Do you think he will be re-elected in 2020?
I think that if the Democrats bring out Hilary again he will win it.
shareI don't see the democrats doing that again. The democrats are too motivated to win then to risk it all on hilary again. They'll probably run a candidate that looks like a moderate to give the middle (political middle) an alternative candidate to root for. The irony will be that trump now being comfortable being president will actually start campaigning like he actually wants to win the election this time around.
shareCan't see the Dems doing that either, even if she did run, which I've seen no indication that she even plans to.
The irony is that Hillary was a moderate too. She just didn't inspire enough support from her base who didn't trust her and for which she did nothing to win their confidence.
Compared to Sanders I guess hilary was the moderate. We all know Clinton wants to get back in the race but the party really needs to win an election so they can't really back her.
shareI can't think of any issues Hillary wasn't moderate on can you?
shareI really don't feel like arguing about subjective opinions I'm just commenting on my suspicions on how the 2020 election will play out.
shareNot trying to start an argument, it's just a genuine question since it sounded like you were skeptical of her being a moderate and only in relation to Sanders.
I'm just wondering if, objectively speaking, there were actually any issues which conservatives like yourself recognized she was not moderate on that I'm blinded to since I'm viewing her from the left.
From the perspective of a right leaing centrist like me It was hard to really hear here moderate views when she herself claimed to be a progressive over a moderate. True for some reason most democrats viewed her as being a moderate. She did have a way of angering the crowed that followed her to drum up support which came across as being more left then moderate from the view of people that don't understand she's just rallying her base to get to the polls. This is probably much the same way the left sees trump rattling up his base as well.
The 2016 elections were the strangest turn of events I ever recall in my life.
That's a fair answer.
The only issue I can think of off the top of my head that might have been perceived by some conservatives as not moderate was her stance on gun control. It was hardly extreme by any objective measure, but it was more left than the stance Sanders held.
But I agree, there was a notable lack of substantive policy discussions (or at the very least it was drowned out to the point where it's hard to remember any) in the circus atmosphere of the general election so I can understand why someone from the right not following her that closely in the primaries might have been unfamiliar with her positions.
The irony is that Hillary was a moderate too. She just didn't inspire enough support from her base who didn't trust her and for which she did nothing to win their confidence.
this is true. share
She did win the popular vote, though - by 3M I think? - so she was the right candidate (IMO). If T-rump beat her in a landslide, or beat her by 1,000 votes, then I could see where the concern would come in. Yet she did what she set out to do (not knowing she was up against the Russians interfering with our elections).
share Thats kind of my point. She coulden't even beat trump who as far as we can all tell was destined to loose the 2016 election. Trump clearly didn't expect to win he was already preparing for the "The election was rigged" excuse in the weeks that led up to the election. He also made it a point to not spend his on money on the campaign as even he was caught off guard that he won.
While its possible the democrats could win with Hilary on their ticket it is still going to be a tough fight considering how unliked hilary is. The democrats need to run a likable candidate and just hope that republicans that don't like trump(There are a lot of us) don't show up to vote. That is there ticket to success not running a unneeded gambit like running an old hat like hilary thats already shown she can't deliver even against a tyrant like Trump.
When trump took the GOP primary a lot of us were like "Fuck it!!" thinking it was over for another 4 years.
I'm curious as to what you mean by 'Hillary already showing she can't deliver against a tyrant like Trump' ?
With a 3 million vote win over him in the popular vote, don't you think she already did deliver? Without Russian interference in our election (and I believe that happened without a doubt) don't you think she would be in the Oval Office right now?
She didn't win the actual election. I mean like for real she should have bulldozed trump but its hilary after all too many people know her and her policies and personality. We had a fairly good idea that trump was a cry baby that got lucky and I'm sure a lot of his supporters will go on to claim they didn't really know who he was before voting for him(after his term as president and certainly when if if he loses) but we all knew to well who hilary was. The democrats should consider running a clean start candidate and likeable candidate right off the bat for the next election. Hilary is too toxic.
shareShe would've won had she campaigned in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. She skipped all three thinking they were in the bag. All three hadn't been lost by a democrat since Mondale, and even Dukakis won Wisconsin.
It was a serious miscalculation on her part, but it's primarily because she is a terrible campaigner. That is how Obama and Axelrod systematically dismantled her in the 2008 primaries.
Then right before the 2016 election we find out the DNC was cheating Bernie in the primaries. She already had the superdelegates on her side to win, but that wasn't enough. She had to stretch the rules because she doesn't know how to campaign, and both sides were hammering her over Wall Street transcripts. Then on top of it there was the Comey letter.
In 2016, Hillary got hit with everything, but over half of it was her own wrongdoing.
That said, I doubt she has any intention of running a third time. It will indeed be interesting to see who the candidate will be - Warren? Biden? Avenatti? Harris? Booker?
shareIf it isn't Sanders or Warren then it won't matter. Maybe another populist emerges, but I don't think any of the current establishment names will beat Trump when he has incumbency on his side.
shareThat's true she won by 3 million and that surplus came from winning California by 4.2 million votes.
And it's true, there were numerous variables that ended up working against her, primarily Russian fake news efforts and social media manipulation that somehow knew to which states and precincts to target, and the Comey October surprise. Subtract either of those elements and it likely would have made a difference with regards to those 80,000 votes in the rust belt.
But there were also variables within her control that could have made a difference as well, such as stumping in those midwest states Trump visited frequently that she took for granted.
Michael Moore was on Bill Maher a few weeks back discussing how she ended up losing Michigan by less than a point when that's a state that never should have been close. It was partially the fault of Obama who turned the whole Flint water crises into a PR stunt and Hillary's neglect to come out even though precinct captains were begging her to visit to reassure dem rank and file who were very disillusioned over the whole thing.
I agree - her strategy was far from flawless. Yet going up against Comey and unknown Russian interference was impossible at best. (IMO). She didn’t have a fair chance at winning.
Speaking of which -one thing I’ve always wondered: was there any questions asked if Russia helped T-rump in the GOP primaries?
Oh definitely. There's a long digital trail of twitter trolls from IRA out in force within days he entered the race. Rubio and Lindsey Graham were huge targets because of their hardline anti-Russia stance and Rubio reported his office had been heavily hit by Russian hackers. The DC Leaks dumps included email dumps of Trump's biggest Republican critics at the time, McCain and Lindsey, even though the Republican email dumps barely made a blip in the media in summer of '16 when it happened.
According to Senate testimony from former FBI agent Clint Watts the Russians began test messaging alt-right audiences as early as 2015 to figure out how best to market to them and testified that the candidacies of Rubio, Jeb, and Lindsey were hurt most by Russian efforts.
Thanks for the info! I never heard anything about it the past two years (maybe because I was paying so much attention to the Presidential election itself and the Russian interference).
shareSome of that's obscure info that was barely mentioned in MSM so I wouldn't expect you would. I work in infosec in the time spent in between geeking on political news during the Trump era so I was following all that stuff closely when it happened. :)
share