• 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 will run again in 2020

TheParser said:
The second time was the charm for Richard Nixon.

So maybe Ms. Hillary will actually win this time.

Yes, she is not a very nice person.

But many people dislike President Trump even more.

Besides, in 2020 I have no doubt that more ineligible voters will be casting votes.


It seems that any Democrat will win. So maybe many Democrats will take pity on the elderly lady and let her have her last hurrah.
Click to expand...

This would be Hill's 3rd go at at. Enough is enough. I can't imagine having that disgusting rapist living in the WH again.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, “Come.” I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.
​
Click to expand...

You are preaching to the choir brother, preaching to the choir.

Galapagos sea lion3[1].jpg
 
haymarket said:
IF Clinton runs again in the primaries, i would be a huge error and i do not think she would get the nomination, One key to her nomination in 2016 was her virtual domination of black democrats especially in southern states with large black populations. I would be shocked if she had that section of the party all to herself next time. Take that away and she only has left the suburban older white woman types who want a woman president above all else. And with Warren and others in the race, that is the other section that will not go her way either like it did in 2016. In short - her two biggest areas of support will not be there for her in 2020 like they were in 2016.

I have been a Joe Biden advocate as well as a Bernie supporter but with each passing week I am shifting my beliefs to a new younger fresher face. The strongest possibility in that regard is Beto O'Rourke of Texas. Had he won the Senate seat, the Dem nomination would be a virtual lock for 2020. He narrowly lost in a deep red state so if he can gain early traction in places like Iowa - he really has a chance and I would expect lots in the party to get on board and give him a real shot at being the nominee.
Click to expand...

If we're going for a (relatively) young, red state contender who can actually make in-roads in the south, I'd say Ojeda is the better choice, much as I like O'Rourke; the man has incalculably more drive and charisma and undeniable resonance with the working class.
 
Surrealistik said:
If we're going for a (relatively) young, red state contender who can actually make in-roads in the south, I'd say Ojeda is the better choice, much as I like O'Rourke; the man has incalculably more drive and charisma and undeniable resonance with the working class.
Click to expand...

Should ojeda try to win a local election in West Virginia before trying to win the presidential election?
 
Surrealistik said:
If we're going for a (relatively) young, red state contender who can actually make in-roads in the south, I'd say Ojeda is the better choice, much as I like O'Rourke; the man has incalculably more drive and charisma and undeniable resonance with the working class.
Click to expand...

I think Sherrod Brown would be able to turn red states like Ohio and Missouri to the dems. He would likely do very well in the midwest and rust belt. Maybe even in some southern areas too. But he would never make it through a dem primary.
 
pilot16 said:
I think Sherrod Brown would be able to turn red states like Ohio and Missouri to the dems. He would likely do very well in the midwest and rust belt. Maybe even in some southern areas too. But he would never make it through a dem primary.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't, and I personally don't think he has the charisma or vision to be effective as a candidate; better than Hillary though, to be sure.


Unitedwestand13 said:
Should ojeda try to win a local election in West Virginia before trying to win the presidential election?
Click to expand...

I would ask the same about O'Rourke regarding his respective election who is being seriously floated around.

The fact is that despite his loss, this man has and currently does hold public office, he has achieved far more in terms of increasing Dem votation than anyone else in the midterms in probably the most hostile riding in the country, and this achievement is nothing short of astonishing, particularly since he didn't go moderate, and remained true to his progressive, populist beliefs in the heart of conservative country.

That having been said, I do prefer other candidates before Ojeda, and I don't think he'll make it through the 2020 primaries for multiple reasons, most notably his lack of exposure/name recognition, but his profile ought to be raised enough that he'll be a serious competitor the next time around. However, if we _were_ to go for a red state contender who can improve Dem showings in the south, that would absolutely be Ojeda.
 
Surrealistik said:
If we're going for a (relatively) young, red state contender who can actually make in-roads in the south, I'd say Ojeda is the better choice, much as I like O'Rourke; the man has incalculably more drive and charisma and undeniable resonance with the working class.
Click to expand...

His national name recognition today is what... 1% 2%? Ojeda just seems like a bridge too far.
 
haymarket said:
His national name recognition today is what... 1% 2%? Ojeda just seems like a bridge too far.
Click to expand...

That's true, but that's also about where Bernie was at in 2014-2015; he's definitely got an outside chance, but no more than that.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
That's true, but that's also about where Bernie was at in 2014-2015; he's definitely got an outside chance, but no more than that.
Click to expand...

I think you are under evaluating Sanders at that period of time and overvaulting the possibility of Ojeda at this time.

I could be wrong. This is all a big guessing game at this point.

I respectfully suggest that Beto O'Rourke is the one to bet on - if one is so inclined to wager.
 
haymarket said:
I think you are under evaluating Sanders at that period of time and overvaulting the possibility of Ojeda at this time.

I could be wrong. This is all a big guessing game at this point.

I respectfully suggest that Beto O'Rourke is the one to bet on - if one is so inclined to wager.
Click to expand...

Can't find hard data at this time on Sanders' name recognition among the general public around 2014 and sadly lack the time as I'm currently at work, but suffice to say, it was exceedingly low; I do know that around 2015 the % of people who never heard of him was around 75%. https://news.gallup.com/poll/243539/americans-maintain-positive-view-bernie-sanders.aspx

I think it would be a mistake to bet on Beto given the choice between the two; the one and only thing Beto has on Ojeda is greater name recognition, and even that isn't particularly good. I will give Beto credit in that he's somewhat more progressive than Ojeda which is important to me, but I don't think it's enough to really make him the better candidate.
 
When Bill Clinton ascended the presidency, Hilary ascended the throne alongside him, and with the impatience of the young, assumed she had also entered the halls of power. A vast misinterpretation by the Yalee who married beneath her. And she spoke to Congress not with the indulgence a First Lady usually received, but as an enemy of the status quo, most pointedly, not only a strategic blunder across the bow of the enemy ship, but her own party's status quo. Behind closed doors, with the blessings of Heritage Foundation providing New Gingrich as knight in shining armor, carrying the blessing of universal healthcare as the and an immediate display for the other party, Hilary, mounted on her Doc Martin's stormed at Congress not known by her to be a deal already cut, and set back healthcare a century of progress. She stormed the status quo indecently, with no dignity allowed, and turned healthcare into a political hack rarely matched with a vigor of hate, instead of healing the Nixon affair. The key to a lessoning of partisanship was instead a gauntlet of insult, with her own party's equally insulted, disgust.

Under no visible circumstances would Hilary ever receive the blessings of both parties, no matter whose turn it was, Liberals or Conservatives, male or female, Army or Navy, Harvard or Yale. Destroyed with a single thoughtless speech, thus the endorsement of a Chicago Democrat over an untenable woman of ambition. Had any other woman sought the presidency, other than Hilary, Obama would not have received the Democrat endorsement, certainly not after the performances of Dinkins in NYC and Marion Barry in DC. Women's political ambitions was brought to its knees in the US with no First Cavalry arriving for the rescue. Hilary will be lamented when she is gone, and simultaneously cheered along her way. She has no chance of meeting her ambition, a dead dog along the roadway, best left dead. There will be no American woman president of this nation, until she is dead, even should she require a helping hand along the path of glory as another American martyr. This is her own doing from her own bottomless pit of ambition.

God bless the president who wasn't.
 
Yea b/c I want a witch like that running for office.... No thanks.
 
Tim the plumber said:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/416164-ex-clinton-aide-hillary-will-run-again-in-2020

Having been beaten by the worst candidate anybody has ever seen why does she think she has any chance at all?
Click to expand...

If...and this is a big goddamn if...she actually believes she's going to run again, then it means that she believes the Oval Office is hers by "right." That right there disqualifies her from being in it.

Of course the country would be far better off is she was President than Trump, but then, a box of tic-tacs would be a better President so that's really not saying much.
 
Cardinal said:
If...and this is a big goddamn if...she actually believes she's going to run again, then it means that she believes the Oval Office is hers by "right." That right there disqualifies her from being in it.

Of course the country would be far better off is she was President than Trump, but then, a box of tic-tacs would be a better President so that's really not saying much.
Click to expand...

I just don't see it happening. She made it pretty clear post 2016 that she wasn't running again. It's all smoke at this point to me.
 
Phys251 said:
I just don't see it happening. She made it pretty clear post 2016 that she wasn't running again. It's all smoke at this point to me.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
haymarket said:
I think you are under evaluating Sanders at that period of time and overvaulting the possibility of Ojeda at this time.

I could be wrong. This is all a big guessing game at this point.

I respectfully suggest that Beto O'Rourke is the one to bet on - if one is so inclined to wager.
Click to expand...

My dream ticket at the moment is Klobuchar/O'Rourke.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The will of the people was for Hillary. Trump won not because he got the most votes, but because he won the EC, which of course is the important part
Click to expand...

1) California was so lopsided -but for that, Trump won the popular vote-which proves the wisdom of the Electoral college

2) if only those who paid property taxes could vote, Hillary only would have won Oregon and Washington. Think about that for a minute.
 
Parrish said:
My dream ticket at the moment is Klobuchar/O'Rourke.
Click to expand...

Klobuchar is smart, comes off as reasonable, well meaning but boring. She's far smarter than the two media whores-Spartacus and Harris, though
 
TurtleDude said:
1) California was so lopsided -but for that, Trump won the popular vote-which proves the wisdom of the Electoral college
Click to expand...

If not for the states that voted for Trump the electoral college vote would have gone to Clinton.

TurtleDude said:
2) if only those who paid property taxes could vote, Hillary only would have won Oregon and Washington. Think about that for a minute.
Click to expand...

If only those who wore red hats were catapulted into the sun Clinton would have won the election. Think about that for a minute.
 
Cardinal said:
If not for the states that voted for Trump the electoral college vote would have gone to Clinton.



If only those who wore red hats were catapulted into the sun Clinton would have won the election. Think about that for a minute.
Click to expand...

that's beyond stupid.
 
Cardinal said:
No ****.
Click to expand...

you miss the point-for two years, the Hillary fan club has pretended that Trump isn't legitimate because (and only because California) Hillary won the most votes. They ignore that Trump won the majority of most states. Its as stupid as a tennis fan whining that its unfair Nadal won a major over Roger Federer because Nadal won 3 sets to 2 sets but Federer won a couple more games and 12 more points.

what the Hillary fluffers ignore is that both campaigns KNEW the rules. if the popular vote was all that counted, both sides would have campaigned differently. But it means NOTHING
 
TurtleDude said:
you miss the point-for two years, the Hillary fan club has pretended that Trump isn't legitimate because (and only because California) Hillary won the most votes. They ignore that Trump won the majority of most states. Its as stupid as a tennis fan whining that its unfair Nadal won a major over Roger Federer because Nadal won 3 sets to 2 sets but Federer won a couple more games and 12 more points.

what the Hillary fluffers ignore is that both campaigns KNEW the rules. if the popular vote was all that counted, both sides would have campaigned differently. But it means NOTHING
Click to expand...

Yes, both sides knew the rules, yet here you are bitching and moaning that Trump lost the popular vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom