• 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!

Any Dems Here Hoping Hillary Runs for 2020 Nomination?

I'm a Liberal, and I think Hillary should

  • run for nomination for 2020 POTUS

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • quickly disappear - never to be heard from again

    Votes: 30 54.5%
  • concentrate on being the VP choice for whoever the Dems nominate

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • drop dead

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • other - please explain

    Votes: 23 41.8%

  • Total voters
    55
While it is possible Hillary could beat Trump in 2020 Democrats would be fools to eat rotten meat. I don't see Hillary accepting the VP.

I don't think she has a snowball's chance simply because of how ridiculously conceited she is. She doesn't seem to have learned anything from the last election. She'd think she'd have it in the bag simply because Donald Trump is Donald Trump, completely forgetting that she, is in fact, Hillary Clinton, and not very popular, herself. I don't think she can win, because she probably thinks that she can't lose.

I'm going to agree with the VP bit. At her age, and with her clear ambition for the presidency from the get-go, I think that having to settle for VP would just make her salty.
 
I don't think she has a snowball's chance simply because of how ridiculously conceited she is. She doesn't seem to have learned anything from the last election. She'd think she'd have it in the bag simply because Donald Trump is Donald Trump, completely forgetting that she, is in fact, Hillary Clinton, and not very popular, herself. I don't think she can win, because she probably thinks that she can't lose.

I'm going to agree with the VP bit. At her age, and with her clear ambition for the presidency from the get-go, I think that having to settle for VP would just make her salty.

Yeah. In her What Happened book, she still doesn't realise what she did wrong. I don't know if she's in denial, or that she's so pompous she can't even except the possibility that she might have handled it wrong.
 
She has proven that she could raise loads of campaign cash, got more of the popular vote (than Trump) and knows 'what happened' so she is unlikely to repeat her past campaign mistakes. The question should have been be framed listing her likely demorat competition but that is a good question, none the less.

She did get most of the popular vote - and had a a lot of support - however I believe most of those votes and a lot of that support was simply anti Trump and not as much pro Clinton as people make it out to be. Hillary Clinton is one of the worst candidates ever put on a ticket however there were only 2 names on that ballot and she wasn't the worst of the two which is why most Americans voted for her over Trump. She is not popular, she if famous.
 
Yeah. In her What Happened book, she still doesn't realise what she did wrong. I don't know if she's in denial, or that she's so pompous she can't even except the possibility that she might have handled it wrong.

I still haven't decided if she's really that unbeleivably clueless, or if the book was simply an attempt at driving the narrative.

Probably should have titled the book, "See, What Happened, Was . . ."
 
She did get most of the popular vote - and had a a lot of support - however I believe most of those votes and a lot of that support was simply anti Trump and not as much pro Clinton as people make it out to be. Hillary Clinton is one of the worst candidates ever put on a ticket however there were only 2 names on that ballot and she wasn't the worst of the two which is why most Americans voted for her over Trump. She is not popular, she if famous.


No no, in the nomination phase of things there was plenty of names.

I'm simply asking about any Dem/Lib who would nominate her for the Dem ticket for POTUS.

Who would thing that's a good idea?

So yes, it's all about being pro-Clinton.

Or anti all the other DEM/LIB choices that might be competing for that ticket.
 
12y2ob.jpg

Live the dream.
 
She did get most of the popular vote - and had a a lot of support - however I believe most of those votes and a lot of that support was simply anti Trump and not as much pro Clinton as people make it out to be. Hillary Clinton is one of the worst candidates ever put on a ticket however there were only 2 names on that ballot and she wasn't the worst of the two which is why most Americans voted for her over Trump. She is not popular, she if famous.

Hmm... that (bolded above) is quite confusing and ignores the fact that Hillary won the demorat primary. If anyone was more famous than popular it was Trump.
 
It would be unseemly to seek the nomination for a second time after being nominated and losing. I don''t think that has ever happened before, at least not in modern times. Once nominated and going to the general elections, politicians don't try again. But I sure hope she does.
 
I don't think she has a snowball's chance simply because of how ridiculously conceited she is. She doesn't seem to have learned anything from the last election. She'd think she'd have it in the bag simply because Donald Trump is Donald Trump, completely forgetting that she, is in fact, Hillary Clinton, and not very popular, herself. I don't think she can win, because she probably thinks that she can't lose.

I'm going to agree with the VP bit. At her age, and with her clear ambition for the presidency from the get-go, I think that having to settle for VP would just make her salty.

Both Hillary and Trump carry truckfulls of baggage. Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 and would probably increase that in 2020 against Trump. If this were the matchup, we would again have a case of many people voting for Trump just because he wasn't Hillary and even more people than in 2016 voting for Hillary just because she was not Trump. Votes would probably increase for the third party candidates in 2016. Who knows how that would exactly play out but the winner would still be either Trump or Hillary. I personally believe that Hillary would eek out the win against Trump in 2020 but I wouldn't make any large bets on it and I think most Americans would be puking during the voting process. Therefore, Democrats would be foolish to run a candidate that would be nothing more than a puke filled protest vote against Trump.
 
People are tired of the 'old guard', so they won't vote the very face of the progressive movement, a guy who's only one year older than Biden, and is absolutely adored by younger people. The only thing that you're right about is that peope are tired of politicians like Feinsten, Grassley, and Pelosi. You're basically saying that people won't vote for a progressive because they're tired of third-way, corporate Democrats that have dominated the field for the las few decades. You've made this weak connection by age, and have ignored the very reason that people are fed up with the old guard.

I think age will be a factor in terms of which demographic is more supportive of which candidate during the primary . . . and just like in the last election, I expect younger folks to overwhelmingly be in support of either Sanders, or any other progressive running that doesn't take PAC-money. Most of the people who came out for Clinton during the primary were older people who are glued to Cable television. Younger liberals tend to get most of their entertainment from the Internet, and are more likely to watch TYT, Kyle Kulinski, and David Pakman, rather than CNN or MSNBC. That's where age is going to be a major factor.

To say that someone like Sanders isn't likely to win because of age, and because of dissillusionment with the old guard is to be completely ignorant about what he actually means to the progressive movement, and ignorant about who was actually supporting who in the last election. Sanders is a ****ing rock-star when it comes to younger voters. What in the nine hells are you even on about?

I could easily have expounded on the reasons why people like Sanders, Biden and Clinton are politically passe' and how young and upcoming Democrats are carrying the message that younger voters are drawn to. Keep in mind that these are the same young voters that usually sit out the mid-terms and don't bother to vote. This time they made their voices heard. Younger Americans are less likely to vote according to a religious motivation, so they're not conservative as far as that goes. Millennial's have by far the largest portion of non-Trump supporters. They're going to support progressive stances on economic inequality, global warming, immigration and racial equality. The younger voter isn't going to vote for anyone who's not in favor of inclusion and will outright reject anyone that's in favor of excluding anyone based on their sexual orientation, race, religion or financial status.

Even though Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders each have a very energetic and supportive base, neither Sanders or Biden connects with them on the same level as a younger candidate will. Bernie Sanders' platform has been touted by newly elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, so he's not alone in his socialistic ideology. But voters who just turned 18 this year and voted for the first time, plus the thousands of Puerto Ricans that moved to the mainland U.S. will most certainly not be voting Republican but they will be voting for a progressive candidate that ticks all the boxes for them.

Unlike other Democrats, I really am not totally enthralled by either Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris although both are seen as the front-runner candidates for 2020. I have been watching, listening and following all the 'in the spotlight' potential runners and I've narrowed down my own personal preferences. Amy Klobuchar is my first choice because she's pretty low-keyed but I've seen her and Bernie Sanders in a live debate with Senator Bill Cassidy and Lindsay Graham, she out-debated them hands down. She was a long-time friend of Senator John McCain so she takes with her some of the better policies of McCain and has rejected his worst.

My second choice would be Senator Jeff Merkeley of Oregon. Jeff Merkely is a man that doesn't only talk the talk. These are two Senators that hardly anyone has sat up and taken notice of ....yet. But, hopefully as the time draws nearer to 2019, these two will step up and announce they're throwing their hats in the ring with the others.
 
Her message, personality, ideas, and presentation failed to beat Donald Trump. That should tell the Democratic Party something but they seem to be obligated to continue to push Clinton at all costs. They need to pick someone younger, smart, no real baggage, and moderate that will appeal to people over 40 on both sides. My generation will not win them an election at this point in time since my generation isn’t reliable to show up en masse regardless of how much free stuff is offered.
 
Not in favor of HRC running again. I ended up voting third party because the choice was between her and Trump. Neither of whom were acceptable.

IMO
 

Hopefully they don't lock her up in the Republican wing between Trump and Trump Jr, down the corridor from Roger Stone and George . Fortunately, all of the other Trump croonies (Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Popodopolus, Patten, VanderZwann, Pinedo and Cohen) were smart enough to crop a plea. Even if she were thrown into the middle of all of these Cons, they are all know-nothing lightweights, Hillary could hold her own.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...estigated-in-trump-russia-probe-idUSKCN1LU2BH

BTW, what is Clinton in for that Trump was not guilty of 10 fold?

This is certainly an interesting obsession people have with Clinton and an even odder fantasy with the idea that she is somehow going to jail. Reality, which is often lost on Trump supporters, is that Trump and his cronies are the ones actually fighting to stay out of jail.
 
Last edited:
While it is possible Hillary could beat Trump in 2020 Democrats would be fools to eat rotten meat. I don't see Hillary accepting the VP.

Hillary can still play a strong role in the party; substantially in coaching and fund raising. She is no longer electable and thus should not run. The Republicans certainly did a brilliant and effective job of character assassination on her, but they are good at that.
 
Are there any Dems/Libs here at DP who would vote for Hillary's nomination should she decide to make one last attempt at POTUS in 2020?

Could you please explain why?

I can surely understand why Reps/Cons would be elated is she ran again.

I'm just wondering if any Dems/Libs are actually thinking she'd be a the best choice for the Democratic party in 2020.

Dragonfly -- you stole my poll.

giphy.gif
 
I think the answer is, "Is the DNC still bankrupt?"

Literally and figuratively.
 
Hillary can still play a strong role in the party; substantially in coaching and fund raising. She is no longer electable and thus should not run. The Republicans certainly did a brilliant and effective job of character assassination on her, but they are good at that.

LOL. Hillary did nothing but character assassination on Trump. Instead of telling people what her agenda was, she spent the entire time with character assassination and even calling people who supported Trump deplorables, while the left called everyone on the right racists, bigots, misogynists, and every other ist in the book. Now which side is better at character assassination?
 
Are there any Dems/Libs here at DP who would vote for Hillary's nomination should she decide to make one last attempt at POTUS in 2020?

Could you please explain why?

I can surely understand why Reps/Cons would be elated is she ran again.

I'm just wondering if any Dems/Libs are actually thinking she'd be a the best choice for the Democratic party in 2020.

Its fine if she got on the elder statesman talking head circuit. Other than that she needs to let others lead Democrats. Everyone has Clinton fatigue.
 
I admire her but it's time for her to run a University or become a board member...we need new blood.
 
No no, in the nomination phase of things there was plenty of names.

I'm simply asking about any Dem/Lib who would nominate her for the Dem ticket for POTUS.

Who would thing that's a good idea?

So yes, it's all about being pro-Clinton.

Or anti all the other DEM/LIB choices that might be competing for that ticket.

The vast majority of liberals don't in my experiences. She was nominated in a BS primary and then supported because people believe for what ever broken logic reasoning their was that she was the best person to beat Trump - or any other Republican. The Dems did (and they aren't alone in this) what they always do and don't put forth the best candidate they put forth the candidate they think had the best chance at winning.
 
Hmm... that (bolded above) is quite confusing and ignores the fact that Hillary won the demorat primary. If anyone was more famous than popular it was Trump.

She had the support that she had because people felt she had the best chance at beating Trump, not because people liked her. Her main competition was old crackpot socialist with unsustainable ideas that no one believed could win a national election. I don't have a way of knowing the exact number but I'd guess 3/4 of hte people who voted for her voted against Trump or for "D" more than "for" Clinton.

The Dem primary was/is a broken just like our electoral process for president.
 
I could easily have expounded on the reasons why people like Sanders, Biden and Clinton are politically passe' and how young and upcoming Democrats are carrying the message that younger voters are drawn to. Keep in mind that these are the same young voters that usually sit out the mid-terms and don't bother to vote. This time they made their voices heard. Younger Americans are less likely to vote according to a religious motivation, so they're not conservative as far as that goes. Millennial's have by far the largest portion of non-Trump supporters. They're going to support progressive stances on economic inequality, global warming, immigration and racial equality. The younger voter isn't going to vote for anyone who's not in favor of inclusion and will outright reject anyone that's in favor of excluding anyone based on their sexual orientation, race, religion or financial status.

Even though Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders each have a very energetic and supportive base, neither Sanders or Biden connects with them on the same level as a younger candidate will. Bernie Sanders' platform has been touted by newly elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, so he's not alone in his socialistic ideology. But voters who just turned 18 this year and voted for the first time, plus the thousands of Puerto Ricans that moved to the mainland U.S. will most certainly not be voting Republican but they will be voting for a progressive candidate that ticks all the boxes for them.

Unlike other Democrats, I really am not totally enthralled by either Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris although both are seen as the front-runner candidates for 2020. I have been watching, listening and following all the 'in the spotlight' potential runners and I've narrowed down my own personal preferences. Amy Klobuchar is my first choice because she's pretty low-keyed but I've seen her and Bernie Sanders in a live debate with Senator Bill Cassidy and Lindsay Graham, she out-debated them hands down. She was a long-time friend of Senator John McCain so she takes with her some of the better policies of McCain and has rejected his worst.

My second choice would be Senator Jeff Merkeley of Oregon. Jeff Merkely is a man that doesn't only talk the talk. These are two Senators that hardly anyone has sat up and taken notice of ....yet. But, hopefully as the time draws nearer to 2019, these two will step up and announce they're throwing their hats in the ring with the others.

I can tell you as a relatively young Millennial in his early 30s that I feel infinitely more connected with Bernie than I do Amy Klobuchar who completely lacks his trendsetting vision and initiative, and, despite having policy judgment notably better than many of her peers, falls short of his (like her vote for the disastrous military intervention in Libya). Moreover, given her lack of support for Medicare for All (last I checked, late in the summer), I'm not sure I could call her an actual progressive.

When you speak of the 'old guard' you seem to misconstrue what that actually means; it's not about the age of the person, or the length of time they've been in Washington, but their ideas; in this case, 'old guard' is, per the uniquely American context, the centrist/right of centre (more accurately described as right to far right by the metric of the rest of the developed world which has a more left leaning frame of reference) neoliberalism orthodoxy that has dominated Dem politics since the late 80s onwards. What people are tired of is policy makers that pay lip service to the working and middle class even as they pass legislation, subsidies and budgets in favour of the wealthy and their corporate donors, while using identity politics and social progressivism as a smokescreen for their lack of actual liberalism.


As to the topic itself, yes, Hillary should disappear from the political landscape forever.
 
LOL. Hillary did nothing but character assassination on Trump. Instead of telling people what her agenda was, she spent the entire time with character assassination and even calling people who supported Trump deplorables, while the left called everyone on the right racists, bigots, misogynists, and every other ist in the book. Now which side is better at character assassination?

You can't be serious.
Here's a place to start...

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...fter-she-was-ousted-from-the-administration-3

When Kelly pressed Trump about the incendiary he has made toward women in the past, which included calling women "fat pigs" and "slobs," Trump curtly responded, "only Rosie O'Donnell."

After the debate, Trump called Kelly a "bimbo" and "highly overrated."

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever," he said.
 
Back
Top Bottom