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
 
Hillary won't win if she runs again.

Trump's a symbol of progression for the political right. Throughout Trump's campaign, he utilized strategies that were not seen before, like how he used memes to his advantage. He was something new, and it worked.

Hillary is a repeat of everything we've seen before. And because she and her political party are arrogant (even while they're sucking Trump's dick for four years), she won't do anything new. She'll depend more on our rooted moral obligation to choose against "RACIST SEXIST DRUM" than on strategy. Hillary refuses to study before Wednesday's English test rolls along, and instead looks through her notes last minute and engages in ineffective cheating.

Though I will say, I can't wait for Trump's 2020 campaign. I don't agree with all his points and goals, I'll vote for someone else if given better options, but 2016 was a very entertaining year for politics and to have it repeat would be nothing short of a blessing.
 
Based on what? What group that stayed home would come out and vote this time around? And do so exclusively for Clinton? Are there enough disillusioned hardcore Trumpers who thought that he really would nuke the Arabs and gas all the troons, and now hate him because he didn't, that losing thier votes would swing it? And are there numbers so large they wouldn't be counterbalanced by disaffected moderate democrats who toed the party line like good soldiers in the election now feeling lost amongs loons and willing to back the opposition by virtue of it not being unhinged?

Trump didn't win in 2016 because of any "hardcore" group of supporters, he won in large part because a disaffected section of the politically unaffiliated decided to take a gamble on a novelty candidate out of spite. It wasn't the decisive ideological victory many are keen to hype it up to be; he didn't even win the popular vote.

The numbers confirm that the result of the 2016 election hinged primarily upon two factors: 1) low voter turnout, and 2) electoral college math. All it will take for the vote to swing the other way in 2020 is for the disaffected group of voters to feel that their gamble hasn't paid off, and for Democrats to come back determined not to repeat the tactical error of not coming out to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is. I don't know why you think that this is so unlikely, especially given that the number of people who disapprove of Trump's performance now significantly outweighs the number of people who approve of it.

That opinion isn't based on anything but wishfulness. Trump has had more success (Economy, North Korean relations, no new wars) than setbacks (the first month revolving door White House staff, failing to totally rollback ACA) and his popularity is trending up, the economic success in particular ensures that barring a major flub, or recession, people will keep voting for whatever appears to be working.

If you consider all the scandals, lies, diplomatic embarrassments, and broken promises, I don't see how you can claim that his successes outweigh his blunders. He is measurably one of the most scandal-laden and dishonest US Presidents in history.

And? China needs the U.S. far more than the U.S. needs China.

China has export markets all over the world. The United States meanwhile, relies primarily upon China for imports. In what way do you fathom that China needs the US more than the other way around? China sells 80% the amount it sells to the US to Hong Kong alone.
 
If you consider all the scandals, lies, diplomatic embarrassments, and broken promises, I don't see how you can claim that his successes outweigh his blunders. He is measurably one of the most scandal-laden and dishonest US Presidents in history.
Yeah that's about all I need to hear to understand where all of these opinions came from.
 
Trump didn't win in 2016 because of any "hardcore" group of supporters, he won in large part because a disaffected section of the politically unaffiliated decided to take a gamble on a novelty candidate out of spite. It wasn't the decisive ideological victory many are keen to hype it up to be; he didn't even win the popular vote.
And when the only real alternative is Hillary Clinton, one of the most corrupt career politicians in recent memory, of course people would vote for what they (at the time) considered to be the lesser of two evils.
he didn't even win the popular vote
I don't think you understand how U.S. elections work. It's not who wins the most votes total that matters, but who wins the most votes state-by-state. Because winning the popular vote (in this day and age) really only means that more high-population coastal cities voted for you than the other guy.

Also, this.
The numbers confirm that the result of the 2016 election hinged primarily upon two factors: 1) low voter turnout, and 2) electoral college math.
1. The voter turnout of 2016, was in the same bar as in 2008 and 2012, with voter turnout (worryingly) seeming to dip each successive generation. Then again, voter turnout hasn't even reached the 70% mark since 1900, and I'm not sure what your criteria for low turnout is anyway.
2. And? Do you not understand the reason the electoral college exists in the first place?
All it will take for the vote to swing the other way in 2020 is for the disaffected group of voters to feel that their gamble hasn't paid off, and for Democrats to come back determined not to repeat the tactical error of not coming out to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is.
I haven't heard of any Trump supporters feeling that their "gamble" hasn't paid off. And considering that a good portion of Democrats don't believe in voting anyway, turnout from them is a wash.
I don't know why you think that this is so unlikely, especially given that the number of people who disapprove of Trump's performance now significantly outweighs the number of people who approve of it.
I highly doubt it. Sources please.
If you consider all the scandals, lies, diplomatic embarrassments, and broken promises, I don't see how you can claim that his successes outweigh his blunders. He is measurably one of the most scandal-laden and dishonest US Presidents in history.
I shall take this to mean that you are gullible enough to swallow all of the manufactured controversies, outright lies, and media spins made against him to propagandize for leftists.

Because otherwise, provide one legitimate example of any of that.

China has export markets all over the world. The United States meanwhile, relies primarily upon China for imports. In what way do you fathom that China needs the US more than the other way around? China sells 80% the amount it sells to the US to Hong Kong alone.
Economy is not just about international trading, it also requires running domestic affairs too.

And the fact of the matter is that the U.S. has a better (in fact, literally hegemonic) economic position than China, due to running better domestic affairs. And to the fact that the China's economy isn't as stable as one might think, as well as the tariffs having already been shown to negatively impact China, as admitted by even CNBC. And, as the BBC also admit, China can't fight back directly.
 
I'd also like a complete list of the Presidential Scandals... as he's apparently the "most scandal ridden" Pres in history (your words not mine, and he did it only 2 years!) it shouldn't be hard to come up with at least 4 or 5 big ones.... they are........
 
And when the only real alternative is Hillary Clinton, one of the most corrupt career politicians in recent memory, of course people would vote for what they (at the time) considered to be the lesser of two evils.

Actually, Bernie Sanders could've been the primary had it not been for Clinton name sake. Why in American politics, the "lesser of two evils" argument goes over people's heads when BOTH don't deserve the presidency but have money and influence to buy themselves in?
 
Actually, Bernie Sanders could've been the primary had it not been for Clinton name sake. Why in American politics, the "lesser of two evils" argument goes over people's heads when BOTH don't deserve the presidency but have money and influence to buy themselves in?
And then Bernie Sanders cucked towards Hillary Clinton, revealing himself to be an absolute pussy in every way imaginable.

It's the reason I don't put much stock in him becoming an Independent. It doesn't matter which side you're on when you're a coward.

And how does Trump not deserve the presidency? He's been doing a pretty good job so far.

I'd also like a complete list of the Presidential Scandals... as he's apparently the "most scandal ridden" Pres in history (your words not mine, and he did it only 2 years!) it shouldn't be hard to come up with at least 4 or 5 big ones.... they are........
*waits for list of mainstream media news stories*
 
Última edición:
And how does Trump not deserve the presidency. He's been doing a pretty good job so far.

Being a bad businessman for one. I'm sure those failed ventures has affected people in some way. What about these farmers that need assistance, but the White House hasn't responded yet? Several people he hired are leaving in spades or is inexperienced in their jobs. Do you believe that the backlash he's getting because of his brash, no holds barred attitude is unwarranted?
 
If you consider all the scandals, lies, diplomatic embarrassments, and broken promises, I don't see how you can claim that his successes outweigh his blunders. He is measurably one of the most scandal-laden and dishonest US Presidents in history.

I'm sorry what? Anyone who has a memory longer than a goldfish knows of Hillarys seemingly endless scandals and lies. And we aren't even getting into the invesitgation of the Clinton foundation and her business deals during her stint as Secretary of State.

sniper.jpg


super.jpg


clinton.jpg


 
Being a bad businessman for one. I'm sure those failed ventures has affected people in some way.
You don't make billions being a "failed businessman". In fact, if I see someone manage to make billions despite so many "failed ventures", and there is no evidence of fraud on him, then obviously I'm missing something there.
What about these farmers that need assistance, but the White House hasn't responded yet?
I'm not going to trust a Washington Post version of accounts, and Trump already redid a trade deal with Mexico, which should be good for farmers.
Several people he hired are leaving in spades or is inexperienced in their jobs.
To get replaced by better, more experienced people. Assuming that was even necessarily bad in the firstplace.
Do you believe that the backlash he's getting because of his brash, no holds barred attitude is unwarranted?
I don't know. Some might consider that "brash, no holds barred attitude" a positive quality of his.

Because at (the very) least, he doesn't cuck to leftists.
 
I don't think Hillary will run again, and I certainly don't want her to, but I can't deny that it would be interesting to see who would win if it came down to her and Trump again. I think given Trump's current performance and popularity, she might actually stand a decent chance of winning in the event of a rematch.

I will admit that a small part of me actually wants this to happen, for no other reason than to witness the inevitable Twitter meltdown from Trump and his supporters.

Democrats have put up the losing candidate in a rematch with the president who already defeated them twice before already (they're the only American political party to have done so, in fact), and both times it resulted in a bigger electoral loss. Unless Trump gets the country into an astoundingly unpopular war or the economy crashes there is no way Hillary wins a rematch. The independents who already voted against her in 2016 aren't going to suddenly think she's a better option when the media-promised end of the world didn't come after Trump's inauguration. She has even more baggage now than she did going into the last election, what with her stubborn refusal to fucking leave the limelight and former campaign workers publishing embarrassing tell-alls about just how corrupt and incompetent that electoral campaign was.
 
I don't know. Some might consider that "brash, no holds barred attitude" a positive quality of his.

I can see that a lot of you are positive about the current administration, and I can respect that I suppose. What I want to figure out is why in this case, the media is lying and throwing it out of proportion when it has been the case for years? And any criticism towards Trump is misguided?

EDIT: Downrate me all you want. Eager to learn and see point of view.
 
I can see that a lot of you are positive about the current administration, and I can respect that I suppose. What I want to figure out is why in this case, the media is lying and throwing it out of proportion when it has been the case for years? And any criticism towards Trump is misguided?

EDIT: Downrate me all you want. Eager to learn and see point of view.

Because Trump is a shitlord and you are posting here. Tribalism is real.
 
I can see that a lot of you are positive about the current administration, and I can respect that I suppose. What I want to figure out is why in this case, the media is lying and throwing it out of proportion when it has been the case for years? And any criticism towards Trump is misguided?
Because the media decided that Donald Trump was the SatanHitler to Hillary Clinton's GodJesus, having colluded with the DNC, and thus is pushing a now-perpetual smear campaign against Donald Trump.

And no, not all criticism of Trump is misguided. But the constant A-Logging of him has completely muddied the waters of real critiques of his actions and policies.
 
now-perpetual smear campaign against Donald Trump.
Like how some news outlets was towards Obama? I'd figured it's par the course with politics.

But the constant A-Logging of him was completely muddied the waters of real critiques of his actions and policies.
That is a legitimate point, some even act like they say Trump does (and worse at time). However, one point I want to bring up is toxicity breeds toxicity. Earlier you pointed out that some people see Trump's brash attitude as a positive, okay fine. But expect that same behavior to be directed towards you as well. I don't agree with either of their behavior, and he attracts that sort of behavior in a way.
 
Being a bad businessman for one. I'm sure those failed ventures has affected people in some way. What about these farmers that need assistance, but the White House hasn't responded yet? Several people he hired are leaving in spades or is inexperienced in their jobs. Do you believe that the backlash he's getting because of his brash, no holds barred attitude is unwarranted?
The reason he's getting such a backlash is because he's tearing apart "The Big Club" and the "Old Guard." He's throwing all of these unfair trade deals that the "Big Club" has been setting up for decades into a meat grinder, and it's going to cost them billions now, and trillions of dollars later down the line. They were all setting us up to outsource and brutalize the economic core of America, and then some loud-mouthed weirdo with stupid hair kicked the door down and started going all Cleansing of the Temple on the place. They ain't happy, and they have a lot of money and a lot of influence when it comes to mounting a retaliation.

In the same breath, all the Old Guard are being chased out of politics, either because they're so mired in corruption that they can't keep their feet on the floor for two damned seconds without getting knocked upside the head again, or because Trump and his administration have been proving that even though these people have been in office longer than some of us have even been alive, they're essentially fucking dead weight who have been disconnected from the general population for so long that they can't even fathom how the everyman lives, to say nothing of how important just a few thousand dollars could be to a regular family.

I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the farmers, though. He literally talks about the farmers almost every other day--including today--and one of the biggest points behind this "Tariff War" is to help American farmers get their feet off the ground by telling China and Europe to eat a dick and start playing ball.
 
Not sure I agree that outsourcing is some brutalization of the American core. Markets don't really care about patriotic feelings, and nor should they. You are trying to twist capitalism into something it is not.

Trump has a point in regards to unfair trade deals. He is going about the problem in the wrong way.
 
I can see that a lot of you are positive about the current administration, and I can respect that I suppose. What I want to figure out is why in this case, the media is lying and throwing it out of proportion when it has been the case for years? And any criticism towards Trump is misguided?

EDIT: Downrate me all you want. Eager to learn and see point of view.

Criticism of Trump isn't unwarranted, but making it front page news about how he got two scoops of ice cream and feeds the fish wrong isn't valid criticism, it's being petty and childish. And 90% of the media's critical takes on him are of that category, the actual bad stuff he does (pardoning crazy Sheriff Joe Arpaio after a lot of people dilligently worked to get his corrupt ass ousted and convicted, and offering him a cabinet level position? WTF?) is lost amid screeching over having tiny hands and how he'll be impeached any day now for something something Russia......

The media has become the Boy who Cried Drumpf! when every decision he makes is reported as the wrong one, he has a ready made defense for his actual missteps (They always say that!) and the public is too outrage-fatigued to care.....

An antagonistic press is one thing, a press that's nothing but incoherent white noise does everyone a disservice. And should be called out as such.

I'm not defending Trump (didn't even vote for him) I'm demanding the media act professional and do a competent job. I can still remember a time when the joke was the Washington Post was the lefty-rag of a paper, not ALL of them.
 
Última edición:
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo