Why not Hillary Clinton for 2020?

[starlord]

If we're going to retread this history then lets n9t forgo Hillary's arrogant presumption.

what exactly are you referring to?

[Shadowferal]

what exactly are you referring to?

People forget that she didn't bother to campaign in areas that she could have won had she paid attention rather than dismiss them because she didn't think she could lose them.

[ipaq]

Because the US voters are not evolved enough yet to vote for a woman.

She barely won the popular vote to an orange trash bag...

She came extremely close to beating Trump in the 2016 election with her establishment popularity, and now with the impeachment scandal over Trumps head, it would seem like she would be a shoe in this time around. Why not stick with the devil we know rather than risking it on another random Democratic candidate?

[starlord]

People forget that she didn't bother to campaign in areas that she could have won had she paid attention rather than dismiss them because she didn't think she could lose them.

in hindsight it was a tactical error, but hindsight is 20/20. a campaign has to be selective about their resources and not spread too thin.
its not arrogance to think time could be better spent elsewhere than placed which seemed to have solid support already.

[Shadowferal]

She didn't think she could lose. And with all but one poll claiming she had it all but wrapped up she got cocky. Hell I think there was only two people here posting that she was making the mistake of arrogance and not one of the gop supporters here thought Trump would actually win.
It's the big reason why House rules were changed regarding investigations.

[Spectral]

what exactly are you referring to?

People forget that she didn't bother to campaign in areas that she could have won had she paid attention rather than dismiss them because she didn't think she could lose them.

This is right and deserves some further elaboration. It's not just post hoc peanut gallery talk, her poor strategy was becoming clear to people paying attention before the election. As an example, let's look at this Atlantic article from November 2, 2016:

Hillary Clinton’s easiest path to an Electoral College majority does not include Ohio, Florida, or North Carolina.

Yet those three states all rank at the very top of the list of locales where she has invested the most time and advertising spending, especially in the campaign’s critical closing weeks. By contrast, the campaign has devoted very little advertising or time from Clinton and her top surrogates in several of the states that are part of her core strategy for reaching 270 Electoral College votes—among them Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, and New Mexico.

The Clinton team’s decision to focus so much more attention on states that it wants to win—as opposed to those it believes it needs to win—represents one of the central, if often unremarked upon, choices of the 2016 election.

“For a Republican nominee to breach the ‘blue wall’ of Wisconsin and Michigan, they need to invest in those states and hope for a national tide to come in,” said Brent McGoldrick, the co-founder of the Republican voter-targeting firm Deep Root Analytics. “It’s possible she left herself open to that breach.”

She famously didn't campaign in Wisconsin at all, but not because of a lack of resources, but because of quixotic, arrogant quests to try to secure an electoral blowout.

For example, this Guardian article from the same day as above:

On Wednesday, Clinton will visit the Grand Canyon State for the first time since winning the Democratic nomination, a move that signals the campaign’s increasing confidence in her chances of turning a traditionally red state blue.

“This is very rare,” said Richard Herrera, an associate professor in the school of politics and global studies at Arizona State University, of a visit from a Democratic presidential nominee. Democrats have carried the state only once since Harry Truman was in office: Bill Clinton in 1996.

If the Clinton campaign is this confident to make a play for Arizona, she is serious about her chances of winning here Richard Herrera
“If the Clinton campaign is this confident that it makes sense to make a play for Arizona, she is serious about her chances of winning here,” Herrera said.

She went on to lose Arizona by 4%. That's close enough to say that it wasn't entirely wrong that it's in play, but it represents an arrogant, incompetent approach to an entirely winnable election. A lot of this is that her analytics team was about on par with the bullshitters that Mitt Romney surrounded himself with that convinced him and his supporters that he was winning in 2012. It turns out being surrounded by sycophants who are mostly angling for power once you inevitably win isn't actually the best way to win an election.

[lockedout]

Because it's the devil-we-know-can't-win-against-trump. In case this is a legitimate question.

If she can't who can?

- - - Updated - - -

What's your favorite Hillary Clinton policy accomplishment?

Losing the 2016 election.

[cubby]

If she can't who can?

Wow, the Trumpkins are really pushing this hard. Interesting. I guess the litany of GOP House resignations and Trump polling badly in key battleground states against any Democrat has them running scared. I hope we as a country can survive whatever horrific bullshit they pull to try and keep their Idiot Dear Leader in power despite every objective assessment pointing to Trump being literally the worst president this country has ever seen.

[Skroe]

Wow, the Trumpkins are really pushing this hard. Interesting. I guess the litany of GOP House resignations and Trump polling badly in key battleground states against any Democrat has them running scared. I hope we as a country can survive whatever horrific bullshit they pull to try and keep their Idiot Dear Leader in power despite every objective assessment pointing to Trump being literally the worst president this country has ever seen.

It’s really amazing how these jabronis are willing to throw themselves on top of the body of THIS President. Like holy shit, how low ARE their standards.

[Beefhammer]

Lost by 73,000 votes. That’s how close the state votes were. If people would’ve stopped acting like their vote didn’t count and people would stop voter suppression we wouldn’thave these problems also end trollwrite ins

Actually she had 3M more votes. Yes in three states she lost by that amount but you are just being disingenuous. Plus as you are well aware of, the GOP has done more than enough to disenfranchise millions into not bothering.

[breadisfunny]

...lol right. Yeah, no. Turns out TONS of people wanted her to be President. Remember when she clinched the nomination before Trump was the GOP nominee?

if i remember correctly it was a very close race between her and bernie.

[Skroe]

if i remember correctly it was a very close race between her and bernie.

It wasn’t. It wasn’t at all. She had around twice the votes that he did. It was over for Bernie by Super Tuesday as anticipated but he dragged it out like an obnoxious arena Holy Paladin and the cult pretended he had a chance.

[lockedout]

Wow, the Trumpkins are really pushing this hard. Interesting. I guess the litany of GOP House resignations and Trump polling badly in key battleground states against any Democrat has them running scared. I hope we as a country can survive whatever horrific bullshit they pull to try and keep their Idiot Dear Leader in power despite every objective assessment pointing to Trump being literally the worst president this country has ever seen.

My question was 5 words yet you didn't answer it. A name, any name of a candidate who you think will be opposing him and will win.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s really amazing how these jabronis are willing to throw themselves on top of the body of THIS President. Like holy shit, how low ARE their standards.

It's not throwing anyone on top of anyone for me. I just asked a question, who do you think will be opposing him and do they have a chance at winning?

[Skroe]

My question was 5 words yet you didn't answer it. A name, any name of a candidate who you think will be opposing him and will win.

Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Pete Buttefieg
A Potato with a D carved into it.
Also a melon with a Biden 2020 sticker slapped on it.

Trump is the most beatable incumbent in a century. I still give him a 60% chance of winning, but that’s largely because of the massive money advantage Trump will have (probably on the order of $2.X billion versus $1.2 Billion).

[Monster Hunter]

She came extremely close to beating Trump in the 2016 election with her establishment popularity, and now with the impeachment scandal over Trumps head, it would seem like she would be a shoe in this time around. Why not stick with the devil we know rather than risking it on another random Democratic candidate?

Because if you want to win a race you pick your fastest runners.

Let's face it, Clinton's presidential hopes died the day she backed her husband when he was caught shagging the staff.

The 2016 trump election is similar to the 2019 UK election in the winner didn't so much win by being a strong candidate and swinging alot of votes as much as the loser threw it away with an awful campaign.

If you want to oust trump any safe center-left candidate would wipe the floor with him

[lockedout]

Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Pete Buttefieg
A Potato with a D carved into it.
Also a melon with a Biden 2020 sticker slapped on it.

I forgot this is from the guy who guaranteed Hillary would win, NVM asking you.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump is the most beatable incumbent in a century. I still give him a 60% chance of winning,

This doesn't even make sense.

[cubby]

My question was 5 words yet you didn't answer it. A name, any name of a candidate who you think will be opposing him and will win.

And yet I did answer your true question. The Trumphidas and Trumpsters and Trumpkins are going after the Democrats by pushing this idea, that first started on Faux News, that Hillary is the only person who can beat Trump. And we're not playing those Reindeer games.

As secondary evidence of the your most unfaithful question, Hillary isn't a candidate. So by asking if she can't, who can - we already know she won't.

Finally, as the sin que non of your lying disingenuous posting, we know Hillary won't because she can't. She already failed.

But please, continue shrilling whatever Faux News and the Trump Crime Family tell you to believe. We love every minute of it. The laughter keeps our energy going as we plot out the long term strategies for doing what you lack to courage to even try.

- - - Updated - - -

This doesn't even make sense.

To people like you, it almost can't. You don't see what's right in front of your faces, no matter how long we've been asking and telling you .

- - - Updated - - -

It’s really amazing how these jabronis are willing to throw themselves on top of the body of THIS President. Like holy shit, how low ARE their standards.

Agreed. I get the phenomenon of not wanting to admit you were wrong, but how much deplorableness do you have to see before you realize that perhaps, perhaps this wasn't the right horse to back.

[ati87]

Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Pete Buttefieg
A Potato with a D carved into it.
Also a melon with a Biden 2020 sticker slapped on it.

Trump is the most beatable incumbent in a century. I still give him a 60% chance of winning, but that’s largely because of the massive money advantage Trump will have (probably on the order of $2.X billion versus $1.2 Billion).

I think you should knock of at least 10-20% of that.
Trump's was overcharging his previous campaign whenever he could and my guess is that this time he will double down on that.

Trump will definitely have more money this time compared to 2016 but given his personality Trump will charge his campaign double or triple the amount what he charged last time. Also I expect that this time Trump will actually have a staff/campaign and again knowing Republicans and Trump his campaign will include allot of vultures who will only join for personal benefit.

Trump's best chance of winning is having the same type of campaign structure that Bannon created last time, which was chaos (Trump) but small. This time by having more money and ''experience'' he will probably have much larger campaign more similair to other candidates.

[lockedout]

To people like you, it almost can't. You don't see what's right in front of your faces, no matter how long we've been asking and telling you .

Most beatable yet a 60% chance to win makes no sense.
Democrats candidates are as exciting as watching paint dry or way to radical.
Like it or not Trump if he runs again.

[cubby]

Most beatable yet a 60% chance to win makes no sense.

So you believe other posters data only when it suits you? More proof of your lies and disingenuous posting.

Democrats candidates are as exciting as watching paint dry or way to radical.

And...better than the ritalin addled slur-a-thon on the idiocy's ideas of windmills we were treated to the other night. Between boring and addled, I'll take boring every day of the week and twice on sunday.

Like it or not Trump if he runs again.

Is that what you were told to believe today? You've never answered this question, but I'm so curious I can't help bring it up again; when you drink the kool aid, is it eyes open or closed? Everything about you says closed, but I've always wondered.