ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
The notion that Democrats would nominate the woman who lost to Trump instead of the man who beat Trump seems ridiculous on its face
For some reason, people want to believe that folks like the head of the DNC are like the old-school political bosses with an army of flacks at their disposal. They don't realize that the party chairs are themselves the flacks. To borrow the old phrase from the Obama era, they "lead from behind".timschochet said:Super delegates are so that folks who give money to the party can get perks like better hotel rooms and free meals. They don’t decide anything, don’t have any real power. Never had.
Deletequick-hands said:I think Hillary will be handed the democrat super delegates.
Side note: Has any candidate in history, at any level, ever resigned for "health reasons"? (Not actual health reasons, mind you, but "health reasons").glvsav37 said:Right after the new year, Harris will be forced to resign as VP to be replaced by Hillary.
Within the year, Biden resigns for "health reasons" and Hillary becomes President.
Assume you mean for the GOP nomination?If Trump runs again he will run unopposed. And barring a health issue, he’s running.
I am. It would be political suicide to run against Trump in a primary race. Even if you do fancy yourself an heir apparent. He owns the base and Trump, being the malignant narcissist he is, would do everything in his power to ruin you for daring to oppose him.Assume you mean for the GOP nomination?
And you're probably right, but I wonder about DeSantis. The dude is very thirsty. I'm sure he knows that the timing for him in 2024 is perfect, and in politics if you let moments like that pass you by you may never get another chance.
I don't know how it would work. I don't know what his angle would be for running against Trump. I don't know how he would win over the MAGA base, whose loyalty is very much tied up in Trump as an individual rather than any core belief system. I don't know how, if he managed to beat him, he would unite the party behind him.
But I'm still not totally convinced he won't try.
The notion that Democrats would nominate the woman who lost to Trump instead of the man who beat Trump seems ridiculous on its face
I dont or ever will claim I'm a political expert. I was just making a (half assed) prediction based on what i'm seeing today and the topic here. IDK if that is even a fully possible scenario with the due process that has to happen.Side note: Has any candidate in history, at any level, ever resigned for "health reasons"? (Not actual health reasons, mind you, but "health reasons").
I feel like it's the ultimate political cliche that's meant to sound savvy but actually shows a complete ignorance about how politics works. The implication is supposed to be that the candidate cites their health as a fig leaf to cover up the fact that they're withdrawing for other reasons. But the scare quotes give the game away. The person who suggests they employ the phrase is suggesting that they know the real reason, but the rubes in the media and general public would actually fall for it.
Except of course that's not how it would work. If a candidate ever tried to pull off a maneuver like that, no one, absolutely no one, would be fooled. They would just look ridiculous for telling an obvious lie. So what would even be the point?
There actually is a real-life example of a candidate dropping out late in a campaign. Back in 2002, the scandal plagued NJ Senator Robert Torricelli was running for re-election. He was corrupt AF, and as the election got closer, the news (and polls) for him got worse, to the point where it became increasingly clear he was going to lose what would otherwise be a very winnable race for the Democrats. So he just dropped out. He didn't tell some BS story about his health or his family, he was pretty straightforward that he was dropping out because he was losing. (The health thing would have been a particularly hard sell considering the Dems replaced him with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who was older than dirt). It was simultaneously the most and least cynical thing a politician has ever done.
Yeah, I didn't mean to pick on you. As I said, it's become such a political cliche that it gets repeated constantly, but if you actually think it through you realize it's completely unrealistic. All of these grand Machiavellian plans of replacing VPs and early resignations are fodder for bad TV shows that could never happen in real life (I remember my wife was a big fan of "Madame Secretary", which featured a plotline where the president loses re-nomination by his own party, runs as an independent, and then succeeds in throwing the race to the House, where he somehow wins re-election)I dont or ever will claim I'm a political expert. I was just making a (half assed) prediction based on what i'm seeing today and the topic here. IDK if that is even a fully possible scenario with the due process that has to happen.
but on the flip side, I dont put anything past this administration—there is a 1st for everything.
However, you say the "health reasons" being a "cover up" I would agree in most cases, but with Biden I think it is 100% plausible, its been so since the election. As many on this board argue, he's speeches often seem to have issues with mumbling, incoherent thoughts or ideas. Unlike any other sitting president, visually he is largely non-existent in the day to day workings of the office. And we are less then a year into his term, 3 more at this pace seems unlikely to me.
I (and many) had a feeling that picking Harris as VP was a way to get a POC woman to be president w/o having to go through the election process. With Joe's age and decline (similar issues through the campaign), that she could slide into the office by him stepping down mid-term. But the obv lack of ability to do even do the VP job and what seems like a growing rift in the partnership is making that (alleged) plan not likely.
Enter Hillary. There is no denying that she is still power hungry and wants that seat. She's also proven to do whatever it takes to get there, ie when Bernie was the D frontrunner in 2016 though the primaries and hey now....in swoops Hillary. Along with (what I see as) often blind support for the D candidates simply b/c they carry the D next to their name: "I"m with her" and "Blue no matter who" ideology, I can easily see a transition like this happening and many/most D supporters being like " IDK what you are talking about, I don't see anything wrong here?"
As you had mentioned, its ridiculous for the Democrats to nominate the woman who lost to Trump already...well if she had a head start on the process and 2 or 3 years in the position already, she would be a much stronger contender then just 2 candidates starting from scratch (in 2016) and with Trump already being president, she would need some oval office experience to compete in 2024. I think this alone—momentum for Hillary into 2024—would get enough support from the D base that it would be a move that would be applauded rather than questioned.
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote, except that I'm not sure about that last part. Not to say you're definitely wrong -- in fact, it probably is the most likely scenario -- but presidential prospects waiting their turn does not have a good track record in recent American politics. Hillary waited her turn in '04 and ran in '08. Christie waited his turn in '12 and ran in '16. Warren did it in '16/'20. Now, obviously I can't prove the counterfactual and say what would have happened if they hadn't waited. Hillary has since demonstrated she's more than capable of blowing a race any year she runs, and even at the time I thought Christie and Warren's chances were overrated. Still, it's worth considering the most famous counter-example of a candidate not waiting: Obama in 2008.I am. It would be political suicide to run against Trump in a primary race. Even if you do fancy yourself an heir apparent. He owns the base and Trump, being the malignant narcissist he is, would do everything in his power to ruin you for daring to oppose him.
Unless Trump makes him king, which malignant vindictive narcissists are incapable of, Ron has to wait until 2028.
A Trump/Hillary re-do would be awful for America.
No Trump, No Hillary, No Biden... pleaseYes, but better than Trump-Biden. Biden looks out of it. Hillary would be much better.
No Trump, No Hillary, No Biden... please
Assuming Biden does not run again I think it is a foregone conclusion that Harris will throw her hat in the ring. I doubt she gets the nomination but if she does it would take a horrendous GOP candidate for me to vote Dem. Someone like Trump for instance.No Trump, Hillary, Biden or Kamala..please
No way Biden will run again as he is too old right now but the others??
Assuming Biden does not run again I think it is a foregone conclusion that Harris will throw her hat in the ring. I doubt she gets the nomination but if she does it would take a horrendous GOP candidate for me to vote Dem. Someone like Trump for instance.
Schoen is a professional concern troll who wrote the exact same article in 2012, urging Hillary to run in place of Obama. Meanwhile, he's such a Hillary fan that when he had the opportunity to vote for her, he endorsed Trump.ekbeats said:
I think Biden will probably run, but I would shift that to "definitely" if Trump runs. Biden was open about the fact that he only ran in '20 because he thought Trump was an existential thread and he was the only Dem who could beat him (I scoffed at that idea when I first heard it, but in retrospect he was probably right). I don't see why the same wouldn't apply in '24.When it all shakes out I don`t see Trump or Biden running.
I think Biden will probably run, but I would shift that to "definitely" if Trump runs. Biden was open about the fact that he only ran in '20 because he thought Trump was an existential thread and he was the only Dem who could beat him (I scoffed at that idea when I first heard it, but in retrospect he was probably right). I don't see why the same wouldn't apply in '24.
I could see more likely for Hillary but less likely for Trump. Pro-life folks got what they wanted from Trump and can throw him under the bus.SCOTUS decision makes this more likely.
I gave this a like because I think you're probably right about Trump. Not sure why evangelicals would prefer this guy to any semi-normal Republican considering the baggage that he brings to the table and that the right (broadly) has already "won" SCOTUS.I could see more likely for Hillary but less likely for Trump. Pro-life folks got what they wanted from Trump and can throw him under the bus.
Same here, but be careful with saying that. I am already seeing some rumblings from pissed off people from yesterday screaming that anyone who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016 is to blame for the Supreme Court's horrific decision yesterday (and it was most certainly horrific). No, the Democrats should have given us a better and more likable candidate to run against the clown that was Trump.Looking forward to not voting for either of them, again
Mostly agree except that Hillary has made health care in general, and "reproductive rights" in particular, part of her brand. This is what she really needed.I gave this a like because I think you're probably right about Trump. Not sure why evangelicals would prefer this guy to any semi-normal Republican considering the baggage that he brings to the table and that the right (broadly) has already "won" SCOTUS.
I think Hillary's cooked though. My sense is that independent voters have had enough of super-old candidates, and I don't think Hillary enjoys much goodwill among Democratic primary voters.
When I say more likely for Hillary I’m talking about passing hurdle #1 of running. I seriously doubt she’s running but I do think the chances go up a little as I could see her thinking she needs to be the person to save abortion.I gave this a like because I think you're probably right about Trump. Not sure why evangelicals would prefer this guy to any semi-normal Republican considering the baggage that he brings to the table and that the right (broadly) has already "won" SCOTUS.
I think Hillary's cooked though. My sense is that independent voters have had enough of super-old candidates, and I don't think Hillary enjoys much goodwill among Democratic primary voters.
I'm one of them (though Im in NY where it didn't matter... if I was OH or FL I probably would have voted for her).Same here, but be careful with saying that. I am already seeing some rumblings from pissed off people from yesterday screaming that anyone who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016 is to blame for the Supreme Court's horrific decision yesterday (and it was most certainly horrific). No, the Democrats should have given us a better and more likable candidate to run against the clown that was Trump.
The whispers are "Psst -- keep this person away from any cameras or microphones."
I might pony up for the pay per view, depending on the rules. I mean, I'm out if it's going to be three rounds of them waddling around followed by judges scorecard. I'm in if it's 2 people enter, last one standing wins.Better idea… celebrity boxing match. Let them beat the #### out of each other like Danny Bonaduce and Greg Brady.
. You and I think alike. I was going to suggest a steel cage death match but I couldn’t sacrifice the Danny Bonaduce and Greg Brady reference. And for those of that never saw it, do yourself a favor and watch it on YouTube.I might pony up for the pay per view, depending on the rules. I mean, I'm out if it's going to be three rounds of them waddling around followed by judges scorecard. I'm in if it's 2 people enter, last one standing wins.