happens TWICE in recent memory

a person should know better. Either inept political consultants were on staff, or their expertise was ignored. It was a bad idea to run in the first place.

[brush]

134. I totally disagree. She got 3m more votes and then there was Comey, Putin and repug cheating

[loyalsister]

135. Low voter turnout

Was a huge factor particularly when you look at votes where people left the presidential ballot blank and voted down ticket.

Ballots were found to be missing votes for the presidential race. It’s being seen as a protest among many voters, proving they didn’t like their options.

It’s called an under-vote. This year there was a record high 6,500 of them in Cuyahoga County. An additional 37,000 blank ballots were submitted as well.

“It’s definitely one of the highest under-vote rates in a presidential election that I’ve seen,” said Pat McDonald, the Director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/record-number-of-cuyahoga-co-voters-leave-the-presidential-portion-of-their-ballots-blank

[brush]

138. Uh-huh. And you believe what comes out of the mouth of repug election officials? The same people...

who put all the broken voting machines in AA precincts so there is a low vote count, not to mention cutting early voter days and hours so again, there are guaranteed low vote counts.

The same ones who wouldn't allow an actual audit of ballots but would only allow the same ballots to be recounted in Steins recount bid.

And of course the voter ID laws they rammed through to insure low vote count.

Come on, you get it, right? Repugs cheat. That's the only way they win.

The only legitimately elected repug president since Eisenhower was Daddy Bush.

Nixon and Reagan both committed treason with the Vietnamese and Iranians respectively to get in. W Bush cheated in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 and trump just finished cheating in 2016.

Their cheating has drastically altered the history of this country — negatively — wars, housing bust, the great recession, trump in office. Should I go on?

[jpmonk91]

36. Tulsi 2020

[WhiteTara]

39. sorry

...

[Kirkwood]

67. Why? nt

[WhiteTara]

81. Google is your friend

Welcome to DU BTW

[Kirkwood]

84. Are you joking?

You puked when someone mentions a Democrat run for President and you tell me to use Google to figure out why you don't like them.

And you're welcoming me to DU?

[WhiteTara]

86. Sorry, I'm working today

and don't have time to cite all my issues. But, of course, I'm truly welcoming you to the fray!

[okieinpain]

38. lol, i hope i'm allowed to laugh at this. n/t.

[snooper2]

40. Oh JESUS FUCKING CHRIST LOL

let her retire next to Bernie so they can go fishing or something together. Maybe she can start driving track cars for fun....

[StevieM]

41. I think the article has it backwards. I don't think she should run again but I also completely

disagree that she ran a terrible campaign. That is a media narrative that has taken root but is not based in genuine history.

I think she ran a very good race. But it just wasn't winnable, given the damage that James Comey deliberately caused to her campaign. Had it not been for his reprehensible actions she would have crushed Donald Trump. A badly-run campaign could not have done that.

[BlueJac]

43. No thanks....

time to move forward, the past is history!

[LOL Lib]

47. I love HRC. She is my hero.

She doesn't deserve the punishment of having to prove that she is the POTUS again. She won 2016 and was cheated out of the White House. I have no reason to believe that a 2020 run would end in a different result. The right has spent 3 decades brainwashing the sheep to believe that HRC is the devil. She deserves far better than another pass through the political meat grinder.

[athena]

136. I agree completely. (n/t)

[Nevermypresident]

49. No. Love her but she couldn't win.

[MoonRiver]

50. NO

[treestar]

52. I like the idea because it can be

billed as a chance to correct an error. She would have run that year anyway.

Donald's win was an Electoral College fluke. Just a big mistake. So it can be corrected.

[WoonTars]

53. No. Just NO!!!

Time for a fresh, new approach.

[NurseJackie]

87. Why do you find experience and wisdom to be objectionable?

[WoonTars]

97. I don't.

I just think it's time to try a different approach.

[NurseJackie]

112. LOL

[WoonTars]

115. Which part of that was funny?

I'm personally not enjoying the result of her not winning the election. Both my wife and i have serious pre-existing medical conditions and we are going to have a difficult time if Dump's "healthcare" plan gets through the Senate.

We need someone to challenge that asshole, and all of his asshole-enablers in Congress. It has become apparent that person ISN'T Hillary, regardless of her experience and qualifications.

Absolutely nothing LOL about the repurcussions of losing AGAIN in 2020. People will die if we don't take the WH back.

[WinkyDink]

123. Seriously? She'll be in her 70s!

[beam me up scottie]

113. Why do you hate America?

*Disclaimer: this is

[davsand]

59. Dear god, NO. No. No, NO!

Can't we give her a rest? SERIOUSLY????

[mainstreetonce]

60. No

Trump will build his whole campaign on calling her a loser.

He also could have his administration bring up all the email stuff again.

She can counter him better if she is not the candidate.





Go Joe!

[Yavin4]

64. Can we please focus on 2018 first?!?!?!

If we don't stop Trump soon, there won't be a 2020 presidential campaign.

[Rustyeye77]

85. True

[Chellee]

119. Thank you!

Yes, +1, I agree, and all the stuff of that nature.

[Act_of_Reparation]

68. Nope.

I've seen how this movie ends.

[Kirkwood]

69. Surest way to get another 4 years of Trump.

No thanks.

[beaglelover]

70. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[GoCubsGo]

71. Oh, FFS. SHE HAS SAID SHE 2016 WAS HER LAST CAMPAIGN.

ENOUGH, ALREADY!!!!

And, enough of the "She ran a horrible campaign' bullshit. If her campaign was so horrible, how did she manage to record the second-highest vote tally in the history of the presidential elections?

[Calculating]

73. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

At this point the very name "Clinton" has become toxic throughout America. The Republicans have spent DECADES coming up with anti-Clinton propaganda, and a lot of people buy into it. I don't wanna see Bernie or Warren either. We need some FRESH BLOOD similar to Obama when he ran. Somebody who doesn't have a closet full of skeletons ready to be dragged out.

[PsychoBabble]

75. While I appreciate your HRC COMPETENCE argument ...

NFW.

There is also the political side, and the FUTURE side. Both mitigate against. So does common sense.

Most people, even Dems, would not hold your belief, and we would miss our opportunity to put an end to this monstrosity of GOP "governance."

NOTHING should take precendent over removing them from power before they destroy our democracy.

NOTHING.

[Blue_true]

76. No. We need someone that lives on the campaign trail for the General.

Hillary took to much time off and when she did go out, it was one event per day for 4-5 days. She visited no small towns or cities. We need someone that campaigns in the General like Obama did in 2008 General or Sanders did during the primary.

[Retrograde]

78. Let's look at successful D candidates

1960: Kennedy - youngest person ever to be elected president,
1964: Johnson - won in a landslide (a real one, not a Trumpian one) possibly due to reaction from Kennedy's assassination
1976: Carter- governor, relatively young (52, IIRC), new to national politics
1992: Clinton - young, dynamic governor, new to national politics
2008: Obama - young, dynamic senator, relatively new to national politics

What this indicates to me is that to win we need new blood. I agree that Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified people ever to run for office (I'm a JQ Adams fan myself), and she would have been a good administrator, but she needs to help cultivate the next generation of Democratic leaders now.

[The River]

79. NO

and Hell No.

[Cha]

91. And, I hope sanders doesn't run.. "NO and Hell No".

Hillary already said she wasn't.

[Ken Burch]

144. I don't think he would.

My sense is that if a candidate stood representing the economic values and political critique from the Sanders campaign, it will be someone else-a younger person who will have learned from the mistakes that campaign made in its difficulties in connecting with some constituencies in the party.

Take Bernie as a personality out of it, and there's no reason a candidate who CENTERS and LINKS social and economic justice could not win the votes that Bernie himself was unable to win.

[WinkyDink]

82. GIVE IT, AND HER, A REST.

[anglesphere]

83. I don't hate Hillary but

two failed attempts is enough. A third attempt is just being greedy and self-indulgent.

People's lives are on the line in these elections.

[Cha]

90. Hillary already said she was NOT running .. so all

your talk about "greedy" and "self-indulgent" and " .. don't hate Hillary But.." is just gratuitous BULL.

[anglesphere]

146. I didn't realize she said that

But it's not bull. The thread raised a hypothetical. If she did run it would be greedy and self-indulgent.

[Abu Pepe]

93. We win the WH whenever we put up fresh faces. Bill Clinton, Obama, Carter.

There is a young Senator or Governor out there somewhere who will be our nominee and president in 20.

I think HRC would have been a great president. I think Al Gore would have been one too. But I didn't want him to run again in 04.

fact is half the country hates HRC. Fair? No. Real? Yes.

[madinmaryland]

95. Please don't. I voted for her and supported her, but I don't want to go through

the same bullshit the Repubicans have been blathering about for 25 years. She's a good person, but just let it go. She will be 73 come 2020.

Please. Just stop this shit.

[Jim Lane]

96. Nixon is quite unusual in coming back to win after a general-election loss

From the linked article:

I just believe that history repeats itself. And for that we simply need to look to Richard Nixon.

That implies that Nixon is one of numerous examples. He isn't. Before Nixon, the most recent case of a general-election loser winning in a later November was Grover Cleveland, and he was a former President (won in 1884, then in 1888 won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, win the Presidency again in 1892). Before that, I think we have to go back to Andrew Jackson in 1828.

So, in the modern era, Nixon is the only one -- and he was still only 55 years old when he won in 1968.

My guess is that Hillary won't run. If she finds the old fever rising in her blood, and puts out discreet inquiries, she'll probably be told by quite a few former supporters that they love her dearly but that they're moving on.

[Amimnoch]

98. "one of the worst campaigns in modern political history"???

What's that sports phrase? Monday morning quarterbacking, or armchair quarterbacking? Please pardon me, sports isn't my thing.

First flaw I find in the logic, 2016 wasn't ours to lose, it was ours to win. We just had eight mostly wonderful years with President Obama. The first president that enjoyed very exceptional popularity in a rather long time for sure, BUT it was 8 years with a Democratic POTUS. Not since FDR have we had a Democrat in the office of the presidency for more than 2 terms. Even on the Republican side of things Reagan is the only president that broke that mold with Bush Senior. Having a Democrat succeed President Obama was bucking the odds to begin with. That the thugs ran such a horrid candidate that was losing in the poles right up to the end doesn't show how bad a campaign Clinton ran, but how bad a candidate they selected.

This was "supposed" to be their year, and it took Russian interference, sabotage by our very on FBI director hours before, an ill advised contentious Democratic party primary, and one hell of a misogynistic smear campaign to bring her down with the largest popular majority vote win of a losing candidate ever.

There are certainly things that I, another Monday morning quarterback, thinks she could have done differently that may have nudged it, but to say she ran "one of the worst campaigns in modern political history"?? Poppycock.

[KTM]

100. With a better campaign/candidate

None of those things would have mattered.

[Amimnoch]

101. LOL.

I believe that fallacy is called reductio ad absurdum.

I do believe the outcome when weighed against the evidence would dispute your assertion.

[StevieM]

102. I completely disagree. Comey slaughtered her with his tactics. And a different candidate might

also have found themselves under FBI investigation. The GOP tends to find a way to make that happen, and Comey is always a willing participant.

And the campaign was well-run. We heard nothing during the election about a campaign in chaos. Quite to the contrary, it was being praised as a well-run campaign. But sometimes that just isn't enough.

[KTM]

107. *might have*

As opposed to *WAS*

As much as I speak out that Hillary was a horrid choice for us in the current climate, I think she would have been a great president. I voted for her. I just think we made a mistake in underestimating how much those on the right detest her, and thinking that we could get past that. We nominated a person who was currently, whether it was bogus or not, under active investigation. Is their hatred based on 30 years of bogus lies and bullshit ? YASSSSSS. Did that matter to those who voted for someone else, to those who see her as the ultimate corrupt politician ? Not one bit. Yes, all they have ever had against her was bullshit, but their side, and plenty of the undecideds, BELIEVED IT.

As Twain said, "The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance... How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!"

In a different climate, Hillary should have won. But we must take full stock of the opponent and their beliefs before we choose a candidate. Can the right make bullshit arguments against just about anyone ? Swiftboats say yes... but to assume going in that we could overcome that *pre-existing* powerful lie was a mistake.

[StevieM]

105. Comey had been sabotaging her for over a year. Appointing him was Obama's worst mistake.

Hands down.

Clinton was going to win decisively until Comey dramatically shook up the race.

[Squinch]

103. Gosh. I think your post might be disingenuous. Gosh. Wonder why someone would do that.

[madaboutharry]

104. I think she knows she will never be president.

And I think she's made peace with it.

[Warpy]

106. Well, I think she ran a great campaign. The party brass just didn't realize what

she was up against until it was over: a hostile media that muted her speeches while they bleated about emails, a hostile media that hung on her opponent's every stupid word without questions, a foreign power determined to sabotage her, and a weak FBI director who played right into their hands days before the election, suppressing his evidence of GOP-Russian collusion while trumpeting about new emails.

Perhaps the housecleaning by Perez and Ellison will have a positive effect by 2020, and the party can let go of the outmoded reliance on news media to report the news instead of throwing its editorial bias behind one candidate or another, most often the GOP

That being said, I want someone younger than 74 to run in 2020. I want two terms, not one.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

108. What part of:

She couldn't secure the nomination in 2008, and she lost in 2016 don't people get? Yeah, so she did get more popular votes, but she did run a terrible campaign and it's not as though the Electoral College thing is brand new. Her staff should have been able to understand where she needed to be campaigning.

But never mind any of that. She's too old. So is Bernie. So is Biden. So are Kerry, Gore, and possibly Warren. I exempt Warren slightly because she's only 2 years younger than Hillary Clinton, but looks at least a decade younger. Still, it's long since time we, the Democratic Party, those here on DU, and the country as a whole, started looking at a younger generation for leadership. Well, we did in 2008, and turned our collective backs on that younger generation with who we nominated last year and who we elected.

Sherrod Brown, born in 1952, may also be too old, and I don't think he's all that interested.

Plus of course, trying to hype people who are absolutely never going to run, like Michelle Obama or Sally Yates, is silly.

[GitRDun]

110. NO!

Like it or not she's damaged goods. Doesn't matter whether or not it is her fault.

It also doesn't matter how good she would be...her trust ratings are in the toilet.

She is absolutely unelectable.

Let's move on.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. No thanks. And no Bernie or Biden either.

Maybe since we're going to be 1/5th of the way through the 21st century by then, we should maybe start trying to strecth our brains far enough to imagine a few candidates that were botn in the second half of the 20th.

[Ken Burch]

142. Agreed.

n/t.

[williesgirl]

118. No way, please

[Binkie The Clown]

126. No! No! No! No!

No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!

And in case I wasn't clear about my feelings on the subject

[font size = 7]NO![/font]

[PsychoBabble]

127. You know when you have that sudden idea

... That just seems so awesome, and then you think about it a little bit, and then you realize it ISN'T a great idea??

Well, HRC in 2020 is like that.

[Ken Burch]

128. We can only win in 2020 if we run someone who had nothing to do with 2016.

Yes, HRC is qualified, but we have to make a clear break.

A "one more try" campaign simply can't work.

[Ken Burch]

130. Does anybody else feel queasy about the "look at Nixon" part of this argument?

I mean...do we really want to base our comeback strategy on emulating THAT guy?

[democrank]

132. No

Let's move on.

[JNelson6563]

133. No. Time for new.

[Egnever]

140. She ran horrible campaigns in both runs

Her campaign against Obama was also plagued with inept management. While on paper she is certainly the most qualified in history if her campaigns are any indication of her ability to manage then her ability is lacking.

[jzodda]

143. I want new blood

As much as I respect HRC. As much as I wanted her to win I would like to see new candidates. So while I would vote for her again this time I would not be nearly as engaged or as interested.