So If Hillary Fails, What Is Next For Democrats?

[HomerJS]

Biden will enter the race. For Valerie Jarrett, he's a known entity. He can be fairly easily controlled. She's done so for close to seven years so far. Of course the problem with Biden is that he's in the early stages of dementia and one can never tell when the filter in his head will go wonky and he'll start saying whatever is flitting through his brain at the time.

I think she'd be very happy with Sanders but there are concerns regarding whether he's electable. Also, his agenda doesn't sync all that well with hers and he's not going to be anywhere near as easy to control as Biden will be.

Otherwise, at this point they've got nobody. But the nomination is a long way off. The progressives (who we used to call Communists until they reinvented themselves yet again by giving themselves a new moniker) have never been this close to transforming this nation in the hundred or so years they've been attempting to do so. The stakes are high and there is little that progressives feel is out of bounds. This could get real exciting before it's over.

And of course Obama has another 18 months to pull off who knows what. It's been said that it could take as long as several decades if it's even possible to unravel the mess he's made. Putting a Republican in the White House could just mean a slightly slower path to the progressive utopia as there is little difference between the two major political parties these days.

The mess Obama made? You mean the losing of 800,000 jobs/month? Oh yeah that wasn't him it was that other guy.

 

[Sonikku]

The mess Obama made? You mean the losing of 800,000 jobs/month? Oh yeah that wasn't him it was that other guy.

But Obama began his bid for president in 2008! The economy imploded a few months later. Coincidence?! I think not!

 

[Indus]

But Obama began his bid for president in 2008! The economy imploded a few months later. Coincidence?! I think not!

The economy started imploding in 2007 in Europe, and it just reached full force when Henry Paulson couldn't get European banks and governments to bail out American companies.. and that caused Lehman to collapse. After that what followed was a large scale demonstration of the economic domino effect of what happens when America is not "feared/ respected" when they have George W. Bush in the White House.

You know the stuff people love to hit Obama with but in reality it happened under Bush. :whiste:

 

[HumblePie]

Actually in a funny way, I do prefer Al Gore over anyone else in the democratic field. Even voted for him the last time he ran. While he and I may not agree on executions to every thing he would like to do, he at least in my eyes has a good drive to actually want to fix stuff as moderately as possible usually.

Hockey stick metrics aside, he doesn't strike me as the idiot Biden does or the ethically challenged as others are.

 

[bshole]

I dont care for Clinton. I hope her campaign implodes. If we nominate Sanders, he might actually have a chance to bring about some changes and help bring the USA to the modern age.

He's more likely to die of old age, he is a septagenarian after all. Why not have Hillary's daughter run?

 

[boomerang]

He's more likely to die of old age, he is a septagenarian after all. Why not have Hillary's daughter run?

I don't know, is the left ready for a woman married to a hedge fund manager?

 

[BurnItDwn]

He's more likely to die of old age, he is a septagenarian after all. Why not have Hillary's daughter run?

I have seen Chelsea interviewed a few times, I do not believe she has ambitions of politics. However, because she is not interested in being a politician, she actually might have a chance at being pretty good of one.

As far as dying of old age, that is a risk, but, no worse than when Bob Dole ran, and honestly, his age wasn't that big of a factor.

 

[MongGrel]

Really?
Hyperbole much?

He dos it non stop of course.

 

[HTFOff]

You may be a 100% booster of Hillary Clinton for president. Fine. But things are starting to look shaky. So theoretically, if Hillary "decides" to bow out of the primary race, what do the Democrats do? Will someone new step into the ring? Or does Bernie Sanders become the party standard bearer?

This is different than analyzing the Republican campaigns, where there is no Hillary who has had a commanding lead from day 1 to the point of being the defacto party candidate in the nation's eyes.

People are starting to mention former VP Al Gore. Certainly he has name recognition and experience. Also because of friction years back with the Clinton's, he could claim independence from Hillary's baggage.

For a while, there was an assumption that Sen Elizabeth Warren would run against Hillary, but polls earlier in 2015 showed that Warren was a distant second to her. Warren then announced she would not be a candidate in 2016.

My thought is that Warren would be likely to jump in the race. She'd be likely to win President Obama's support. Or so I believe. She'd play up the outsider of Washington politics which Sanders has tried to portray.

Other possibilities?

Bow out? I doubt it sir.

If the email guru fails it will be because she wasn't bat shit crazy enough for the far left. Now that BLM is the face of the far left, the race is on to pander to the loudest, most extreme wing of the democratic party. Wasserman may be a slimy shyster but she's smart enough to know that nominating Sanders will, by default, hand the wh to team red. Let the pandermonium begin!

 

[First]

I don't know, is the left ready for a woman married to a hedge fund manager?

Your posts are oddly disturbing/starker-ish.

 

[cbrunny]

I'll run. Problem solved.

 

[Mandres]

Does it even matter? We all saw how quickly Obama was broken by the system. None of the bankers were thrown in jail, the idea of transparency went out the window, the idea of protecting whistle blowers went out the window, Edward Snowden had to the flee the country to escape the government. I don't think Obama was lying when he talked about those things. I still believe he's a good guy with a good heart, but even he can't fix this mess. Would the system be any different if Romney or a loaf of bread were president? Probably not. Just look at Obama's face. His hair immediately turned grey, and he looks tired all the time. Just like Bush, he golfs a hell of a lot. You know how guys in a bad marriage end up working a lot? Guys with a meaningless job end up golfing a lot. We could put any other person in that office and get the same result.

That sounds like a lot of jobs, actually. Imagine you're appointed to run a store that is having declining sales. You have lots of great ideas for the company and you can't wait to turn things around. Then you meet the people working for you. They're all idiots, none of them show up on time, they all leave early, and you can't fire them because they're unionized. What's left to do? Take the day off and go golfing.


Guys like Dick are worse than nothing. If you put a good person in charge of the country, they'll try to fix it, fail, and the country is the same 4 years later. If you put a loaf of bread in charge of the country, the bread does nothing, and the country is the same 4 years later. If you put a guy like Dick Cheney in charge, you know he's not trying to improve the country. He's one of them. He is the special interest group, he is the guy trying to get government contracts. If forced to choose between do nothing and go to war, he will pick war.

I have an idea. New constitutional amendment: every federal election MUST have another candidate that is a non-living object, such as a loaf of bread. If bread wins the election, that means nothing happens for 4 years. No wars, no new taxes, no repealed taxed, nothing. Just try again in 4 years. The bread would have no term limits. It can be president for 20 years if none of the parties are capable of finding a candidate people are willing to vote for.

hehe, post of the year.

 

[werepossum]

If she bows out, I would give a hard look at Kirsten Gillibrand. She's a much better senator than Hillary ever was.

She used to be my favorite Democrat, but as soon as she got stepped up to the big table all her heart-felt moderate positions evaporated and she became she-Schumer. I'd much rather have Fauxcahontas, at least she's honest about her far left positions and she leavens them with some honest populism.

what the US needs is a righteous republican who can rip out the rot from the republican party.

i will accept up to 7% crazy.

Obviously you aren't familiar with our party, sirrah. 7% crazy will get you a seat at the table, but with no crazy left to throw in the pot.

Does it even matter? We all saw how quickly Obama was broken by the system. None of the bankers were thrown in jail, the idea of transparency went out the window, the idea of protecting whistle blowers went out the window, Edward Snowden had to the flee the country to escape the government. I don't think Obama was lying when he talked about those things. I still believe he's a good guy with a good heart, but even he can't fix this mess. Would the system be any different if Romney or a loaf of bread were president? Probably not. Just look at Obama's face. His hair immediately turned grey, and he looks tired all the time. Just like Bush, he golfs a hell of a lot. You know how guys in a bad marriage end up working a lot? Guys with a meaningless job end up golfing a lot. We could put any other person in that office and get the same result.

That sounds like a lot of jobs, actually. Imagine you're appointed to run a store that is having declining sales. You have lots of great ideas for the company and you can't wait to turn things around. Then you meet the people working for you. They're all idiots, none of them show up on time, they all leave early, and you can't fire them because they're unionized. What's left to do? Take the day off and go golfing.


Guys like Dick are worse than nothing. If you put a good person in charge of the country, they'll try to fix it, fail, and the country is the same 4 years later. If you put a loaf of bread in charge of the country, the bread does nothing, and the country is the same 4 years later. If you put a guy like Dick Cheney in charge, you know he's not trying to improve the country. He's one of them. He is the special interest group, he is the guy trying to get government contracts. If forced to choose between do nothing and go to war, he will pick war.

I have an idea. New constitutional amendment: every federal election MUST have another candidate that is a non-living object, such as a loaf of bread. If bread wins the election, that means nothing happens for 4 years. No wars, no new taxes, no repealed taxed, nothing. Just try again in 4 years. The bread would have no term limits. It can be president for 20 years if none of the parties are capable of finding a candidate people are willing to vote for.

I don't want to elect a loaf of bread but I'd certainly take a "None of the above" choice where the current Veep becomes interim President for three months and a new election is held in ninety days, with no rejected candidates allow to re-run. (Or if the Veep is one of the rejected candidates, the Speaker or President Pro Tempore, and so forth until a clean person is found.) Just bump everyone up one notch for as many ninety day periods as it takes to elect someone that a majority of voters prefer to no one, then a ninety day transition period. Same for Senate and House, let the state's governor appoint an interim person and re-run the election ninety days later.

 

[HumblePie]

hehe, post of the year.

I laughed. Also I think Hillary and Dick are about the same when it comes to screwing us up if they were ever in office.

 

[5150Joker]

All the candidates are terrible with Hillary and Trump being the worst by far. I think Rand Paul would be a good choice even though I'm not Republican. He seems more moderate and level headed and of course because of that, he'll never get elected. If Hillary bows out of the race (hypothetically), then the Dems would be done since all hopes are on her...that just makes me cringe thinking of her as President. I mean as much as I dislike Trump, I would rather have that clown be POTUS than her.

 

[pcgeek11]

At this point I think it's too late in the game for any other candidate to step into the race with any success on the dem side. hildabeast has been the chosen one for so long, I think the party is just going to stick with her no matter what and know that they still have a very good chance to win.

The only way I could see hildabeast get booted is if there are actual criminal charges filed against her -- and there's no way obummer is going to let that happen.

If things get really crazy and hildabeast is swept aside, I suspect they'll drag the Goron into the mix, or some other idiot like Warren.

So you think that even if they find just cause to charge her that Obama will break the law and prevent the charges?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So, when it comes to a replacement for Hillary as the Democratic front runner, Bernie Sanders is just chopper liver?

 

[Sonikku]

Does it even matter? We all saw how quickly Obama was broken by the system. None of the bankers were thrown in jail, the idea of transparency went out the window, the idea of protecting whistle blowers went out the window, Edward Snowden had to the flee the country to escape the government. I don't think Obama was lying when he talked about those things. I still believe he's a good guy with a good heart, but even he can't fix this mess. Would the system be any different if Romney or a loaf of bread were president? Probably not. Just look at Obama's face. His hair immediately turned grey, and he looks tired all the time. Just like Bush, he golfs a hell of a lot. You know how guys in a bad marriage end up working a lot? Guys with a meaningless job end up golfing a lot. We could put any other person in that office and get the same result.

That sounds like a lot of jobs, actually. Imagine you're appointed to run a store that is having declining sales. You have lots of great ideas for the company and you can't wait to turn things around. Then you meet the people working for you. They're all idiots, none of them show up on time, they all leave early, and you can't fire them because they're unionized. What's left to do? Take the day off and go golfing.


Guys like Dick are worse than nothing. If you put a good person in charge of the country, they'll try to fix it, fail, and the country is the same 4 years later. If you put a loaf of bread in charge of the country, the bread does nothing, and the country is the same 4 years later. If you put a guy like Dick Cheney in charge, you know he's not trying to improve the country. He's one of them. He is the special interest group, he is the guy trying to get government contracts. If forced to choose between do nothing and go to war, he will pick war.

I have an idea. New constitutional amendment: every federal election MUST have another candidate that is a non-living object, such as a loaf of bread. If bread wins the election, that means nothing happens for 4 years. No wars, no new taxes, no repealed taxed, nothing. Just try again in 4 years. The bread would have no term limits. It can be president for 20 years if none of the parties are capable of finding a candidate people are willing to vote for.

This post is making me hungry.

 

[BurnItDwn]

So, when it comes to a replacement for Hillary as the Democratic front runner, Bernie Sanders is just chopper liver?

He is not owned by corporate overlords so media will do whatever they can to discount him.

 

[werepossum]

So, when it comes to a replacement for Hillary as the Democratic front runner, Bernie Sanders is just chopper liver?

Close. He's chopped liver spots.

This post is making me hungry.

lol

Damn it, who ate the President?

 

[PokerGuy]

So you think that even if they find just cause to charge her that Obama will break the law and prevent the charges?

Since when have such pesky details as "laws" ever stopped politicians from doing what they want? Especially the current crop? A few calls to specific inidividuals, and the investigation will magically be dropped, or the focus will shift to one of her henchmen (henchwomen?). There are already stories popping up about the feds starting to take a closer look at abedin's role and whether she might be in trouble.

 

[TheGardener]

Since when have such pesky details as "laws" ever stopped politicians from doing what they want? Especially the current crop? A few calls to specific inidividuals, and the investigation will magically be dropped, or the focus will shift to one of her henchmen (henchwomen?). There are already stories popping up about the feds starting to take a closer look at abedin's role and whether she might be in trouble.

Shifting the blame to underlings is a possible way to go. Wouldn't be the first sacrificial lambs.

 

[theeedude]

Someone more liberal.

 

[nickqt]

Just give Trump 8 years to blow everything up so we can start over. Clearly all of the cogs are rusted out and crumbling. Let's just try not to nuke substantial portions of the world we think are scary.

 

[EOM]

Of want I understand about this, Hillary had pre-arranged with the justice dept to have her own private server.
That was no problem. They gave her the ok. And it has been done before.
As far as classified stuff, the justice dept handles that end.
All the classified stuff only goes thru the government server(s), not Hillary's private server.
The issue was when justice dept people "mis-labeling" a few classified emails that Hillary had no control over.
If it came to her private server mis-marked non-classified by the justice dept, how is that Hillary's blame?

Secretary of States come and go.
The people that run the justice department are serving from administration to administration.
If they become sloppy, then we should have congress deal with the justice department people, and there place all the blame.

So other than that, and once people understand the facts, Hillary isn't to blame. And her having a private server for non-classified communications is nothing more than you having a personal GMAIL or YAHOO email account separate from your work assigned email account.

You should use your work email account only for business related to work.
And use your Gmail account for other non work related personal matters.
Well, this is the same with a justice department server and Hillary's private server.
It is up to your company to send business related emails to your employer assigned email account, and not to your personal Gmail or Yahoo account.
If your company sent private business related emails to your Gmail account, how would that be your fault?
It wouldn't.
It would be fully your companies fault. Their screw-up.
Same with the justice dept and Hillary.

If it happened accidentally a few times here and there and she made an attempt to say "hey, official e-mails to my official e-mail account only" then I'd agree with you 100%.
The fact that she continuously replied to e-mails on this privately hosted account over the course of years makes her just as culpable. How did other State employees find out about her personal account in the first place? She would've had to have used it first or given it out on purpose.
Nobody at my company has ever used my personal account or likely even knows about it other than my boss because i submitted my resume with my personal account.

Remember, the whole issue here is emails that Hillary had no control over, none what so ever.
Emails that were mis-marked by the justice department, not Hillary, and then sent to Hillary's personal server as non-classified.

I find it amazing but not surprising that the media gets all bent out of shape over stuff they really do not understand. And they tend to echo right wing garbage that has no legitimacy.
And what are they actually saying here?
That Hillary is a crook? That Hillary is un-American? That Hillary would intentionally sabotage the US government? Or that Hillary is some commie spy?
Just what are they, the media and the right wing republicans, accusing Hillary of here?

Or... maybe this is simply because Hillary is a woman that served in a high government position, and now seeks the presidency of the United States?
And the right wing feels both jobs are only for the old white American males.
Hmmmmm.

Hillary is not a commie plot nor a soviet spy.
And both of the Clinton's have honorably served America, not mentioning the Monica thing.
Which technically, a president having sexual control issues is not that uncommon.
JFK had his moments with the ladies, and so did several past presidents besides JFK and Bill Clinton.
Some were caught, some were not.
Some kept it quiet, and some left stains on a blue dress.
But, all that still did not stop Bill Clinton from giving the American people one of the best economies in American history.
Bill Clinton kept us out of war, and gave the middle class a pretty nice living.

It would be a tragic mistake for a fudged email issue to keep Hillary from the presidency.
To distract the American people by all the nonsense from the right wing republican sound machine. And repeated by the sloppy tabloid prone news media.
And possibly opening the door for another Bush, or worse, as the next president.
Is that what people want? Another Bush as president?

Which, by the way, how many senate hearings have we had on the GW Bush administration failures of 9/11 ???
A few mis-marked emails surely amount to little if anything compared to how and why GW Bush and Condoleeza Rice allowed 9/11 to take place.
Why they missed all the warning signs.
And why any American president strolls hand in hand with Saudi kings over oil rights.
This should be the investigation that never ends, and consumes republicans in the house and senate to no end. 9/11.

PS...
Hillary would be a great honorable president just as she has been as Secretary of State and as first lady.
No one really need guess what our future would be under another Bush, now do we?
.
.
.