• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One Last Run for Hillary?

Who do you want to be the Democrat nominee in 2020?

  • Total voters
    66
Cardinal said:
Um...because the notion is completely insane? If nothing else, I'm not immediately aware of any national election candidates who've lost and run again. After that point, their respective parties feel they've had their chance and move on. It's possible somebody may jump in to mention an exception, but generally speaking that's been the rule.
Click to expand...

Adlai Stevenson, Democratic Nominee in 1952 and 1956, lost to Eisenhower both times, ran for a third time in 1960 and lost to john f kennedy in the primary.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Adlai Stevenson, Democratic Nominee in 1952 and 1956, lost to Eisenhower both times, ran for a third time in 1960 and lost to john f kennedy in the primary.
Click to expand...

Lost in the primary? Well, that's compatible with my statement, because he wasn't allowed to be the national candidate again.
 
Cardinal said:
Lost in the primary? Well, that's compatible with my statement, because he wasn't allowed to be the national candidate again.
Click to expand...

ah, but adlai stevenson was the nominee in 1952 and 1956, lost those races, and then lost the primary.

hiliary was only the nominee once.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
ah, but adlai stevenson was the nominee in 1952 and 1956, lost those races, and then lost the primary.

hiliary was only the nominee once.
Click to expand...

Okay, well....nerd.
 
Cardinal said:
Um...because the notion is completely insane? If nothing else, I'm not immediately aware of any national election candidates who've lost and run again. After that point, their respective parties feel they've had their chance and move on. It's possible somebody may jump in to mention an exception, but generally speaking that's been the rule.
Click to expand...

Nixon ran and lost to John F. Kennedy in l960 and then ran again and defeated Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Also Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and William Henry Harrison lost their initial presidential elections but successfully ran later on.

I don't have a problem with trying and trying again.

If she runs, I do think Hillary would be taking that to ridiculous lengths, but who knows? It could happen.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Nixon ran and lost to John F. Kennedy in l960 and then ran again and defeated Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Also Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and William Henry Harrison lost their initial presidential elections but successfully ran later on.

I don't have a problem with trying and trying again.

If she runs, I do think Hillary would be taking that to ridiculous lengths, but who knows? It could happen.
Click to expand...

I stand by my position. Nobody has ever lost a national election and run again.
 
Perotista said:
I've said this before. I think the democrats need a fresh young face preferably from flyover country. Not a northeast ultra liberal or a west coast progressive. Someone who can attract the independent vote while being a loyal democrat. The democrats have tried the northeast liberal three times and lost, Dukakis, Kerry and Hillary.

Going with a fresh young face from flyover country, they won. Carter, Georgia, Bill Clinton, Arkansas and Obama, Illinois. Few people had heard of these three prior to them bursting onto the scene. Sure, Gore lost, Tennessee in 2000. But there was nothing fresh or young about him having served as a senator from Tennessee and then 8 years as VP. Mondale, Minnesota lost to Reagan in 1984, but Mondale had been around the block. Also, no one was going to beat Ronnie in 1984, there are some elections like that. It doesn't matter whom you run, your going to lose.

One name to keep an eye on, Tammy Duckworth from Illinois. A young spunky Iraqi war veteran.
Click to expand...

So someone who espouses a progressive platform then that focuses on issues of substance beyond identity politics.

I don't think fresh faces or stringent party loyalty are important so much as someone with policy that actually speaks to and is broadly supported by people, and is charismatic enough to pick up the undecided.
 
Cardinal said:
I stand by my position. Nobody has ever lost a national election and run again.
Click to expand...

I just named four Presidents who lost national elections and not only ran again, but won. You should reconsider your position.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I haven't voted because I am somewhat conflicted.
Click to expand...

That's because you're a conservative, and it appears that you're a conservative attempting to define what a liberal party should choose for a winning candidate, based on what a conservative thinks a successful Democrat should be.
I see absolutely no value in that.
Do you honestly think I would ever engage in an attempt to tell conservatives who they should run?
I'd be glad to tell you who I would have accepted with a minimum of grumbling in 2016 had it not been Trump but I don't expect Republicans to listen to MY choices for a Republican presidential candidate in any year.

My take on this is, it's 2020 and the field is nowhere to be seen, which is why pundits on all sides are desperately flailing about with Oprah, Joe Biden, Hillz, Bernie, Liz, etc.
Joe Biden? Hillary?? Like we need another run from a bunch of retreads?
No thanks.
Bernie damaged his brand via foolish sentimentalism, and he is too old, so as much as I love him, I do not want him to run again, even if he joins the Democratic Party, which is what he SHOULD have done if he'd wanted to win.

Joe Manchin HATES Democrats, he simply despises them. He's another Zell Miller. You guys should invite him.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I tend to agree with my friends who are choosing Maxine Waters on the poll as the practical choice of who would be the least problem for the Republican nominee. :)

We need to be careful though. She has minority status in two of the PC categories--race and gender--and we should not underestimate how that would make it a lot harder to campaign against her.
Click to expand...

So you really ARE just mocking Democrats and this wasn't actually a serious poll after all.
That's what my gut told me.
 
No one stands out in my mind yet on the Democrat side. I do know for certain that I would never ever vote for Trump or Pence.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Ronald Reagan, however was a household name. And Carter was so damaged as ineffective as President, though very likable, that Reagan didn't have any trouble beating him in 1980. And he ONLY lost Mondale's Minnesota in 1984 and lost by much less than a percentage point there or it would have been unanimous.

