Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

HRC lost to Obama, a novice black man with a muslim name and a reality tv bafoon. She would be shameless and foolish to run again. And voters would be equally foolish to support her. I do not see it happening.

[Teenwolf]

HRC lost to Obama, a novice black man with a muslim name and a reality tv bafoon. She would be shameless and foolish to run again. And voters would be equally foolish to support her. I do not see it happening.

I just looked at Hillary's website myself, and all of the policy planks contain a disclaimer: "Note: This page is a reproduction of the Hillary for America policy proposal on...", so I guess I could see how it's just trying to show "hey, look at what a good candidate she was"... so I thought to myself, okay, maybe there's only a 10% chance that she runs.

Then I kept seeing the logo for this campaign slogan thing with an arrow saying "onward together". It turns out Onward Together is the name of her super PAC. This from Wikipedia:

Onward Together is an American political action organization founded in May 2017 by former U.S. Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to fundraise for progressive political groups including: Swing Left, Indivisible, Color of Change, Emerge America, and Run for Something.

Clinton co-founded the group with Howard Dean. In August 2017, Dean confirmed that Onward Together had hired Emmy Ruiz and Adam Parkhomenko as consultants, both of whom were members of Clinton's 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns.

On May 15, 2017, Hillary Clinton tweeted the launch of Onward Together from her personal Twitter account. Clinton transferred $800,000 from her 2016 presidential campaign to Onward Together shortly before announcing the group's launch in May, documents the campaign filed with the FEC revealed.

During the 2018 United States midterm elections the PAC funded Democratic candidates as well as grassroots organizations.

So seeing that she's been running a super PAC for the last 2 years, I think the odds go up slightly that her delusions are real, and I'm back at 50-50. I wonder how much money that group of PAC's has at it's disposal. With Biden sitting under $9 Mil, she won't need much, and she would possibly steal a lot of the donors lining up behind Buttigieg to carry her through. If I can see a path for Hillary, I'm sure she can see one too.

[Gregg]

That would be silly. There are plenty of good choices in the large group that's running, and the field included quality options across the Democratic Party's ideological spectrum, including several highly competent moderates to whom Biden supporters could have or could still switch horses if they were so inclined.

Who are your top two?

[Teenwolf]

I share your fear, but I don’t think she will run. Probably just a way to gin up book sales.
Unlike you, I would relish a Bloomberg run. He would crush Trump, though not sure he could get the nomination.

How much would you be willing to do to increase book sales as a 72 year old worth $45 Mil, with a husband worth $75 Mil?

How much does re-introducing policy to your website make people want to buy your latest book?

Neither seems to make much sense to me.

[Sour Masher]

I just looked at Hillary's website myself, and all of the policy planks contain a disclaimer: "Note: This page is a reproduction of the Hillary for America policy proposal on...", so I guess I could see how it's just trying to show "hey, look at what a good candidate she was"... so I thought to myself, okay, maybe there's only a 10% chance that she runs.

Then I kept seeing the logo for this campaign slogan thing with an arrow saying "onward together". It turns out Onward Together is the name of her super PAC. This from Wikipedia:



So seeing that she's been running a super PAC for the last 2 years, I think the odds go up slightly that her delusions are real, and I'm back at 50-50. I wonder how much money that group of PAC's has at it's disposal. With Biden sitting under $9 Mil, she won't need much, and she would possibly steal a lot of the donors lining up behind Buttigieg to carry her through. If I can see a path for Hillary, I'm sure she can see one too.

This is the stuff of Trump's wet dreams. He would be on cloud 9 if the one person he knows he can beat runs again.

[B-Fly]

Who are your top two?

Warren is my clear favorite right now. I'm very torn in my second choice, but like aspects of most of the candidates in the race and would have little problem enthusiastically backing every single one of them against Trump. I have a lot of respect for the careers of both Sanders and Biden, despite the wide gap between their policy approaches, but I would probably fall back for a younger candidate if Warren faded, like Harris, Buttigieg or Booker. As we've seen in various other threads, I'm not as far left on foreign policy engagement as many of my fellow liberals here in the Sports Bar, so Gabbard, who is way left of me on foreign engagement and seemingly pretty far right of me on matters of social justice, is probably the only truly bad fit for me from the pack.

[Gregg]

Warren is my clear favorite right now. I'm very torn in my second choice, but like aspects of most of the candidates in the race and would have little problem enthusiastically backing every single one of them against Trump. I have a lot of respect for the careers of both Sanders and Biden, despite the wide gap between their policy approaches, but I would probably fall back for a younger candidate if Warren faded, like Harris, Buttigieg or Booker. As we've seen in various other threads, I'm not as far left on foreign policy engagement as many of my fellow liberals here in the Sports Bar, so Gabbard, who is way left of me on foreign engagement and seemingly pretty far right of me on matters of social justice, is probably the only truly bad fit for me from the pack.

Thank you for the answer and explanation.

[Gregg]

This is the stuff of Trump's wet dreams. He would be on cloud 9 if the one person he knows he can beat runs again.

If the Democratic voters weren't so mad at HRC for losing to Trump, she should easily defeat him if she ran again.

[The Feral Slasher]

Warren is my clear favorite right now. I'm very torn in my second choice, but like aspects of most of the candidates in the race and would have little problem enthusiastically backing every single one of them against Trump. I have a lot of respect for the careers of both Sanders and Biden, despite the wide gap between their policy approaches, but I would probably fall back for a younger candidate if Warren faded, like Harris, Buttigieg or Booker. As we've seen in various other threads, I'm not as far left on foreign policy engagement as many of my fellow liberals here in the Sports Bar, so Gabbard, who is a Russian spy, is probably the only truly bad fit for me from the pack.

fixed

[B-Fly]

fixed

LOL. Had to read it twice to find what you changed. That bit of deranged nonsense from Clinton was the best thing to happen for Gabbard in this campaign so far.

[B-Fly]

If the Democratic voters weren't so mad at HRC for losing to Trump, she should easily defeat him if she ran again.

I don't think so. There's a reason she lost to Trump -- she stirred up a lot of negative feelings with a lot of voters *before* she lost to Trump. While I believe she could have been a very good president, because of her policy chops and intelligence, I would prefer to face Trump in 2020 with a candidate who doesn't have negative polling ratings that rival or surpass Trump's own.

[Sour Masher]

I'm not as far left on foreign policy engagement as many of my fellow liberals here in the Sports Bar, so Gabbard, who is way left of me on foreign engagement and seemingly pretty far right of me on matters of social justice, is probably the only truly bad fit for me from the pack.

Is it accepted that absolute non-intervention is considered a liberal position? The extent to which the US should engage (or interfere, opponents would say) in foreign affairs seems to share support from those on the left and on the right. In fact, and I do not blame Tulsi for this at all, but many white nationalists like David Duke and Richard Spencer support Tulsi because she, as they put it, doesn't want to send white Americans to bleed and die for non-whites. All of those folks identity with the right. And completely separate from them--I want to make that clear--are all those libertarian-minded folks who also want us to stay out of foreign conflicts. Most of them also identify with the GOP than with the left.

I know, historically, Republicans have been more hawkish and Democrats more Dovish, but that isn't always the case--in fact, for those who don't like HRC, that was often cited as one reason why they preferred Trump. I don't see Tulsi as more liberal or progressive than me or other candidates because of foreign policy positions.

[B-Fly]

Is it accepted that absolute non-intervention is considered a liberal position? The extent to which the US should engage (or interfere, opponents would say) in foreign affairs seems to share support from those on the left and on the right. In fact, and I do not blame Tulsi for this at all, but many white nationalists like David Duke and Richard Spencer support Tulsi because she, as they put it, doesn't want to send white Americans to bleed and die for non-whites. All of those folks identity with the right. And completely separate from them--I want to make that clear--are all those libertarian-minded folks who also want us to stay out of foreign conflicts. Most of them also identify with the GOP than with the left.

I know, historically, Republicans have been more hawkish and Democrats more Dovish, but that isn't always the case--in fact, for those who don't like HRC, that was often cited as one reason why they preferred Trump. I don't see Tulsi as more liberal or progressive than me or other candidates because of foreign policy positions.

Yeah, interventionist versus anti-interventionist defies easy conservative-liberal or left-right categorization. She's a much more extreme anti-interventionist than I am.

[Sour Masher]

Yeah, interventionist versus anti-interventionist defies easy conservative-liberal or left-right categorization. She's a much more extreme anti-interventionist than I am.

Me too, although I do think the US gets involved in more things than we should and often for the wrong reasons. But yeah, like everything else, this is not a black and white issue. Cases should be considered on their own merit.

[Teenwolf]

Me too, although I do think the US gets involved in more things than we should and often for the wrong reasons. But yeah, like everything else, this is not a black and white issue. Cases should be considered on their own merit.

So in the case of Trump being President... best to give him a big increase in military spending right? He couldn't possibly misuse those funds, right?

Hard to oppose Trump when you've funded his war efforts. But no big deal for B-Fly, or I guess most folks here.