• 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!

Hillary in 2020?

I hope so... she'll just lose again... WI tried doing this to oust Walker as governor (Barrett lost even worse the 2nd time around)... The Dems in WI finally learned from running Barrett twice, and that moron Burke the third time, and have finally come up with a candidate capable of beating Walker. He's still a moron, like damn near all Democrat candidates are, but he has a good chance to win though. We'll see who all turns out to vote next week...
 
Its not a little bit weird that you think about Trumps penis.

Huh.. I'm left disappointed... That's your best response? You got a cold, or something?

Get better soon, bud...

:lamo
 
Huh.. I'm left disappointed... That's your best response? You got a cold, or something?

Get better soon, bud...

:lamo
Left disappointed...

I bet thats a phrase you are used to by now.

Your response was to talk about Trumps penis...AND you are from Canada...why the **** should I care about your opinion...about...anything?
 
Left disappointed...

I bet thats a phrase you are used to by now.

Your response was to talk about Trumps penis...AND you are from Canada...why the **** should I care about your opinion...about...anything?

I dunno….but you always respond... :lamo
 
Don't laugh. Although obviously no friend of Democrats, the author makes some telling points. The basic takeaway is the old political wisdom: no matter how much the Dems hate Trump, "you can't beat someone with no one."

Hillary Clinton isn't running. There are plenty of other candidates and the idea that you need to be a well known established name in this day and age is nonsensically stupid. Whoever the nominees are will get ridiculous amounts of press. Their face will be everywhere. The debates will be must see tv. Any candidate that wins the Democratic Nomination is going to instantly poll well ahead of Trump.

The only reason for Hillary to run again is that it would be good to troll Republicans. Make them overconfident, and infuriate them when does in fact win. Force all the idiots in the country who said they both candidates were terrible, and both candidates were the same to see the reality of how much better her presidency could have been than the disgusting piece of **** we have today.
 
The Democrats shouldn't have to have a real champion, just a reasonable candidate who is better than Trump.

They should have attempted that in 2016.
I think almost any reasonable candidate could have beat Trump, but they were all fixated on Hillary to the exception of everyone else.
They even rigged the primaries to ensure she would win them.
To hell with any fair chances.
Hillary must be pushed through no matter what.
They still hang on her every word.

Chelsea in 2020?
Never had a real job. Never signed a paycheck. Never ran a business. Never walked amongst the unwashed masses.
but that does not matter. She is a Clinton and therefore ENTITLED to be president.
 
Hillary Clinton isn't running. There are plenty of other candidates and the idea that you need to be a well known established name in this day and age is nonsensically stupid. Whoever the nominees are will get ridiculous amounts of press. Their face will be everywhere. The debates will be must see tv. Any candidate that wins the Democratic Nomination is going to instantly poll well ahead of Trump.

The only reason for Hillary to run again is that it would be good to troll Republicans. Make them overconfident, and infuriate them when does in fact win. Force all the idiots in the country who said they both candidates were terrible, and both candidates were the same to see the reality of how much better her presidency could have been than the disgusting piece of **** we have today.

We shall see. No one ever won by betting on her restraint and lack of ambition.
In 2016 I voted for neither Hillary nor Donald. Presented with the same choice again I would do the same thing.
 
That and a message that makes sense. The party feels old and stale, and I'm not sure who is going to infuse new energy and ideas.

Well, there has to be at least one more plank than "I am not Donald Trump."
 
What happened to Avenatti? Last I heard he was referred to an investigation for giving false information to the senate committee.

So on Oct. 25, Grassley formally referred Avenatti (and Swetnick) to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation into their conduct.

"It is illegal to knowingly and willfully make materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators," Grassley wrote in the referral. "When charlatans make false claims to the committee -- claims that may earn them short-term media exposure and financial gain, but which hinder the committee's ability to do its job -- there should be consequences."

https://townhall.com/columnists/byr...ay-of-reckoning-for-michael-avenatti-n2533369
 
Well, there has to be at least one more plank than "I am not Donald Trump."


Yeah, seriously. They would really have to offer up sound alternatives, so they better get to it because two years will fly by quickly.
 
I'm almost absolutely certain that Sanders intends on running again. He's far too active, and hasn't outright denied it. He's a year older than Biden, and currently enjoys far more name-recognition and popularity than he did during the 2016 election.

I suspect people will likely crave a centrist after spending so much time being polarized, but who knows what the political atmosphere will be like in two years. I never thought things would be this bad, but here we are.
 
There is something broken in Hillary's mind and in her soul if she's thinking of running again.

Kamala is showing every sign of running, and it's her we should be taking seriously.

There are far better candidates but yes, I suppose she's among the more likely ones.
 
I suspect people will likely crave a centrist after spending so much time being polarized, but who knows what the political atmosphere will be like in two years. I never thought things would be this bad, but here we are.

I dunno man; his platform and ideas have been extremely resonant lately, not to mention platform shaping, to the point where everyone who's anyone in the Dem party is now torchbearing his ideas to some degree; so much for Hillary's assertion that Medicare for All will never happen, right?
 
Trump is such a bloody awful president, that the only hope him and his voters have of him winning re-election is by hoping Hillary Clinton runs again. Hilarious.
 
I dunno man; his platform and ideas have been extremely resonant lately, not to mention platform shaping, to the point where everyone who's anyone in the Dem party is now torchbearing his ideas to some degree; so much for Hillary's assertion that Medicare for All will never happen, right?

The Democratic leadership and their owners would rather Trump remain president than elect Bernie. They are beholden to corporations and are the "good cop" compared to Republicans in this game. If Bernie won the primary I honestly believe he would have an "accident". His ideas are very popular and the oligarchy are working very hard trying to figure out how to derail them. The 2020 primary is going to be another corporate versus people bloodbath. If any Democrat wants the nomination, they're going to have to get on their knees and kiss the ring and then only give lip service to progressive reforms, just like Obama.
 
The Democratic leadership and their owners would rather Trump remain president than elect Bernie. They are beholden to corporations and are the "good cop" compared to Republicans in this game. If Bernie won the primary I honestly believe he would have an "accident". His ideas are very popular and the oligarchy are working very hard trying to figure out how to derail them. The 2020 primary is going to be another corporate versus people bloodbath. If any Democrat wants the nomination, they're going to have to get on their knees and kiss the ring and then only give lip service to progressive reforms, just like Obama.

If Bernie Sanders had won the primary, the More likely scenario would have been that he would have received the same treatment as George McGovern did in the election of 1972.
 
Don't laugh. Although obviously no friend of Democrats, the author makes some telling points. The basic takeaway is the old political wisdom: no matter how much the Dems hate Trump, "you can't beat someone with no one."

Count on Hillary Running in 2020
Michael Goodwin, New York Post

". . . Intramural feuds are often bloody, but this one is also stupid. Trying to silence Clinton is a lost cause and, even if it succeeded, wouldn’t cure what ails Democrats.
In fact, shutting her up might push the party even deeper into the wilderness.
Implicit in the charge that Clinton is the problem is the assumption that others are the solution. It’s a fair point — until you try to name any Dem who has a better shot at serving as the party’s leader, uniting it around a message and potentially defeating Trump in 2020. After all, that’s the job that is vacant. . . ."

In 2014, no one was talking about Trump as a possibility. That's about where we are.

If the dems/Clinton are dumb enough to try, she won't get through the primary. Her expiration date was actually 2008.

And, at the risk of getting called for an ad-hom, the paper being cited is a tabloid owned by Murdoch.
 
If Bernie Sanders had won the primary, the More likely scenario would have been that he would have received the same treatment as George McGovern did in the election of 1972.

Maybe not that bad, but I guarantee he would not have won a single state in the south.
 
Maybe not that bad, but I guarantee he would not have won a single state in the south.

I mean that the Democratic establishment would not have supported his campaign and instead chose to sit out the election.

That is what the afl-cio, one of the big names of organized labor, did during the election of 1972: they chose to be politically neutral instead of providing support to George McGovern. The sin that made George McGovern’s presidential campaign so detested by union leadership was because George McGovern was a critic of the Vietnam war, while the leaders of organized labor supported the war.
 
In 2014, no one was talking about Trump as a possibility. That's about where we are.

If the dems/Clinton are dumb enough to try, she won't get through the primary. Her expiration date was actually 2008.

And, at the risk of getting called for an ad-hom, the paper being cited is a tabloid owned by Murdoch.

We shall see.
 
I mean that the Democratic establishment would not have supported his campaign and instead chose to sit out the election.

That is what the afl-cio, one of the big names of organized labor, did during the election of 1972: they chose to be politically neutral instead of providing support to George McGovern. The sin that made George McGovern’s presidential campaign so detested by union leadership was because George McGovern was a critic of the Vietnam war, while the leaders of organized labor supported the war.

I forgot that fact about the unions.

I don't know if the dem establishment would have done things any differently than the repub establishment did with Trump. We'll never know, I guess.
 
If Bernie Sanders had won the primary, the More likely scenario would have been that he would have received the same treatment as George McGovern did in the election of 1972.

Against an alternative and aberration like Trump and the fact that the Cold War (and its attendant conflicts), McCarthyism and so on have long since been dead and buried save among the most manic conservatives, nevermind Trump's lack of incumbency vis a vis Nixon, that's a pretty bold claim; I'm not at all, nor have ever been sold on the supposed parallels between McGovern and Bernie save that the two were more progressive than the establishment of their party.
 
Back
Top Bottom