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
 
Can the Dems collapse already so we can be done with this BS??? That's what really needs to happen at this rate. And for good measure, do the same to the Repubs at some point, too. I'm tired of this and would rather see the Empire from Star Wars rule us, just for fucking fun at this point - maybe give humanity some perspective: don't be a Hillary Rotten, or else.
 
She probably will have a hard time winning even the primary. She struggled against Bernie in a rigged primary. During the primary she and her buddies who run the DNC made sure everything was in her favor. Only a handful of debates and scheduled them on weekends when big sporting events were going on. Made sure the media ignored Bernie as much as possible while praising Hillary as a Queen nonstop.

Wasn't the media pushing for Hillary since Bill left the office? I swear that a lot of journalists were worshipping her back in the early 00's. Bernie was playing against a stacked deck.
 
See while I would love to see Hillary run, a small part of me is apprehensive. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but what are the odds she'd just outright steal the election? We think we know how low she'd stoop to get what she wants, so what's keeping her from it?
 
Última edición:
Because you can't steal it...... Trump just proved that..... with every media source backing her, every shill shilling their hearts out, every pundit singing her praises, every pollster saying she's going to win by a bajillion votes.... and she lost.

At the end of the day, for all the cynicism, for all the negativity, for all the scorn and derision heaped on the "average voter" you cannot "steal" a US election, you still have to win it by popularity of platform. Yes, I do honestly believe it, change my mind....
 
Having Hillary be the DNC's primary candidate for 2020 would be an utterly shortsighted, out of touch, arrogant, and foolish move, which is why I think they would at least try to push for her. Since the DNC has shown that they've learned absolutely nothing from their defeat in 2016, and seeing how much sway the Clintons still hold on them, I'd be more surprised if they don't try to shove her down America's throat again.
 
Running her again would be one of the most exceptional things the DNC has done over the most recent years.

I really hope they do, so Trump can get a easy victory 2020.

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.

From my understanding, Hillary virtually owns the DNC. I mean look at her recent essay about Trump. It was virtually every anti-trump article the media has used since he won the election. I don't think Bernie even had a chance. Even if Hillary decided that she would step aside and let Bernie run, you can be pretty damn sure she would have final say over everything he said and did. I mean look at him now after the election, he's been acting like Hillary stooped assistant Igor.

I think she's the one calling the shots. And I'm wondering who would run in 2020 because I think they would essentially have to answer to Hillary.
 
He also has yet to collapse in front of a swarm of media cameras.

True, but he did get nudged off the stage by two shrieking BLM kweens. It's not quite as pathetic as shitting yourself on a picturesque Fall day and getting thrown in a van like a sack of potatoes, but it ain't much better.
 
From my understanding, Hillary virtually owns the DNC. I mean look at her recent essay about Trump. It was virtually every anti-trump article the media has used since he won the election. I don't think Bernie even had a chance. Even if Hillary decided that she would step aside and let Bernie run, you can be pretty damn sure she would have final say over everything he said and did. I mean look at him now after the election, he's been acting like Hillary stooped assistant Igor.

I think she's the one calling the shots. And I'm wondering who would run in 2020 because I think they would essentially have to answer to Hillary.

I pretty much agree that she's calling the shots despite not being in an actual leadership role at the DNC. Perez, Schumer, and Pelosi are all HRC-type politicians. I was hoping Libertarians and Greens would make waves but both parties have either conspiracy nuts or anti-vaxxers.
 
Because you can't steal it...... Trump just proved that..... with every media source backing her, every shill shilling their hearts out, every pundit singing her praises, every pollster saying she's going to win by a bajillion votes.... and she lost.

At the end of the day, for all the cynicism, for all the negativity, for all the scorn and derision heaped on the "average voter" you cannot "steal" a US election, you still have to win it by popularity of platform. Yes, I do honestly believe it, change my mind....

This. Our politics may be a circus, but people forget that our elections are not. The federal government and the political parties have no direct authority over the elections. They are all handled by the states, which means any conspiracy would need to subvert up to 50 independent electoral commissions. After that, they would need to make sure Aunt May who has volunteered to run the local precinct at smallville high school for the last 30 years does not notice anything untoward. Honestly I sleep easy at night knowing those nice old ladies are organising the ballots and checking the registers.

Also, why is it always women running the polls? I thought this was a tyrannical patriarchy.
 
He's literally just trolling her because she won't shut the fuck up about it. She's pretty much the Chris-Chan of politicians.
 
This. Our politics may be a circus, but people forget that our elections are not. The federal government and the political parties have no direct authority over the elections. They are all handled by the states, which means any conspiracy would need to subvert up to 50 independent electoral commissions. After that, they would need to make sure Aunt May who has volunteered to run the local precinct at smallville high school for the last 30 years does not notice anything untoward. Honestly I sleep easy at night knowing those nice old ladies are organising the ballots and checking the registers.

Also, why is it always women running the polls? I thought this was a tyrannical patriarchy.

It's why the "Muh Russian Super Haxorz!" narrative they tried so hard on was so laughable, there is no way to subvert the system and actually change votes at the local level without someone, a lot of someones, noticing. It is impossible to break into all those ballot boxes and steal/change votes without leaving any trace, but that's exactly what the D establishment decided to believe instead of the fact they put the shittiest possible candidate forward given the socioeconomic circumstances most voters were facing.... they were so out of touch they not only didn't know what the American voter wanted, they didn't even know HOW said voter's actual vote gets counted.... but it's not THEM that's the problem, it's us for not falling for their empty promises and being brainwashed by Russian internet memes or "tampering" something.... they aren't too sure exactly how they did it, they just know THEYS DID IT!.

In essence, they can't believe the will of the electorate can still show through no matter how much they try and work to manipulate it. Ironically, they see this resistance to being sold lies as proof someone ELSE is tampering from the other side and doing it better.

The validity of election results is one of the few things I still have total trust in when it comes to the political system of this country, due to it's highly-dispersed and locally-guarded nature.
 
Última edición:
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo