[MKSixer]

My conversation with Grumpy Old Man prompted me to create poll based on the following premise:

The current field of the DNC candidates for the nomination to be the DNC's 2020 Presidential candidate is lackluster in the extreme. None are electable on the national level with the exception of Biden and MAYBE Bernie who are both pretty old, non-vigorous, and generally unappealing to the vast majority of the less vocal members of the party. For weeks I've been thinking that this would be an excellent opportunity for HER, yes...Hillary Rodham Clinton, to come in at the last moment of qualification, SWOOP IN, and take the nomination. All of the elements are in place:

1. Universal hatred for all things Trump by the current Dems.
2. Lackluster panel of candidates.
3. An unelectable platform...the Green New Deal is a complete loser, nationally.
4. No candidate that is clearly and passionately loved by the national rank-and-file.
5. The nostalgia factor of having another shot at the Oval Office. Redemption. Revenge on the Evil Trumpsters.

I'm adding a poll to see if people think I'm absolute nuts in thinking this as well as assess whether or not it could work.

[City Pig]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

My conversation with Grumpy Old Man prompted me to create poll based on the following premise:

The current field of the DNC candidates for the nomination to be the DNC's 2020 Presidential candidate is lackluster in the extreme. None are electable on the national level with the exception of Biden and MAYBE Bernie who are both pretty old, non-vigorous, and generally unappealing to the vast majority of the less vocal members of the party. For weeks I've been thinking that this would be an excellent opportunity for HER, yes...Hillary Rodham Clinton, to come in at the last moment of qualification, SWOOP IN, and take the nomination. All of the elements are in place:

1. Universal hatred for all things Trump by the current Dems.
2. Lackluster panel of candidates.
3. An unelectable platform...the Green New Deal is a complete loser, nationally.
4. No candidate that is clearly and passionately loved by the national rank-and-file.
5. The nostalgia factor of having another shot at the Oval Office. Redemption. Revenge on the Evil Trumpsters.

I'm adding a poll to see if people think I'm absolute nuts in thinking this as well as assess whether or not it could work.

So interestingly Run Silent has just started a post indicating that Elizabeth Warren seems to be the front runner and he's attached much of her primary platform. This is all very interesting.

[SoCalS2k]

You guys gotta stop this Clinton obsession. It's unhealthy!

[NormanConquest]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

So interestingly Run Silent has just started a post indicating that Elizabeth Warren seems to be the front runner and he's attached much of her primary platform. This is all very interesting.

Guess Warren will sucide herself soon

[hooligan_COLD]

Not a snowball's chance in Hell this happens.


Also, DJT Massacre 2.0 would imply there was a first iteration, which there wasn't.

[City Pig]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

Not a snowball's chance in Hell this happens.


Also, DJT Massacre 2.0 would imply there was a first iteration, which there wasn't.

I don't disagree but I also voted that Jeffery Epstein would make it to trial. I'll never say I've seen everything but not much surprises me anymore.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by SoCalS2k

You guys gotta stop this Clinton obsession. It's unhealthy!

It's not an obsession. It's a legitimate question that I've been talking about people in the know about for the last month.

[NormanConquest]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

Not a snowball's chance in Hell this happens.


Also, DJT Massacre 2.0 would imply there was a first iteration, which there wasn't.

https://imgtc.ws/gx4pVBy

Sure looks like someone just got massacred with that kind of reaction.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

Not a snowball's chance in Hell this happens.


Also, DJT Massacre 2.0 would imply there was a first iteration, which there wasn't.

Politically, this was a massacre. Remember, per the polling he had NO CHANCE of winning at 1 PM on election day.

[hooligan_COLD]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

I don't disagree but I also voted that Jeffery Epstein would make it to trial. I'll never say I've seen everything but not much surprises me anymore.

Samesies.

[hooligan_COLD]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Politically, this was a massacre. Remember, per the polling he had NO CHANCE of winning at 1 PM on election day.

Uh, Trump's margin of victory is ranked 46th in history. Obama's were both more impressive, same for both of Clinton's, both of Reagan's are in the top 10 for margin of victory. Nixon was #6. George HW Bush had a margin 23 points higher than Trump and that didn't even put him in the top 20 in history!

Not a massacre, sorry.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

Uh, Trump's margin of victory is ranked 46th in history. Obama's were both more impressive, same for both of Clinton's, both of Reagan's are in the top 10 for margin of victory. Nixon was #6. George HW Bush had a margin 23 points higher than Trump and that didn't even put him in the top 20 in history!

Not a massacre, sorry.

The caveat is the fact that he was given a nearly zero chance to win. That is what makes it a massacre. All of the pundits were wrong.

[hooligan_COLD]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

The caveat is the fact that he was given a nearly zero chance to win. That is what makes it a massacre. All of the pundits were wrong.

We'll agree to disagree there.

Results matter. Predictions don't.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

We'll agree to disagree there.

Results matter. Predictions don't.

Fair enough on the former. In 100% agreement with the latter.

[hooligan_COLD]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

The caveat is the fact that he was given a nearly zero chance to win. That is what makes it a massacre. All of the pundits were wrong.

I would call that a "surprise" or "unexpected" or "underdog" or similar win, sure. Not a "massacre".

When Jimmy V's NC State team beat Houston at the buzzer in '83. That was a HUGE upset, it was not a massacre.

Edited to add -- Now, UNLV beating Duke 103-73 in the 1990 championship game. THAT was a massacre.

[Run Silent]

I picked that it is never gonna happen. But also picked that she could actually win if by some crazy notion, it does happen.

I'm apparently straddling a fence here?

[detroitm2]

Not being sexist at all, but the only thing HRC has going for her is she's a woman. I'm sure the day will come (hopefully soon!) that we end up with a woman in office. That woman will never be HRC.

She has far too much dirt surrounding her for the DNC to think she has a shot in hell. Sad part is, she's probably the best shot they have right now.

[detroitm2]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

Results matter.

Taken out of context, I know, but I wish more Democrats said these words.

[Delta0311]

She will be a shoe in once she suicides all the potential candidates. Now this is Hilary we are talking about so this is a huge possibility.

[hooligan_COLD]

Originally Posted by detroitm2

Taken out of context, I know, but I wish more Democrats said these words.

I wish more politicians, full stop, said these words.

[PKL]

this poll is a joke. HRC got nothing to do with it anymore.

[detroitm2]

Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD

I wish more politicians, full stop, said these words.

Further, I wish more People said these words.