Bernie Sanders wasn't well known in 2016, but he was known as the only declared Socialist in the Congress so name recognition was not a problem for him.

I doubt many folks have even heard of Tammy Duckworth or have paid much attention to her. I suspect her star will have to rise for awhile before she will be a contender, but who knows? Anything could happen.
Click to expand...

True, but no one ever heard of Obama in 2008. He had been a senator for only four years. Although Bill Clinton had been governor of Arkansas for 12 years, in 1992 he was pretty much unknown outside of Arkansas. Who had heard of the one term Governor of Georgia in 1976? That is outside of Georgia or the south.

As for Tammy Duckworth, she just caught my fancy for some reason.
 
Surrealistik said:
So someone who espouses a progressive platform then that focuses on issues of substance beyond identity politics.

I don't think fresh faces or stringent party loyalty are important so much as someone with policy that actually speaks to and is broadly supported by people, and is charismatic enough to pick up the undecided.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said that better myself.
 
SDET said:
Joe Manchin

The Democrats will start winning if they stop trying to shove a far-left agenda down people's throats.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you think Hillary was far left?
 
Under Title 18 USC section 2071, I think....hillary is not eligible to hold elected office.
From the list, none of them would seem good choices but I doubt if the eventual candidate is on there. Maybe Bernie, surely the DNC wouldn't fix elections against him twice?
 
Rogue Valley said:
She's a 110% Trumper. Don't waste your time.
Click to expand...

Actually that would make her a perfect reverse barometer!
Or it WOULD except for her rather obvious miscue in believing that Democrats are dreaming of Maxine Waters in the White House.
Pro tip: Maybe you should have watched Bill Maher Live in Oklahoma last night.



If she skips to about 30:59 she might even get some insight into what mainstream liberals are thinking today about political correctness!
 
Winchester said:
I'm going to go ahead and pick Steve Bullock, current governor of MT as a darkhorse. He won the governor's race as a D while trump won the state by 20 pts. Negatives and they're big, it's MT a tiny state and I don't think the big city Dems will get behind a rural democrat.

I'm also going to throw out John Hickenlooper, current gov of Colorado. None of the people in the list do anything for me.
Click to expand...

I disagree...if they can work with a wide range of fellow Dems on the issues, and that includes some of the progressives, no reason they can't get support. Hickenlooper is precisely that example. I don't know diddly about Steve Bullock.
I do know about Beto O'Rourke however, and he's a rural Democrat.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I doubt many folks have even heard of Tammy Duckworth or have paid much attention to her. I suspect her star will have to rise for awhile before she will be a contender, but who knows? Anything could happen.
Click to expand...

She just won back the Illinois Senate seat once held by Barack.
I'd say her name recognition is doing okay, and getting bigger every day.
 
calamity said:
Does this mean you think Hillary was far left?
Click to expand...

Of cour-r-r-r-r-r-r-se!!!!

Hillary's a commie, Obama was a commie, Tim Kaine might be a commie, they're ALL commies, all except for the one guy from the Dems who reliably votes WITH THE REPUBLICANS every chance he gets!

Hillary is far Left?
Of cour-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-se!!!!

 
AlbqOwl said:
I haven't voted because I am somewhat conflicted.

I voted for President Trump not because I liked him personally or because he was entertaining or because I thought he was an exemplary person because to me he wasn't any of those things, at least consistently. But I voted for his vision and what he wanted to at least try to do for America, almost all of which I have been personally campaigning for more than three decades now. He has not disappointed and, unless he seriously stumbles, he will get my vote in 2020 if he runs.

But assuming the haters will be able to take him down--I don't use the term lightly, but I just don't see any coherent agenda coming from the Democrats or left so I have to assume the only motive to take out President Trump is the intense personal dislike of him--I would hope we would get a forward thinking Democrat instead of a hard core ideologically progressive one.

Is there one on the list of probables? I don't see it.

So how do I vote? For the Democrat I think would do the least damage which would probably be Joe Biden? Or do I vote for the one I think doesn't have a prayer to be elected?
Click to expand...

i don't see anyone to vote for at this point. i see one to vote against, and i hope that the opposition puts up a candidate worth of a vote.
 
Stymie_X said:
Under Title 18 USC section 2071, I think....hillary is not eligible to hold elected office.
From the list, none of them would seem good choices but I doubt if the eventual candidate is on there. Maybe Bernie, surely the DNC wouldn't fix elections against him twice?
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether you think the DNC acted 100% legal and by the book, the one thing that they did not do is "fix the elections against him".
He was NOT A DEMOCRAT, and he still isn't.
And even if the Democratic Party DID do everything 100% legal and by the book (a first for either party seeing as how the GOP never does) they STILL would be OBLIGATED to "select a DEMOCRAT PARTY CANDIDATE and then PROTECT the DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE", which of course would be required to BE A DEMOCRAT in the first place.

There is no world, in this universe or any other, where a major political party selects from OUTSIDE the PARTY and shoves a member of its own party ASIDE. In order to get a fair shake from the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders, much as I loved him, had to BE a Democrat first.

Hate to break it to you, but that is how party politics has always worked.
 
Maxine Waters. *snort* That would be a trip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom