Hillary running for president in 2020 again...?

a reply to: intrepid

You do realize voting in the Democratic primaries is pointless? They just pick who they want. Have you not learned anything from the last round??

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: intrepid

You do realize voting in the Democratic primaries is pointless? They just pick who they want. Have you not learned anything from the last round??

And the round before Obama upset Hillary.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: intrepid

You do realize voting in the Democratic primaries is pointless? They just pick who they want. Have you not learned anything from the last round??

Well, it is a political party, but ... besides that fact.

I guess I'm going to start chanting this everytime it comes up. Sanders was on every primary ballot. Based soley on the voting of Democrats in the primary, Clinton was awarded 2205 delegates and Sanders 1846. Yes, the Superdelegates voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. Bernie was not cheated out of the nomination.

I certainly hope it is true....I would thoroughly enjoy the explosion that would inevitably happen when she lost again.

Would that make her the most losing presidential candidate in history?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I certainly hope it is true....I would thoroughly enjoy the explosion that would inevitably happen when she lost again.

Would that make her the most losing presidential candidate in history?

She'd have to go several more times to overtake Nader.

And LaRouche for that matter.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Would that make her the most losing presidential candidate in history?

No. I'd have to go with...

a reply to: intrepid

LOL ... forgot about Pat.

a reply to: putnam6

I like to consider myself fairly decent...but like most other fairly decent folks, I've skeletons--a couple of which I've no great desire to have bandied about being used to defame my character.

There's no way in Hell I'd put myself, or my family, through that sort of wringer.

While I'm sure I could do a halfway decent job of it once there, the process of getting there is not something I'd be able to deal with. Selling my soul, promising the moon, whilst lying to your face isn't something I can do. Y'know?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: putnam6

I like to consider myself fairly decent...but like most other fairly decent folks, I've skeletons--a couple of which I've no great desire to have bandied about being used to defame my character.

There's no way in Hell I'd put myself, or my family, through that sort of wringer.

While I'm sure I could do a halfway decent job of it once there, the process of getting there is not something I'd be able to deal with. Selling my soul, promising the moon, whilst lying to your face isn't something I can do. Y'know?

Not to mention (and I know my tin-foil hat is showing) I wouldn't want to have "The Talk" with the PTB that I'm sure the elected President always gets. I'm good with the Men in Black remaining as characters in a movie...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: darkuniverse


What would her platform be? What would be her selling point(s)?

"Make America Worse Again"

a reply to: Bone75

I'll just leave this here

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JosephKnecht

Not the "Lolita Express," but a different plane owned by Epstein. This information comes from a court filing quoting the "testimony" of Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Mark, in a deposition. This plane ride was not on the notorious "Lolita Express," and it was described as giving Trump a ride back to New York from Florida in the "90s." This seems to be the only time Trump flew with Epstein. Trump's name did not appear on any flight logs of the Lolita Express, unlike Clinton's name, for example.

...and it's penile btw.

Thanks for the laugh.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I certainly hope it is true....I would thoroughly enjoy the explosion that would inevitably happen when she lost again.

Would that make her the most losing presidential candidate in history?

She'd have to go several more times to overtake Nader.

And LaRouche for that matter.

What about from a major party?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I certainly hope it is true....I would thoroughly enjoy the explosion that would inevitably happen when she lost again.

Would that make her the most losing presidential candidate in history?

She'd have to go several more times to overtake Nader.

And LaRouche for that matter.

What about from a major party?

Nixon ran twice, won the second.

GHW Bush ran twice, won the first, lost the second.

Hillary ran twice, lost both times.

a reply to: darkuniverse

I can’t see the Democratic Party running her again as unpopular a candidate as she obviously was. She will just lose them another election. My god, can’t they come up with someone better? For being a party that is supposedly so progressive they keep running the same people over and over. IMHO she is political poison.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Digging deeper though....Hillary was already reported to have a 45-to-1 superdelegate advantage over Sanders two months before the Iowa caucuses, IIRC. However, the eventual total won delegates did not reflect nearly that much support for Hillary amongst regular voters.

Since the superdelegates have until the convention to decide which candidate they will vote for, then it should not be announced before then who they've said they intend to vote for.

It's bad enough these superdelegates get so much more voting power, but to give them that much more influence, too? I think it stinks. Especially since the DNC raised a huge fuss over Florida and Michigan moving up their primary dates, in 2008, because they wanted more influence -- and DNC party leaders resolved to seat their delegates with each one having only half a vote as a punishment.

I don't know why anyone would want to belong to a party that values an arbitrary handful of 'elite' party members so much more than regular party members. The superdelegate system, as is, allows the party leadership to influence the voters and shape public perception on which candidate is stronger.

If the media withholds election exit poll results until the polls close to avoid trying to influence voters -- and they do -- then they should do the same with the superdelegate count. The fact that they don't and are provided that information to report on suggests that the DNC wants the superdelegates to influence the voters.

It's difficult to say how much the superdelegates influenced the 2016 Democratic primary, but it did influence it and in Hillary's favor.

Obviously, they are a private party and can make their own rules, but their rules suck.

a reply to: openminded2011

She, quite obviously, wasn't that unpopular. At least in states that historically, and hysterically, vote democrat most of the time, and urban areas in the other states.

It was remarkable, looking at the by county breakdown of the election results...even in California which Clinton won convincingly, she was routed outside the urban areas.

I think she'd probably do better than many of us think. God forbid, she agrees with me.

If she does and gets the nod the Democratic party has lost my support. If they don't find someone with a good selling point or with solid foundation it's over. So far all I get out of the party is Trump did something bad, insert piss and moan or Trump did something good, insert more piss and moans. That is what the Democratic party has digressed to.

originally posted by: intrepid
This is what the primaries are about. Vote for someone else. She's toxic. Don't allow her the traction Dems. You DO have the power. I've always said that more energy should be put in by the voter in the primaries.

That's the problem though. If she's the "chosen one" or if she self anoints herself here the primaries don't matter. They just had a lawsuit where they basically said (The Democratic leadership) that it's okay if they don't play fair in the primaries because it doesn't go against their charter...basically it's not illegal to rig a primary.

Sanders would have one on a fair playing field.

So if she does run, that Makes a Second Trump Term inevitable.

The only way to stop her is to go third party, like Green party or maybe some new progressive party.

This is the best news I have heard all week....

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If the media withholds election exit poll results until the polls close to avoid trying to influence voters -- and they do -- then they should do the same with the superdelegate count. The fact that they don't and are provided that information to report on suggests that the DNC wants the superdelegates to influence the

Bingo.

You may recall, but I've always kind of suspected that it was possible Seth Rich wasn't killed because he leaked to wikileaks, but that he was going to be a witness in an exit polling case.

The whole superdelegate thing that the DNC uses is so easily steered in the direction of their choosing (regardless of what the people they're supposed to be representing want) so it is easy to see why they are loathe to alter those procedures. Private party, private rules...ya know.

I don't know why in the flying F Hillary would ever want to show her face in public again, yet she refuses to fade away. The two of them on that commercial flight (that was not coach) seems so out of character.

Despite what some may wish, the Clintons are not free and clear just yet.

I think that most of the rats have fled or are looking to flee the sinking ship that is what's left of previous administrations traps and assorted muck left to prevent the current one from being effective.

Does Hillary still hold the purse strings of the DNC, how are the finances of the party after the previous election, are anyone in the DNC leadership out promoting their platform, or are they merely involved in the politcs of personal destruction?

The DNC is in shambles, and I don't think they know it.