Law Hillary 2020? Trump better hope not. - Why Hillary Clinton would be well-positioned to win in a rematch

  • Iniciador del tema Iniciador del tema RG 448
  • Fecha de inicio Fecha de inicio
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
On Oct. 16, 11 months after defeating her, President Trump tweeted another of his regular insults about his 2016 opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. Sandwiched between boasts about his presumed role in the stock market’s rise and his rally in South Carolina, Trump wrote: “I was recently asked if Crooked Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2020? My answer was, ‘I hope so!’”

Putting aside the reckless braggadocio — and blatant sexism — inherent in such a statement, the entire scenario seemed absurd. Most pundits (and most of the American public) discount the idea of Clinton running in 2020, doubtful she could win the Democratic nomination, let alone the election, after her stunning loss to Trump. Clinton herself has stated that her political career is over, that she is more interested in speaking out against Trump as a private citizen.

Nevertheless, Trump should be careful what he wishes for. Clinton might not be a potential candidate now, but the political winds can change quickly. Recent American history is rife with presidential contenders who lost the primary or general election and then went on to become a candidate in subsequent elections. Dissatisfied with the politics of the day, lured by name recognition and preexisting loyalties, the public gave each of these candidates multiple chances at the presidency and handed several the keys to the White House.

Add to that Trump’s abysmally low approval ratings and inability to deliver on signature campaign promises (building a border wall, ending NAFTA and repealing the Affordable Care Act, to name a few), and Clinton could once more emerge as a serious challenger.

Political comebacks — even seemingly impossible ones — are actually regular occurrences in modern American politics. Richard Nixon remains the most (in)famous example. Nixon narrowly lost to John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election — only about 110,000 votes nationwide separated them — then ran for governor of California in 1962, only to lose that election. Nixon told the press after his defeat in 1962 that he was done with politics. “You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” he proclaimed.

But when Lyndon Johnson trounced conservative Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 (LBJ won all but six states), Nixon recast himself as the person best able to unite the factions within the GOP. Nixon’s chances were bolstered by a widespread opposition to the Vietnam War that fueled voters’ desire for a change in the White House. Nixon also courted Southern whites — who traditionally voted Democrat — dismayed over civil rights legislation and urban riots in the 1960s. Nixon ran for president again in 1968, capturing the Republican nomination and then the presidency.

Ronald Reagan shifted the Republican Party back to the right in 1980, but it wasn’t his first bid for the presidency. Reagan vied with Nixon in 1968 during the presidential primaries and at the Republican convention, and then challenged Gerald Ford in 1976 for the Republican nomination, where Reagan won enough key states, including Texas and California, to ensure a contested Republican convention that summer. Ford won the nomination at the convention, but after he lost to Jimmy Carter, Reagan became the favorite among Republicans in 1980. Reagan might have lost in 1980, too, had it not been for “stagflation” and the fall of detente between the United States and Soviet Union. High unemployment, inflation rates and oil prices in the late 1970s convinced many Americans that Reagan was right: Government, or at least President Carter, was the problem.

The Democrats have also had their own share of political rebirths since the 1950s, although their experiences may serve more as a caution to Clinton than an inspiration. Adlai Stevenson was nominated for president twice, and almost a third time. His first chance for the presidency came in 1952 where he lost to Dwight Eisenhower — badly. Stevenson won only 89 electoral votes. His humiliating defeat did not deter Democrats from nominating him again in 1956, but the Korean War was over, the economy was booming and Republicans claimed responsibility for both. The result was Stevenson achieving an even more abysmal showing than he had in 1952 — winning only 73 electoral votes.

After his second loss to Eisenhower, Stevenson (like Clinton) announced publicly he would not run in 1960. His decision did not stop his closest supporters, including Eleanor Roosevelt, from creating a “Draft Stevenson” movement at the 1960 Democratic convention. Many Democrats still believed Stevenson was the sole progressive who appealed to both the left and right wings of the party — to the radicals on workers’ rights and civil rights, as well as to southern Democrats. Stevenson changed his mind, but it was too late. John Kennedy was already the clear favorite among Democratic delegates.

Another Democratic candidate in 1960, Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey, was considered by members of his party to be “too liberal” for the presidency. Humphrey lost to the more moderate Kennedy in the 1960 primary, where he was outmatched by Kennedy’s money and political swagger. However, by 1968, now-Vice President Humphrey was the nominee.

Humphrey lost in 1968 for the same reason Nixon won: Vietnam. Voters viewed Humphrey as a patsy of Johnson and the war he (and Democrats) made. Humphrey went from the leading liberal to the liberals’ worst problem in eight short years. Humphrey ran again in 1972, but the 1968 election (and the chaos at the Democratic convention in Chicago that year) cast a pall over his liberal legacy, and the more left-wing George McGovern received the nomination

These are just a few examples from postwar American history. If Americans, including Trump, looked back further, they would find William Jennings Bryan, who was nominated three times for the Democratic ticket (1896, 1900 and 1908), or Democrat Al Smith, who lost the nomination in 1924 but won it in 1928 — and overcame white nationalist, anti-Catholic sentiments in the process. Not to mention Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912 after leaving politics in 1909.

Clinton could easily be counted among this distinguished group (in fact, she already is, having lost the Democratic nomination in 2008). Clinton still retains significant support within her party, and Democrats currently have no clear front-runner to replace her. Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have numerous financial backers willing to support her campaign, and the former nominee has a vibrant, large, motivated base of supporters angry at Trump, Russian interference in the election and former FBI director James B. Comey — in their minds, the collective robbers of Clinton’s presidency. Moreover, as Trump hates to be reminded, Clinton won the popular vote.

While Trump welcomes a Clinton challenge in 2020, he may find himself regretting it if voters come to believe they made a mistake and look to Clinton to rectify the wrong. Like Nixon and Reagan, Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures. If Trump pulls Americans into a new economic recession or an unpopular war or fails to follow through on his rhetoric (which looks likely), Hillary Clinton’s time out of office might prove temporary.

It would not be the first time in American history.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trump-better-hope-not/?utm_term=.4f147f6475ab
 
Bernie (despite his flaws, because all politicians have flaws) was far better than the two choices given to us in 2016. HRC is just a fossil of the boomer age, not to mention being out of touch with average Americans, which is why many people ages 18-35 were reluctant to vote for her.

I would like Bernie to run again, but apparently he's outcasted by the DNC. At this point, if that happens, it's who's done the worst and who will win. I would welcome her just to see people get riled up.
 
braggadocio
ˌbraɡəˈdəʊtʃɪəʊ/
noun

  1. boastful or arrogant behaviour.
I really hate it when journos use words that you gotta google. At least I assume it's not an often used word. This has happened an awful lot lately.
You seriously couldn't figure that one out from context and root word? What did you think a word that starts with "brag" was going to mean?
 
You seriously couldn't figure that one out from context and root word? What did you think a word that starts with "brag" was going to mean?

No. I seriously couldn't, because just having half the word doesn't mean I should pretend I knew what the rest of it was for because I'm not a stuck-up dick. To keep this on-topic, I see a lot of journos write like they're trying to squeeze their thesaurus dry more than ever. Again, if it is that common of a word in English, I wouldn't know because it's the first time I've seen it and it sounds like a pretentious way to call someone a "braggart." If I'm wrong on that, I do apologize for hurting your feelings.

i.e. lol calm down
 
2c9c4d92a5e46330b41ea19e12d8d933.png

So like this except that she was never elected in the first place.

Senator Skelly gets my vote. Too many of his brethren had their skulls fractured in "accidents" by Hillary.

For real though, losing to Donald broke her mind. If you want to run against an incumbent President you lost to in a prior election then you need, at a minimum, to still be in office so you can build your portfolio and have fresh policy achievements. Ideally you'd use these accomplishments to convince voters into voting for you this time. What has she done of note since November 2016 other than screeching "IT WAS MY TURN" ? Hell, what did she accomplish when she actually was in office?
 
Última edición:
For real though, losing to Donald broke her mind. If you want to run against an incumbent President you lost to in a prior election then you need, at a minimum, to still be in office so you can build your portfolio and have fresh policy achievements. Ideally you'd use these accomplishments to sway voters into voting for you this time. What has she done of note since November 2016 other than screeching "IT WAS MY TURN" ?
Why, she's fought bravely against Drumpf's sexism and misogyny and racism and IT'S HER TURN! IT WAS BASICALLY PROMISED!! Isn't that enough you sexist shitlord.!?!?

Sadly, I don't believe for a moment I'm being hyperbolic when I say the Dems and her supporters will use this as there reason why she should be in office.
 
On one hand, I would love to see the absolute hillarity this would create, but she'd probably bring no new material other than the same old tactics and slogans, and she'd be easy as fuck to trump, bringing little challenge or drama. Then again it might actually turn out to be even more chaotic than last time due to antics by her allies/supporters, and I'd pay to see that.
 
Última edición:
Something in me wants this to happen for pure comic relief but really, this bitch needs to retire. Like when you're able to lose to a living meme, that's God's way of saying it's quittin time.
 
In 2020, we will see the tradition of dead people voting Democrat mutate to dead people running as Democrats.
 
I sincerely hope this happens. She'll not only go down in flames, but take the whole fucking party with her.
 
"Trump finished THIS time, for sure." says frustrated newspaper columnist for the 300th time this year....
 
He's certainly more relatable than Hillary. I mean, there's a skeleton inside all of us.

Skeletons don't live inside of people! :tycesuit:

You ever see a fuckin' skeleton jump out of a fuckin' person? :tyceskullmask:

Back on topic, it'll never happen, with her impending health problems and age, it's not likely she'll even see 2020 in any kind of official capacity.

You're probably better off with Kanye West, who has expressed interest in running at some point.
 
Not only beat but beat by double digits.

Bernie (despite his flaws, because all politicians have flaws) was far better than the two choices given to us in 2016. HRC is just a fossil of the boomer age, not to mention being out of touch with average Americans, which is why many people ages 18-35 were reluctant to vote for her.

IMO Beto O'Rourke is probably Bernie's ideological successor. No PAC money. He's actually within the margin of error in polling against Ted Cruz, which is huge considering how red Texas is.
Well Bernie is also a boomer fossil. To be fair. He's just somewhat more in touch.
 
This article is so confusing. What is even the point of this?

After his second loss to Eisenhower, Stevenson (like Clinton) announced publicly he would not run in 1960. His decision did not stop his closest supporters, including Eleanor Roosevelt, from creating a “Draft Stevenson” movement at the 1960 Democratic convention. Many Democrats still believed Stevenson was the sole progressive who appealed to both the left and right wings of the party — to the radicals on workers’ rights and civil rights, as well as to southern Democrats. Stevenson changed his mind, but it was too late. John Kennedy was already the clear favorite among Democratic delegates.
Oh I see, so that's how we ended up with President Stevenson.

In other news Trump also stated that he strongly dislikes Obama and doesn't think he was a very good President.

How egotistic and racist of him!
Blatantly racist.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo