HRC is by far the most qualified candidate for POTUS. wtf is wrong with people?

[triron]

[Croney]

1. A do-over! And get it right this time.

[guillaumeb]

2. What was wrong was not people,

but the GOP tactics of gerrymandering, suppression, and Russian collusion.

And she still won the popular vote.

[hughee99]

18. Could you explain the impact of gerrymandering on a presidential election?

People keep saying this, but I haven’t heard a good explanation yet.

[edhopper]

21. Gerrymandering

enable the GOP to get overwhelming control over States, even where the vote was closer to 50/50.
They then were able to put in place massive voter suppression and vote rigging in those States.
That is how.

[hughee99]

32. So the republicans had overwhelming control over states like

Michigan & Pennsylvania that Obama handily won just 4 years earlier?

Yes, your argument makes more sense that anything I’ve seen before, the problem is that gerrymandering sets congressional districts for representation in Washington, it’s not the same districts that are used for in-state elections used to control state matters like elections. You can’t “gerrymander” your way to the governor’s mansion.

[edhopper]

35. no

but you can gerrymander state districts. And they worked hard to fix the elections since Obama won.
It took very few suppressed and rigged votes in PA, MI and WI for Trump to win there.
You just have to look at what they just did to suppress Democracy whe nthey lost the Governor races.
Do you really think Nelson and Gillum just lost Florida?

[guillaumeb]

25. Gerymandering often dilutes the voting power of minorities

by putting them in districts where they can vote, but never elect representatives. And this allows the media to portray many areas as
red" when the composition of the area might actually be blue, or purple.

And this diluted voting power, the sense that "my vote does not matter", can be a factor in determining which people do not bother to vote at all. And that is a factor in elections at every level.

Voter turnout in 2016 was around 60%. If people voted in the 80-90% range, common in many other countries.

My view.

[hughee99]

29. Districts are not relevant to a presidential election.

The electoral college works on a statewide basis, like senate votes.

[guillaumeb]

31. But the effect translates into people deciding that their vote does not count.

And that translates into a failure to vote at every level. And that leverages the influence that conservative voters have.

[hughee99]

33. That's a big stretch given the tens of millions spent on convincing

Voters that their vote does count in statewide elections. Close to 2 billion in the last presidential election by the campaigns alone was spent, and people still think none of their votes count because their one local rep is the wrong party? It sounds like our issue isn’t gerrymandering, it’s stupidity.

[guillaumeb]

34. Ignorance may be a factor.

Ignorance of the actual issues, as opposed the GOP manufactured issues.

[radical noodle]

77. I lived in Indiana most of my life

For the most part, I considered my presidential vote a waste due to the electoral college. Only twice in my lifetime has Indiana gone blue in a presidential election, the first time before I was old enough to vote and the second time was when Obama barely won. I did vote in every presidential election but looked at it as a futile effort... as it was with the exception of 2008.

[lostnfound]

89. Gerrymandering - GOP trifecta states - Voter suppression masterpieces

Crosscheck
Voter ID laws
Polling places changed or closed in democratic neighborhoods

Gerrymandered districts let 60-40 states end up with 40-60 legislatures, which pass voter ID laws

[lapucelle]

56. My experience in 2016 working on the ground with marginalized voting populations

in a swing state was that the gutting of the Voting Rights Act had an impact. 2016 was the first presidential election following the changes in the law.

In that the party that controls the state house often also controls election procedures, I can understand why gerrymandering might be a factor if legislative districts are also drawn with an eye to giving one party an unfair advantage in state elections.

[aeromanKC]

79. State Gerrymandering enables GOP to control state houses

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/07/republicans-should-really-stop-admitting-that-voter-id-helps-them-win/?utm_term=.3b831c6c1fc5

[FirstLight]

3. ...

wait...for 2020?

nope, sorry I'm burned out on her, we need some fresh meat!

[MrsCoffee]

4. Burned out on her?!?

Yeah, it just sucks to have to listen to intelligent people who know what the fuck they are talking about all the time.

[lunamagica]

12. IKR

[lapucelle]

57. I guess she isn't "fresh meat". N/T

[Baltimike]

60. I know, right?

totally not divisive...meat.

[FirstLight]

61. yeeesh!

All I mean is that I want someone new to run, anyone we run as Dem is going to be better and smarter, that's a given. I'm just over Hillary, and she's said she's over it too.
Haters gonna hate...

[democratisphere]

81. I am burned out on drumpf!

HRC would be a breath of fresh air!

[Grasswire2]

5. Erased my comment.

No use re-litigating the last election.

[Va Lefty]

6. Bigotry, racism and treason. That's what happened

[brooklynite]

7. I supported her, funded her and worked for her...and I don't want her nominated for 2020

...which is fine because she won't be running.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. I'm with you B... besides, Hillary is one of the most astute politicians of our time...

certainly she realizes that the political landscape has changed, which I'm sure played a part in her decision to retire from politics.

[Fullduplexxx]

8. She still is

[calimary]

76. Yes. She still is. Bar none. But I'm sick and tired of seeing her beaten up

from every direction! SICK and TIRED of it!!! I wish she could chair some really prestigious organization or international effort. Something that could put her many impressive skills and vast experience to work for the benefit of our world, if not our country.

I just don’t want her to have to be everybody’s favorite punching bag again. She doesn’t deserve that kind of disrespect. And we’ve proven, collectively, that we don’t deserve her either.

I’d still vote for her in a heartbeat.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. AFAIK she's not a candidate this time.

[Sherman A1]

16. Don't confuse the issue

With the fact

[dlk]

10. It's the Misogyny, As it Always Has Been

[Jarqui]

15. Nope

Not that simple
https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx


Hillary has the worst favorable ratings of all the Democratic candidates.

Among the women
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2591
Elizabeth Warren 30 fav 37 unfav (Pocahontas damages)
Kamala Harris 20 fav 22 unfav (still unknown)
Kirsten Gillibrand 14 fav 17 unfav (still unknown)
Hillary 32 fav 61 unfav (Benghazi, emails, GOP target)

Biden, Sanders, O'Rourke and Brown have positive favorable ratings and the scales may well tip in their favor due in part to misogyny but Hillary overcame that in 2016 - like Obama overcame racism in 2008.

But there is a landslide of difference between Hillary and the other female Democrats and your misogyny excuse falls flat on it's face trying to explain it because there are no men in the female group. Therefore, there must be some other very significant things going on to explain Hillary's terrible numbers.

The GOP probably spent more than a billion dollars in ads and nasty rhetoric destroying Hillary as a candidate - along with Benghazi, Clinton Foundation and the email scandal - and all the baggage from the Clinton years that gave her a low ceiling when she started. Her terrible numbers and why she is so unlikely to ever be a candidate again cannot be simply passed off on misogyny.

Misogyny is without question a factor as it will be for any female candidate - just as racism will be for any non-white candidate. But it falls well short of explaining the whole story. In my opinion, the brunt of her lousy numbers are a direct result of the ad campaigns and PR campaign the GOP did to her.

[Squinch]

22. Surely you know that is ridiculous. Hillary has worse numbers than the other women because

SHE GOT FARTHER THAN ANY OTHER WOMAN. Because her success and her vagina, embodied in the same person, are offensive to many.

The "baggage" you speak of didn't stop her from having a 66% favorable as Sec. of State.

[Jarqui]

23. Nonsense

[Squinch]

24. Yes. Your article IS nonsense. I always wonder why people like to bend over backward to

blame anything but sexism when sexism is staring them in the face.

[Jarqui]

38. You are welcome to carry on with your conclusion that the only reason

Hillary is down is because of misogyny alone. That's your choice and in my opinion, it is a delusional one.

Even Hillary in her book on the 2016 election doesn't agree with you.

The vast majority won't buy what you're selling because so many facts that scuttle your notions are very stubborn and insurmountable. Hillary's untrustworthy numbers were about 60% - are you also saying that is only because she is a woman. Or did things like "Bosnia snipers" or her inaccuracies (fibs?) about her emails in her first press conference on them, as examples, have something to do with those?

You cannot explain Hillary's situation and lousy numbers purely as a result of misogyny. That is simply a product of errant and fantasy thinking.

Let's test it:

You contend Hillary's poor numbers are purely the result of misogyny


Therefore, from the above chart, can you identify the number of sex changes Hillary had and their timing to explain the above rise and fall of Hillary's numbers exclusively due to misogyny? Can you produce credible political analysis that makes such a claim?

I didn't think so. Because the notion misogyny totally explains Hillary's poor numbers is nonsense.

The fact that Hillary's numbers could rise as Secretary of State and fall afterwards without a sex change means misogyny alone cannot explain her misfortunes in her polling. Period. There have to be other factors changing the numbers because Hillary's sex did not change.

Again, if misogyny alone is what you'd prefer to believe, go for it. That's your fantasy.

If we're going to learn from Hillary's defeat, as I think we must, we have to get past the fantasies like it was all due to misogyny. Some of us already have.

And that will help us elect Elizabeth, Kamala, Amy or Kirsten should they prevail in the primaries.

One certain recipe for failure is throwing our hands up that they cannot win because of misogyny.

We have seen with Trump that there are ample racists in America who will only vote for a white man. Obama prevailed over that by being a great candidate. We have also seen during Trump's years that there are ample misogynists in America. Hillary nearly prevailed over them by being a superior candidate. Should a woman lead the Democrats in 2020, they need to be a great candidate to overcome the misogynists in America.

[Squinch]

39. That's nice, dear.

[JHan]

45. the misogyny was all a fantasy!

the amazing shit I read on DU sometimes.

[R B Garr]

50. Sorry JHan, wrong spot, I totally agree with your analogy!

[JHan]

51. sokay i knew that wasn't for me ;)

[Squinch]

53. It was all just a strange dream (puts back of hand on forehead) and now we've woken up.

It was all Hillary's fault! There was no misogyny! It was all just a fantasy. Like Oz!

Seriously. The return of the zombies is well underway.

[JHan]

86. Sexism doesn't exist in politics, and doesn't apply to HRC

What we both witnessed were figments of our imagination. And us pointing out sexism , double standards are supposedly us missing the point ,the one thing j have learned about the whole identity politics bruhahaha is the persistence in denying how it is used as punishment against "minority" candidates, where any discussion of the perniciousness of sexism which we observe around us, somehow doesn't apply to the political realm or doesn't apply to certain people -hrc, pelosi etc.

[karynnj]

52. Great explanation

[R B Garr]

68. What biased and rehashed hooey. A GOP Congressman

admitted they manufactured / attacked her to drive her numbers down. Her numbers were fine before the attacks, and they didn’t just come from the GOP. It was also biased propaganda like this.

And about misogyny, Trump called her a nasty woman on national TV during a debate. We know misogyny was a huge factor.

[Jarqui]

70. You have to read all of the posts - not cherry pick

I said in the previous post

"The GOP probably spent more than a billion dollars in ads and nasty rhetoric destroying Hillary as a candidate - along with Benghazi, Clinton Foundation and the email scandal ... . Her terrible numbers and why she is so unlikely to ever be a candidate again cannot be simply passed off on misogyny."

Misogyny, like racism, is a significant factor - not a "huge one" relative to other factors.

Hillary herself blamed Comey, the Russians, her messaging (ie deplorables), etc - a bunch of other things before she got to misogyny. And she didn't really address the fact that she was the candidate for "Washington status quo" vs Trump as the candidate for change - which was a big deal as it had been in 2008 for Obama.

Racism is going to be around as a significant factor for elections in the foreseeable future. I feel similarly about misogyny.

[R B Garr]

73. That still doesn't excuse blatant misinformation about

her poll numbers. Some people can build a whole attack or campaign on what they want to focus on and then insist that everyone do the same. A lot of what you highlight proves that. They weren’t really credible claims, but they were the focus. That’s why I said your comments are rehashed and why we are here, actually. Hillary was just focusing on the events, which doesn’t negate the misogyny.

Hillary served under Obama. He is very popular, and she won the popular vote. Your focus is about Sanders talking points about Washington. This is what I mean about biased talking points, and you are the one cherry picking.

[Jarqui]

75. It has little to nothing to do with Sanders or his talking points and what I have said.

You're flat out wrong.

The talking points I mentioned were driven by the GOP starting well before the election on older Clinton controversies.
Their ad campaign against her started in 2013 - long before Sanders was on the radar.
Sanders said something to the effect that 'we're all sick of the talk about your emails' - he didn't want to harp on them and he didn't. He didn't want to talk about Benghazi either or much about the Clinton Foundation. The GOP and Trump - like a broken record with ... "lock her up!!" and Benghazi this and Benghazi that.
And like many GOP attacks of the past, much of what the GOP presented was unfair or not credible or an outright lie.
They were out to destroy her.
They were partially successful in that they damaged her and we still see that damage in her numbers today.

So we do not disagree about the credibility of the GOP attacks. And there's no two ways about it: they really hurt her.

And we haven't mentioned what Michael Moore tried to warn us of:
https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
...
How can the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states.

the Electoral College for the Rust Belt states (WI, PA, MI & OH, 64 electoral votes) went to Trump - which was very significant in flipping a popular vote result. A very key reason why a Clinton didn't do well in the Rust Belt is because of what Hillary's husband did to those states with his implementation of NAFTA - that Trump harped on.

Having Sanders turn the primary into a contest cost her money, resources, some support, etc. But I haven't discussed those. But here's some facts that prove how wrong you are:
Hillary's favorable peaked at +37 in May 2012 per Gallup
https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx
Hillary's favorable was +4 in May 2015, in a poll taken a few days after Sanders announced.
It was +6 just before Sanders announced.
Sanders didn't take those numbers down. Old Clinton baggage, Benghazi and the emails did when the GOP pounded them.
Misogyny didn't take them down either because her sex didn't change during that time period.

The margin was tight enough in those battleground states that one could argue almost anything tipped the scales. But the big fall in her numbers was delivered by the GOP. They said as much.

[R B Garr]

88. Your Sanders bias is very obvious and you are cherry picking.

We have seen enough of this kind of denial of the obvious and denial of reality.

It’ was a given that the GOP would attack her. But how laughable that you don’t mention Sanders “harping” on her about the TPP, which was also a backdoor way to remind people about Bill C and NAFTA. Trump and Sanders had similar positions about trade, so it wasn’t just Trump attacking her. Remember?

LOL at your concern over Benghazi as if that was important to anyone but Clinton haters who would buy any conspiracy about her anyways.

LOL at your concern over Sanders and her emails, when Sanders own wife used that as one reason to campaign longer........

LOL at willfully ignoring the Mueller investigation or Russian involvement, which was specifically aimed at tearing support away from her. Anyone who omits that 3 opposition campaign were helped by the Russians to harm Hillary is cherry picking and is very biased. The three opposition campaigns against her were Trump, Stein, and Sanders.

You are omitting the facts we have in front of us now. Tad Devine used to work with Paul Manafort, who has been indicted on multiple criminal charges about the 2016 election. That is the reality of how those 70,000 EC votes turned the election. Read the origins of “Lock her up” and see who came up with that.

We need to stick with reality and known facts we have
Anyone not conversant about the unprecedented Russian involvement is just biased and cherry picking.

[Jarqui]

94. You are wrong

At issue in the discussion above was whether misogyny was totally responsible for Hillary's numbers. I already brought up Russia in a post above, citing Hillary's own analysis:
"Hillary herself blamed Comey, the Russians, her messaging (ie deplorables), etc - a bunch of other things before she got to misogyny."

LOL You failed to mention Comey above. What's wrong with you? [/sarcasm]

This shows the Russian online attack of the election started in 2016 (they had been developing it before)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-trump-election-timeline.html

https://swalwell.house.gov/issues/russia-not-our-friend

Hillary's favorable rating fell from +37 in 2012 to -13 in Dec 2015 - before the Russian attacks began. The brunt of that damage (33 of the 50 point swing) was done by the GOP before Sanders or the Russians entered the contest and the GOP didn't stop after Sanders or the Russians got involved. The GOP did roughly about 80% or more of the damage here.

The GOP did a heck of a lot of that damage with Benghazi to start and the emails to follow up to the crescendo of "Lock her UP! Lock her UP!".

Bernie was against NAFTA in the early 1990s.

Bernie was consistent with those concerns on TPP as he has been for decades on all discussions on free trade. I have always agreed with Sanders on this issue - since before President Clinton took office. I worked in a GHW Bush think tank on free trade/NAFTA in the late 80s/early 90s and we gave it a thumbs down for many of the reasons Sanders cited. Sanders was right then and still is today and a lot of people back then knew it.

The fact that the Clintons were on the wrong side of NAFTA in the Rust Belt is not Bernie's fault. It had little to do with Sanders. Bill Clinton was blamed for the job losses NAFTA caused in the Rust Belt long before Bernie's campaign and rightfully so - because that is what happened according to those folks in the Rust Belt and Bill Clinton was infinitely more responsible for NAFTA than Bernie Sanders. It cost Hillary dearly - because she also promoted NAFTA. That is not Bernie's fault. The voters in a democracy held the Clintons to account for their jobs that Bill Clinton effectively sent to Mexico. Blaming Bernie Sanders for that is like buying Fool's gold at real gold prices. Michael Moore cited NAFTA in the Rust Belt as a key reason when he predicted Trump would win. Michael Moore was proved right too and that accounted for many of those 70,000 votes you talk about.

[R B Garr]

95. Your own analysis supports the facts that Bernie was indeed responsible for Clinton's

drop in poll numbers, but you are only citing one poll, when there are more out there that contradict you. This is consistent with your anti-Clinton focus as I've said before. It doesn't matter if something isn't factually accurate, but focusing on something and insisting that everyone else has to buy it is a tactic used with propaganda. Bernie announced in April 2015, and your own analysis shows the drop in December (according to you), so it corresponds directly with his attacks on her for the eight (8) months he was in the race in 2015. LOL.

And of course Hillary is going to cover all events that happened. We all know about Comey, but your focus is Sanders and his image, so you are cherry picking that which you think exonerates him.

Bill Clinton was and remains a very popular President, no matter how many have worked overtime to demonize him in the Rust Belt. Here is just a quick excerpt of a stat about him, but there are many more. Trump and Bernie had similar positions on trade, and their main goal was to remind others of Clinton/NAFTA and connect that to Clinton/TPP. There were only 70,000 voters who bought the propaganda -- only 70,000 -- so the drama about Bill C and NAFTA is quite exaggerated. We all know why it is exaggerated, and we know who is exaggerating it.

"What was Bill Clinton's approval rating?




After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%, higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman."

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. Great explanation of some hard truths.

[WeekiWater]

63. Well said.

The others haven’t had over a billion spent over decades trashing them. That doesn’t include the “free” beating from right wing radio and news outlets.

It’s all directly related to her success and their fear of her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. That's all true, for whatever reason... fair or not. Given all that, Hillary wisely has said...

she's not running and had retired from politics. I, for one, believe her.

[Jarqui]

66. In my opinion, it most certainly wasn't all "fair"

She built her numbers up as a great Secretary of State
The GOP knocked them down with Benghazi, emails and the Clinton Foundation, Clinton years, etc
In Nov 2013, the GOP were testing anti Hillary ads..

Michael Dukakis got done in by an unfair Willie Horton Ad

John Kerry got done in by an unfair swiftboating of his military service

Barack Obama
- born in Kenya
- a muslim
- Jeremiah Wright 'God Damn America'
- terrorist sympathizer of Bill Ayers


Newsweek Poll report, December 2017 (note the year)
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-birther-obama-poll-republicans-kenya-744195

If you thought birtherism was over, you thought wrong.

Survey results released by YouGov Friday show that 51 percent of Republicans said they think former President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, compared to just 14 percent of Democrats. Perhaps unsurprisingly, respondents who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election were especially convinced of Obama's African origins: Fully 57 percent said it was "definitely true" or "probably true" that the 44th president came from Kenya.

May 10, 2016 Poll: Two-Thirds of Trump Backers Think Obama Is Muslim
Supporters of the likely GOP nominee surveyed on conspiracy theories
https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim

Two-thirds of voters with a favorable opinion of Donald Trump believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim, and a quarter of them believe that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered, a poll released Tuesday shows.

The Public Policy Polling survey showed 59 percent of those who said they viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably think Obama was not born in the United States and only 13 percent believe he’s a Christian.

Smears hurt.

Obama might have been a "death panels" smear away from the public option.

Nancy Pelosi has been damaged by this sort of stuff - her trip to Hawaii being the latest jab.

"Lock her up" permanently hurt Hillary Clinton.

Whoever becomes the standard bearer for the Democrats will have to endure and overcome these kinds of smears. It is the modus operandi of the Republican party - always has been.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

69. That's a pretty good summary... we definitely need a fighter this time.

Elizabeth, who made news this week, is an excellent one. So far, of all those candidates who have semi-declared, she has my vote. Go Elizabeth!!

[Jarqui]

71. I flat out like her too.

My areas of concern for her are her experiences that would help her:
- as commander in chief,
- in armed forces,
- in Homeland Security
- in foreign policy
- does she represent change
- is she electable (maybe in terms of her image)

Every candidate will have some kind of a list like that

[StevieM]

78. The fake email scandal would not have been a big deal with anybody else.

George Bush and Karl Rove had a private server inside the White House and they lost 25,000 government emails.

She proved that she was likeable when she was Secretary of State. The only thing that changed since then is that she got swift boated.

The lesson to learn is that whoever we nominate will have a phony scandal of sorts made up about them and we have to be prepared to fight it off. It is hard to do that when the FBI and State Department Inspector General's office is assisting the GOP.

[Jarqui]

80. It would have been a big deal for any Democrat going against the GOP

Hillary had battle scars from being First Lady and a Senator. Some Clinton scandals from the past included:
Whitewater
Troopergate
Paula Jones
Monica Lewinsky
Travelgate
Vince Foster’s suicide
Juanita Broaddrick

She had voted for the Iraq war.
She had supported NAFTA

From that, part of the problem with having Hillary as a candidate was her ceiling was lower. And the GOP already had extensive fodder to attack her on to "educate" the younger voters and "remind" others to damage her.

Obama had a cleaner past. They tried to make something out of Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers but it was harder to make stick. They had to make stuff up like Kenya and that he was a Muslim.

Obama was handicapped with racism. Hillary was handicapped with misogyny.

The lesson from that is to try to find a candidate with less baggage - a cleaner past giving them a higher potential ceiling and bear in mind they might have to overcome racism or misogyny when evaluating their potential to win.

The other thing that helped Sanders, Obama and Trump was that they represented change. Hillary represented old Washington. I think that was key and why so many opted to give Trump a chance.

We need to have a candidate that represents real change. People are sick of Washington as it is.

[StevieM]

87. She had a very high ceiling at one point. Back in 2013 she was doing better than all the other

potential Democratic candidates.

Her ceiling dropped when she got swift boated. Nothing that happened in the 1990s prevented her from having a high ceiling coming out of the State Department.

I am pretty sure that the FBI would have found a reason to investigate Bernie Sanders in the middle of the campaign too had he been the nominee.

[aikoaiko]

11. There are lots of examples of the most qualified not becoming president.

sadly, too often its a Democrat getting out-campaigned.

[BannonsLiver]

49. Yes, Al Gore comes to mind instantly

He got fucked over as well. Can you imagine where we’d be if Gore has won in 2000 and Hillary in 2016 with PBO from 2008-16? Makes me sick.

[lunamagica]

13. She won. She needs to be president. That'd be justice

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

54. Seems like a no brainer. She won. Dems don't even talk about making it

right with her. In my HO I think she deserves to be seated as The first woman president of the USA. To somehow dismiss her does us all a huge disservice if we claim to be the party of justice and equity for all. HRC deserves to sit as the President. Not sure how, I just think it's right, and nationally cathartic. JMO.

[kennetha]

14. I agree.

And she didn't "lose" the plebiscite of the people. She won it by 3 million votes. She is the people's choice. The archaic slavery protecting electoral college, Jim Comey in his arrogance, the press in its hunger for Trump ratings and Clinton "dirt" and the Russians in their evil ways conspired to rob the people of their true choice. By rights, Clinton should be gearing up for re-election about now.

I can't stand all the so-called democrats who constantly blame her for losing = getting robbed.

[karynnj]

17. Joe Biden and John Kerry are both at least as qualified

Biden has 8 years as VP and over 30 years in the Senate. Kerry has the same 4 years as Secretary of State, with more accomplishments as such and was in the Senate for 28 years. I would easily pick Kerry as the most accomplished because he is responsible for the two biggest foreign policy accomplishments of Obama's years that both would not have happened without him.

Of these, Clinton has most clearly said she is not running -- though Kerry has pointed out he is not doing the things you do if you are thinking of running. Biden may well run and is currently the frontrunner.

All three are older candidates. Each has their own pluses and liabilities. In my estimation, if you look at pluses minus liabilities, Kerry easily wins - if only because he has far fewer liabilities. I think he has the most accomplishments as well. One area where Biden might be best is getting votes at this point in time as many are looking for someone with his background.

All this said. To become President you have to get elected and Hillary was given huge support by parts of the media and party twice.

[StevieM]

26. I don't remember HRC getting any support from the media, in either 2008 or 2016.

I remember the exact opposite.

And I fully expect Joe Biden, John Kerry or whoever we nominate to get swift boated pretty badly.

My personal preference is Tom Steyer.

[karynnj]

28. I did not say ALL the media, but there were some opinion writers

who had suggested that HRC could make an excellent President as early as 1992.

[StevieM]

36. Perhaps, but on the balance I would have to say that the two campaigns that got the most brutal

treatment by the press were HRC's 2008 campaign and HRC's 2016 campaign.

[former9thward]

67. You better have your memory checked.

500 Newspapers endorsed Clinton and only 28 endorsed Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

[betsuni]

37. In eight of the most influential news outlets, negative coverage of Clinton was 84%.

Trump was 43%, Sanders 17%.

[Squinch]

19. I really don't think that has a chance of happening. I'd love it, but it won't. But you know what

I would really love? If the elected president asked her to be Sec of State again so she could clean up the world again.

Unlikely, but I can dream.

[In It to Win It]

20. I would include Joe Biden in the list of "most qualified people" also

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. No question!

[dem4decades]

27. They don't love her. You might but a large portion of the voting public doesn't.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. Sad but true.

[vlyons]

30. HRC is not a candidate

She has said that she will not run again, and I believe her. The Clinton campaign is now in the rear-view mirror. It's time to move on, taking with us the wisdom that we gained from the 2016 campaign. First and foremost, we SHALL NOT allow the GOP to divide and conquor us.

[pansypoo53219]

55. no she wasn't i have held my tongue HARD. she didn't even PLAY her woman card.

lurch(kerry-i have a plan) in a pantssuit.

[lapucelle]

62. As Democrats, we should not allow anyone to divide us. N/T

[Initech]

43. They vote based on bullshit that comes from hate radio and Fox News.

I honestly think Fox News is the worst thing to happen to this country. Just think of where we would be if they hadn't stolen 2000 and 2004 from us, and now 2016. Argh.

[Takket]

44. sorry but Hillary is never going to be president

You are preaching to the choir here but nothing she ever says or does is going overcome the IMAGE of her that fake news and years of made up scandals has created.

It is time to let her go......

[LBM20]

46. She got the nomination, lost the electoral college, and folks want to move on. TOO MUCH BAGGAGE.

Also, there are other very qualified candidates. Also, she has said she is not running.

[delisen]

82. Baggage? Do you mean experience and wisdom?

Candidates who don't understand foreign policy are just not qualified.

Think it would be helpful if you list specifics on "baggage."

[KCDebbie]

47. HRC has to fight 25 years of bad PR and right-wing propaganda...

No one can undo 25 of negative propaganda with facts! I admire Hillary Clinton and I believe that, thanks to vote tampering and a social media smear campaign, she is the best President that never got to serve her term...

I will support and vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is in 2020, but I'm willing to wait and see who I will support during the primaries, tho! Besides, primary field has not been settled yet!

[techne7319]

59. The only qualifications for president are as follows:

(1) Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

(2) Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.


That being said, any discussion as to one person being “more qualified” than another amounts to mere opinion and not fact. When the 2020 candidates have announced themselves, “opinionated” discussions in favor or against their individual “qualifications” are reasonable. Feel free to compare and contrast the candidates experience, positions, etc...
Furthermore, continuing to revisit the 2016 presidential election and “why” HRC lost is tiresome and unhelpful. HRC lost because the Electoral College voted in favor of Trump. End of story. It had nothing to do with the popular vote, voter suppression, Comey, MSM, Russian meddling, etc... If you are one of those people who is looking for a target, go after the Electoral College and the process. Otherwise, let’s learn from our mistakes and oversight, move on and focus on what’s ahead.

[redstateblues]

64. What is the point of a post like this?

It’s like the old “lets you and him fight”

[Baltimike]

65. She fucking WON! nt

[Autumn]

90. You know who else won? Al Gore.

[Baltimike]

98. I think so too, and not running him in '04 may have been a mistake, but John Kerry

lost because of Ken Blackwell in Ohio, and not because he wasn't Al Gore.

HRC's theft is much more brazen.

[Autumn]

99. I resent Gores loss even more. Five Americans appointed a president that after the votes

were counted he had lost. 5 republican supreme court justices gave the loser the presidency. And Democrats and Americans sat on their asses and let it happen. Just like when Russia gave the White House to Trump.

[Oneironaut]

72. I totally agree. She also can't win.

A - People are tired of the Clintons
B - The media is obsessed with attacking her

Neither of these are her fault. They are also the political reality. Hillary would be a sure loss in 2020, unfortunately.

[delisen]

83. The candidate who got the most votes ever is not a sure loss.

Hillary Clinton is an individual -- not a hybrid "the Clintons." I see no benefit to Democracy in adopting Republican propaganda or kowtowing to what "the media" supposedly wants.

[dembotoz]

84. Oh please not again

U may love her but she is a dream for the gop to organize against..

[Tommy_Carcetti]

91. She was exceptionally qualified. She's also quite adamant she's not interested in running.

Let her be.

She will go down in history with Al Gore and Samuel Tilden as candidates who were cheated out of the White House.

It’s tragic but that’s how history can be at times. At least her portrait will be in the White House as a legacy. When Donald Trump’s presidency goes down in disgrace no one will want to ever mention his name let alone the fact he was the 45th President.

[Vinca]

92. While completely true, there is a time for everyone and her time has come and gone.

It was stolen from her and there is no remedy in the Constitution. It will make her an entire chapter in history books, but that's about it. Timing is everything. If Obama hadn't run in 2008, he might never have been POTUS. It's a real shame because she is probably the most qualified person to ever run for the position.

[peggysue2]

93. HRC is and was the most qualified candidate we ever ran

But she's not running in 2020. Period, full stop. Nor could I imagine her even wanting to reenter the meat grinder for another campaign. What I do hope is that the next Democratic Administration taps her for her experience and knowledge. Another cabinet position, policy advisor or perhaps a judgeship. Her years of experience and insider knowledge is too valuable to be put on a shelf.

But in the end, it's her decision: to stay involved or not. I supported her in 2008, 2016 and I support her now, whatever that decision is.

[earthside]

96. Insane notion of Hillary 2020 candidacy for POTUS

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

[SoCalDem]

97. "qualifications" are less important than many realize

a salad with no dressing is way more healthy, but most people want other things to eat...just sayin'