• 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?

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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. . . ."
 
Hillary in 2020?
Click to expand...

no. run a candidate who is basically guaranteed to beat the mango marmoset. Clinton has already lost to him once.
 
Clinton has accomplished the impossible by losing to a fraud, and she's going to get the chance to try again?

Sure, when pigs fly, Hell freezes, and San Francisco goes Republican.
 
Helix said:
no. run a candidate who is basically guaranteed to beat the mango marmoset. Clinton has already lost to him once.
Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:
Clinton has accomplished the impossible by losing to a fraud, and she's going to get the chance to try again?

Sure, when pigs fly, Hell freezes, and San Francisco goes Republican.
Click to expand...

". . . So let us run through the parade of likely applicants, starting in the Senate: Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand.
Anybody stand out? While there is political talent, none strikes me as a heavyweight contender who could lead the party and go toe-to-toe with Trump.
Sanders is running on vapors, Booker is a lightweight who embarrassed himself with the Spartacus shtick and Gillibrand is a *do-nothing hack.
As for Warren, CNN, showing its usual tin ear, moved her to the top of the Dem field just before she imploded with her disastrous DNA test. Her silly repetition of the now-disproven claim that she has significant Native American ancestry opens her to endless ridicule and further diminishes her *already narrow appeal.
Others advertising their availability include Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
Same question: Does anybody in the group look like a champion in waiting? Not to me and, to judge from the lack of great enthusiasm, not to big funders or hot-shot consultants.
Two others in the thinking-and-hoping stage are New York’s feuding Frick and Frack, Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo.
Mayor Putz is term-limited and it looks as if his career has peaked. His image of being lazy, corrupt and incompetent means he’s not an asset to anyone, so he may have to get a real job when he finally leaves City Hall.
As for Cuomo, his mediocre rec*ord might get him a third term in deep-blue New York, but it’s not likely to endear him to national Dems. He trusts no one, including himself, which is why he hides from the media, lest he say things like America “was never that great.”
His habit of ducking debates won’t fly in a grueling presidential campaign against numerous competitors, and the rampant corruption on his watch makes him a fat target.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is also considering a run, and fellow richie Tom Steyer, whose deep pockets are funding the “Need to Impeach” movement, could be a candidate. Oprah flirted with the idea before saying no, but don’t be surprised if she flirts again.
The list, then, is long, varied and growing — but not compelling. Which is why Clinton, despite her enormous flaws and two presidential defeats, can’t be ruled out as the party’s best hope. God knows she wants it more than anybody else. . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . So let us run through the parade of likely applicants, starting in the Senate: Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand.
Anybody stand out? While there is political talent, none strikes me as a heavyweight contender who could lead the party and go toe-to-toe with Trump.
Sanders is running on vapors, Booker is a lightweight who embarrassed himself with the Spartacus shtick and Gillibrand is a *do-nothing hack.
As for Warren, CNN, showing its usual tin ear, moved her to the top of the Dem field just before she imploded with her disastrous DNA test. Her silly repetition of the now-disproven claim that she has significant Native American ancestry opens her to endless ridicule and further diminishes her *already narrow appeal.
Others advertising their availability include Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
Same question: Does anybody in the group look like a champion in waiting? Not to me and, to judge from the lack of great enthusiasm, not to big funders or hot-shot consultants.
Two others in the thinking-and-hoping stage are New York’s feuding Frick and Frack, Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo.
Mayor Putz is term-limited and it looks as if his career has peaked. His image of being lazy, corrupt and incompetent means he’s not an asset to anyone, so he may have to get a real job when he finally leaves City Hall.
As for Cuomo, his mediocre rec*ord might get him a third term in deep-blue New York, but it’s not likely to endear him to national Dems. He trusts no one, including himself, which is why he hides from the media, lest he say things like America “was never that great.”
His habit of ducking debates won’t fly in a grueling presidential campaign against numerous competitors, and the rampant corruption on his watch makes him a fat target.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is also considering a run, and fellow richie Tom Steyer, whose deep pockets are funding the “Need to Impeach” movement, could be a candidate. Oprah flirted with the idea before saying no, but don’t be surprised if she flirts again.
The list, then, is long, varied and growing — but not compelling. Which is why Clinton, despite her enormous flaws and two presidential defeats, can’t be ruled out as the party’s best hope. God knows she wants it more than anybody else. . . . "
Click to expand...

The Democrats shouldn't have to have a real champion, just a reasonable candidate who is better than Trump.
 
It would be an epic mistake to put Hillary back on the ticket for Dems in 2020, might as well go with Walter Mondale.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Clinton has accomplished the impossible by losing to a fraud, and she's going to get the chance to try again?

Sure, when pigs fly, Hell freezes, and San Francisco goes Republican.
Click to expand...

I envision Hillary in some Dr. Strangelove contraption pimping out interns to keep Bill Happy.
 


Buts seriously...no.
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . So let us run through the parade of likely applicants, starting in the Senate: Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand.
Anybody stand out? While there is political talent, none strikes me as a heavyweight contender who could lead the party and go toe-to-toe with Trump.
Sanders is running on vapors, Booker is a lightweight who embarrassed himself with the Spartacus shtick and Gillibrand is a *do-nothing hack.
As for Warren, CNN, showing its usual tin ear, moved her to the top of the Dem field just before she imploded with her disastrous DNA test. Her silly repetition of the now-disproven claim that she has significant Native American ancestry opens her to endless ridicule and further diminishes her *already narrow appeal.
Others advertising their availability include Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
Same question: Does anybody in the group look like a champion in waiting? Not to me and, to judge from the lack of great enthusiasm, not to big funders or hot-shot consultants.
Two others in the thinking-and-hoping stage are New York’s feuding Frick and Frack, Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo.
Mayor Putz is term-limited and it looks as if his career has peaked. His image of being lazy, corrupt and incompetent means he’s not an asset to anyone, so he may have to get a real job when he finally leaves City Hall.
As for Cuomo, his mediocre rec*ord might get him a third term in deep-blue New York, but it’s not likely to endear him to national Dems. He trusts no one, including himself, which is why he hides from the media, lest he say things like America “was never that great.”
His habit of ducking debates won’t fly in a grueling presidential campaign against numerous competitors, and the rampant corruption on his watch makes him a fat target.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is also considering a run, and fellow richie Tom Steyer, whose deep pockets are funding the “Need to Impeach” movement, could be a candidate. Oprah flirted with the idea before saying no, but don’t be surprised if she flirts again.
The list, then, is long, varied and growing — but not compelling. Which is why Clinton, despite her enormous flaws and two presidential defeats, can’t be ruled out as the party’s best hope. God knows she wants it more than anybody else. . . . "
Click to expand...

run someone new and appealing.
 
Democrats should definitely run Hilary Clinton. 3rd times a charm.
 
Jack Hays said:
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. . . ."
Click to expand...

No. Just no.
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . So let us run through the parade of likely applicants, starting in the Senate: Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand.
Anybody stand out? While there is political talent, none strikes me as a heavyweight contender who could lead the party and go toe-to-toe with Trump.
Sanders is running on vapors, Booker is a lightweight who embarrassed himself with the Spartacus shtick and Gillibrand is a *do-nothing hack.
As for Warren, CNN, showing its usual tin ear, moved her to the top of the Dem field just before she imploded with her disastrous DNA test. Her silly repetition of the now-disproven claim that she has significant Native American ancestry opens her to endless ridicule and further diminishes her *already narrow appeal.
Others advertising their availability include Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
Same question: Does anybody in the group look like a champion in waiting? Not to me and, to judge from the lack of great enthusiasm, not to big funders or hot-shot consultants.
Two others in the thinking-and-hoping stage are New York’s feuding Frick and Frack, Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo.
Mayor Putz is term-limited and it looks as if his career has peaked. His image of being lazy, corrupt and incompetent means he’s not an asset to anyone, so he may have to get a real job when he finally leaves City Hall.
As for Cuomo, his mediocre rec*ord might get him a third term in deep-blue New York, but it’s not likely to endear him to national Dems. He trusts no one, including himself, which is why he hides from the media, lest he say things like America “was never that great.”
His habit of ducking debates won’t fly in a grueling presidential campaign against numerous competitors, and the rampant corruption on his watch makes him a fat target.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is also considering a run, and fellow richie Tom Steyer, whose deep pockets are funding the “Need to Impeach” movement, could be a candidate. Oprah flirted with the idea before saying no, but don’t be surprised if she flirts again.
The list, then, is long, varied and growing — but not compelling. Which is why Clinton, despite her enormous flaws and two presidential defeats, can’t be ruled out as the party’s best hope. God knows she wants it more than anybody else. . . . "
Click to expand...

All true but you need to realize that whoever the candidate will be they will be declared the genuine article and whatever they may have accomplished in their career, meager as it may be, will be portrayed as incredibly
significant.
Well, one may say, what about Trump? He had no political experience so he couldn't point to anything at all.
The difference being that besides being around politicos forever, the most important factor was that besides being an outsider he recognized what many many people wanted and he ran on promises to give it to them (and Hillary, of course, was terrible).
What the opposition will be running on in the primaries is what only a minority wants and I doubt they're going to be very candid about delivering on that once the general election campaign begins.
But they will be reminded of it despite attempts to never bring it up.
 
You know what Hillary Clinton is like the new Rick Perry or one of the Republican who shows up and, never get the nomination. My question is for the democrats? Why do you think that Hillary has the potential for another run? It’s funny how the democrats are saying that they want a woman to be president. You have Warren (psychopath), Eric Holder (another 2.0), and I could go on and on. Pick some one who actually stood up for women and not disrespect them
 
Helix said:
no. run a candidate who is basically guaranteed to beat the mango marmoset. Clinton has already lost to him once.
Click to expand...
Who would THAT be?
 
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.
 
Jack Hays said:
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. . . ."
Click to expand...

If the Dems let Hillary hobble into the 2020 race, it'll prove they haven't learned a damn thing since 2016.

What part of "Need new blood" don't these people understand?
 
Bullseye said:
Who would THAT be?
Click to expand...

i don't know. if you're associated with the DNC, send me a PM. i'll help you find a candidate and a winning message.
 
Dems have lousy candidates for 2020, and I say that as someone who did not and will never vote for Trump. But Warren? Sanders? Harris? Booker? Bloomberg? Gilibrand?

None of these people stand a chance, none can connect with purple state voters needed to win elections, and the GOP machine would have a field day with any of them. Clinton would be just as good as any of them (not that I think she'd be a good candidate).

Biden is probably the only candidate that stands a chance. Hopefully someone unexpected will come out of the woodwork.
 
Jack Hays said:
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. . . ."
Click to expand...
Unless her entire presentation in 2016 was based on instructions from her advisers, she is incapable of drawing people in and giving them something to support.
 
If there's one thing that Hillary did that sunk her 2016 election it was alienating a large part of the middle of the voter base with her 'deplorables' speech.

So far, it seems, that all the mentioned possible candidates have pretty much done the same, alienating potential votes for them. Logic would seem to indicate the same election results then.

Logic would further dictate a move more to the middle to court those votes, but so far, that realization doesn't seem to have been grasped by the potential candidates, nor the DNC, nor the Democrat party. Expecting election wins on that? Hmm. I have my doubts.
 
That Hillary is even so much as active in politics after her repeated demonstrations of incompetence and her hostility towards the democratic process as shown by her trying to get coronated by a party that Clinton Corp had been leading and corrupting for over 20 years shows how weak the party is. If the Party was better she would have been told to sit down and shut up, that her days of damaging the party and damaging America are over.

Biden too....that he is even considering running shows clearly what a wreck this party is..... he should have been shoved off the stage by much younger people who are not such a long time participant in the games of a very corrupt very incompetent and would say very immoral Washington elite.
 
Last edited:
Cameron said:
Dems have lousy candidates for 2020, and I say that as someone who did not and will never vote for Trump. But Warren? Sanders? Harris? Booker? Bloomberg? Gilibrand?

None of these people stand a chance, none can connect with purple state voters needed to win elections, and the GOP machine would have a field day with any of them. Clinton would be just as good as any of them (not that I think she'd be a good candidate).

Biden is probably the only candidate that stands a chance. Hopefully someone unexpected will come out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...

Meh, nobody thought a Reality T.V. Star birther with ZERO political experience and no history of EVER supporting conservative policies or positions would win the GOP nomination, and presidency. And considering Trump won the election because of a few thousand votes in three blue states, against an immensely unpopular Democratic candidate, I wouldn't be so quick to bet on him winning again (if he runs again). Can he win again? Sure, but it's far from a sure thing, especially since he's done nothing to increase his support among non Republicans. His approval with independents is in the gutter, despite never being that high to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom