Hillary Clinton Paradox

[Ten oz]

It appears Hillary Clinton is potentially considering another Presidential run in 2020. In various circles I have seen a lot of trepidation among Democrats surrounding the possibility of another Clinton campaign. To me it is a very interesting situation which seems to have paradoxical feelings on different level among both Conservatives and Progressives.

The first being that Clinton is though to be too divisive and flawed of a figure to head a national campaign. Conservatives appear to hate Clinton more than Democrats like her. Yet it is the anti Clinton propaganda pushed by those hoping to defeat Clinton politically who have created those feelings and they will do the same with whomever runs. Sanders, Harris, Biden, and etc lack such baggage simply because they haven't been the nominee yet. John Kerry as a potential 2020 candidate carries similar trepidation because he has. No candidate will be embraced or treated anymore equitably by the opposition I think it's naive to believe otherwise. Yet the fear is justified. Hillary Clinton hatred could spur conservatives to vote and create apathy among Progressives. Hillary Clinton as a flawed Politician appears to be both true and false simultaneously.

Then there is the issue of illegality/illegitimacy surrounding the 2016 election. Trump's former campaign manager & personal Lawyer have already been found guilty of crimes. It is a fact Trump's campaign broke the law. Additionally numerous Russian intelligence officials have been indicted and social media giants like Facebook have come forward detailing the manner in which Russia sought to help Trump campaign. Yet many believe Clinton lost in 2016 because she didn't campaign enough in swing states and because she mishandled the email controversy. Both of the follow statements appear to be true: Clinton won 3 million more votes in the face of unprecedented cheating and Russian meddling. Hillary Clinton blew it. 

As a subsection to the Russia meddling and Cheating by Trump it is Hillary Clinton who legitimately should have won in 2016 and was most pointedly victimized (all voters were victims ultimately) by the illegalities yet those who want to see Trump impeached do not necessarily want to see Hillary Clinton run again or even out of the campaign trail advocating for others. Despite Trump being broadly viewed as a cheater Hillary Clinton isn't broadly viewed sympathetically as a party which was wronged. 

There are a lot of seemingly true and false narratives centered around Hillary Clinton occupying the same space at the same time. Sadly none seem based in policy or what she would actually do in office. What does it all mean does she need to just go away, evolve, stay the course, or what?

 

 

[rangerx]

What Hillary did, pales in comparison to what Trump and his cronies do, two, four, sixfold

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html

I think it's a bad idea. Not because she isn't qualified or unable to do a good job, but after all the rancor and acrimony over her character assassination, it would only stir up more derangement by republicans, because (sadly) that's what they thrive upon.


 

[StringJunky]

Whatever her abilities are will be drowned out by her history. It'll be another 4 years for the Republicans if she stands again. Just the way it is.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What Hillary did, pales in comparison to what Trump and his cronies do, two, four, sixfold

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html

I think it's a bad idea. Not because she isn't qualified or unable to do a good job, but after all the rancor and acrimony over her character assassination, it would only stir up more derangement by republicans, because (sadly) that's what they thrive upon.


 

Isn't this par for the course now though? If it is Elizabeth Warren instead of Clinton she be incisively attacked as a race baiting Pocahontas fraud, Biden as a sexist hypocrite that didn't give Anita Hill a fair shake, and etc. If Democrats need a candidate who exists beyond the reach Republican derangement to win in 2020 than they will absolute lose. Yet, paradoxically I sort of agree with you.

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Whatever her abilities are will be drowned out by her history. It'll be another 4 years for the Republicans if she stands again. Just the way it is.

On some level though doesn't such a concession reward bad behavior? Republicans did such a good job throwing a tantrum about about Hillary Clinton that she is no longer a viable candidate despite seemingly every conspiracy launch being disproved. 

....and, I think I might agree with you. 

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Isn't this par for the course now though? If it is Elizabeth Warren instead of Clinton she be incisively attacked as a race baiting Pocahontas fraud, Biden as a sexist hypocrite that didn't give Anita Hill a fair shake, and etc. If Democrats need a candidate who exists beyond the reach Republican derangement to win in 2020 than they will absolute lose. Yet, paradoxically I sort of agree with you.

On some level though doesn't such a concession reward bad behavior? Republicans did such a good job throwing a tantrum about about Hillary Clinton that she is no longer a viable candidate despite seemingly every conspiracy launch being disproved. 

....and, I think I might agree with you. 

Yes, but the more pressing issue is winning and reversing the  Republican damage. I think her consolation is that history will write the truth about the Republicans and the way she was treated by them.

[rangerx]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

On some level though doesn't such a concession reward bad behavior? Republicans did such a good job throwing a tantrum about about Hillary Clinton that she is no longer a viable candidate despite seemingly every conspiracy launch being disproved.

The standard of burden of proof does not apply to republicans by republicans. Just democrats.

It would just be four more years of "lock her up", despite the absence of evidence.

One thing I've noticed though in recent times, Republicans are reluctant to blurt out "communist" at every turn since the former leader of the KGB interfered with the US elections, turning a blind eye to favor a republican candidate.

So who's the commie lovers now? Better red than Hillary, apparently. Sad. To boot, the country that attacked America on 911 is now murdering American journalists, yet nary a peep from republicans.

[J.C.MacSwell]

If it's Trump vs Hillary in 2020 an independent just might win election...

[Raider5678]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it's Trump vs Hillary in 2020 an independent just might win election...

I pray to god that'd be the case.

51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If it is Elizabeth Warren instead of Clinton she be incisively attacked as a race baiting Pocahontas fraud,

To be fair, if a Republican candidate had gotten money set aside for Native Americans because he was 1/1024th Native American, I'm pretty sure you'd be ripping into him as well.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

To me it is a very interesting situation which seems to have paradoxical feelings on different level among both Conservatives and Progressives.

I don't think she should run for President again.

I truly believe she'd lose by bigger margins then she did last time.

If the Democrats want to win they should be running someone else.

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

but after all the rancor and acrimony over her character assassination

There was plenty of character assassination from both sides.

Additionally, there has almost always been character assassination, and as long as we have a two party system, we will continue to have character assassination on both sides.

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, but the more pressing issue is winning and reversing the  Republican damage. I think her consolation is that history will write the truth about the Republicans and the way she was treated by them.

I don't disagree however I do have some other thoughts on the matter. Republicans are experts in Character assassinations. There is various stigmas associated with Al Gore and John Kerry. Both were endlessly attacked  by the right during their campaigns. Al Gore as a tree hugger who lied about Climate and took credit for things he did do and John Kerry was swift boated as an anti American who dishonored his service. In both cases the Democratic primaries had been straight forward affairs with a clear lead candidates. It allow Republicans to attack early. in 08' Hillary Clinton was the favorite and Republican went on an all out assault against Hillary Clinton years in advance. Hillary Clinton actually won more votes in the Primary than Obama. The primary was very close and Republicans remained focused on Clinton up to the DNC which in 08' was Aug. 25th. After the DNC is when Republicans began their assault on Obama but with early voting in some states starting in Oct. Republicans barely had 2 months to demagogue Obama before election day. As a result Obama remained a fairly uncontroversial candidate throughout the election.  Obama beat McCain by 9 point and 10 million votes. 4yrs later in part because Republicans had time to attack Obama they narrowed the gap. Despite Obama doing an excellent job across the board as President Obama only did half as well vs Romney winning by 4 points and 5 million votes. In 16' Hillary Clinton ran unopposed. Republicans spent years attacking her exclusively right through to election. 

So in my opinion it doesn't really matter who the candidate is per se. There is very little ideological daylight between Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and Gore. Whomever it is will be attacked and those attacks will be equally voracious. It is more a logistical matter of time. For how long will an individual figure have to weather the assault. We see today that Republicans have already began attacking Elizabeth Warren strongly and jabbing at Cory Booker. They are being smeared in advance so that they seem too divisive come 2020. Democrats need to wise up or else continue to allow their best people rendered un-electable over silly school yard nick names like "Pocahontas". Democrats can let Republican's dictate their candidates for them.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I pray to god that'd be the case.

 

Just run anonymously, and spend no money...call yourself and your platform "door #3"

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it's Trump vs Hillary in 2020 an independent just might win election...

People overwhelmingly  vote party in the U.S. or not at all. If it is Donald vs Clinton in 2020 turnout is be down and the result will be very similar with Clinton winning a couple million more votes. No telling how it would shake out electorally. 

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't think she should run for President again.

I truly believe she'd lose by bigger margins then she did last time.

If the Democrats want to win they should be running someone else.

Such was said of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. George H.W. Bush had over a 60% approval rating from 88'-91' yet lost in 92'. Bill Clinton left Office with his approval in the 60's yet his VP failed to be elected. Similarly Obama left popular yet his party still suffered defeats. These things simply are not linear as one would imagine they should be. A lot will happen between now and 2020. Under Trump we have already had 2 Sec Of Sates, 2 Sec of DHS, 2 CIA Directors, 3 National Security Advisers, 2 Chief of Staffs, 3 Press Secs, and we all know some combo or Kelly, Sessions, Mattis, mnuchin, Sanders, and etc are gone after the midterms. Can you confidently say today you expect Trump to be on the 2020 ticket?

[Sensei]

Let's be absolutely honest, (unfortunately) conservative America is not ready for women-president.. H.C. has some (unpleasant) history behind her..

I nominated Michelle Obama for president

but according to her husband speech released couple days later, she refused..

 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Let's be absolutely honest, (unfortunately) conservative America is not ready for women-president.. H.C. has some (unpleasant) history behind her..

I nominated Michelle Obama for president.

but according to her husband speech released couple days later, she refused..

 

Michelle Obama insists she won't be running for anything. As for the Women President part I disagree. Clinton did win 3 million more votes, Trump did cheat, and Russia did put money and man power behind Trump. Clinton did as well as any candidate in history who didn't win has ever done. Her loss was rather anomalous. It proves a woman could win in my opinion. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Michelle Obama insists she won't be running for anything. As for the Women President part I disagree. Clinton did win 3 million more votes, Trump did cheat, and Russia did put money and man power behind Trump. Clinton did as well as any candidate in history who didn't win has ever done. Her loss was rather anomalous. It proves a woman could win in my opinion. 

I Agree. I believe a woman could win, without a doubt, and from either party.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

People overwhelmingly  vote party in the U.S. or not at all. If it is Donald vs Clinton in 2020 turnout is be down and the result will be very similar with Clinton winning a couple million more votes. No telling how it would shake out electorally. 

This is true however I don't know for how long.

In July 2004, the number of people who considered themselves independent was 27%.

In April 2018, the number of people who considered themselves independent was 45%.

And it's continuing to grow steadily.

It won't be long before it hits a tipping point and independents begin to take over state legislatures, then Congress, and eventually the president. 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Let's be absolutely honest, (unfortunately) conservative America is not ready for women-president..

If the Democrats ran a man, and the Republicans ran a woman, I highly doubt that suddenly the whole thing where people vote by the party would disappear.

Republicans would vote for the woman, and the Democrats would vote for the man.

 

It's not that conservatives simply refused to vote for Hillary because she was a woman. She was a self-proclaimed liberal. They weren't going to back her up no matter who, what, or where she came from. That's the problem with party politics. 

[iNow]

I’m skeptical.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I see this as much more likely being just another Russian-style (Russian-driven?) wedge issue that’s being forcibly and with divisive purpose inserted our various feeds / media landscape and social field of view.

I see that as more likely than thus being a real story with any merit.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I Agree. I believe a woman could win, without a doubt, and from either party.

I am not a fan of general statements which imply  parity between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately here in the U.S. we only have 2 major parties and despite various attempts by many to pretend they are both puppets cut from the same cloth there are measurable differences on nearly all matters between the two. When it comes to electing women for example there are 23 women in the Senate and 17 of them are Democrat. There are 84 women in the House and 63 of them are Democrat. So of the 107 women elected to congress in the U.S. 75% of them are Democrats. There are 3 women on the Supreme Court and all 3 were nominated by Democrats. Democrats were the first to run a Women, Geraldine Ferraro, on a Presidental ticket as VP in 1984 and the first to make a women their nominee for President in 2016. 

Republicans may nominate a Female for President in my lifetime. I am not saying it is impossible but I think it's not currently in the cards. Meanwhile on the Democratic side I will be surprised if either Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, or even Oprah aren't on the ticket as the nominee or VP. 75% of elected women in Congress being Democrat is not a coincidental number.  

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If the Democrats ran a man, and the Republicans ran a woman, I highly doubt that suddenly the whole thing where people vote by the party would disappear.

Republicans would vote for the woman, and the Democrats would vote for the man.

I tend to agree 

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Republicans may nominate a Female for President in my lifetime. I am not saying it is impossible but I think it's not currently in the cards.

Two words: Nicky Haley

[Ten oz]

23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

This is true however I don't know for how long.

In July 2004, the number of people who considered themselves independent was 27%.

In April 2018, the number of people who considered themselves independent was 45%.

And it's continuing to grow steadily.

It won't be long before it hits a tipping point and independents begin to take over state legislatures, then Congress, and eventually the president. 

I think you are looking at the numbers wrong. More people my call themselves independent but they are still voting the same way overwhelming. In 2004 Bush won 58% of the white vote, 11% of the black vote, 48% of women, and 62.04 million votes total. In 2018 Trump won 57% of the white vote, 8% of the black vote, 41% of the women vote, and got 62.9 million votes overall. Here

While the number of individuals who may claim to be independent has changed by nearly 20 points the individual demographics are far more consistent. I actually find it astonishingly similar when you consider how many millions of people pass away between 04' and 16' or how many millions grew up and became became eligible. Looking deeper into the at Demographics age, income, education, and so on many of the numbers are within the statistically margin of error. 

I see no tipping point. The only demo which has changed appreciably is Hispanic. They have moved about 10 points to the left over the last 20 years. Considering the anti Latino rhetoric on the Right is is stunning the shift hasn't been greater and speaks to just how resistant the long term trend is to current political narratives. 

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I tend to agree 

Two words: Nicky Haley

In 2007, on another forum I use to frequent, posters told me Condoleezza Rice. It never happened. It is important to not forget what an utter circus Republicans Primaries are. Not just in 2016 with Trump but do you remember 2012 with Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, and etc. We had the 9-9-9 plan, vaccerism, Giuliani screaming 9/11 repeatedly, and Fred Thomas for some reason. It is a very ugly process on the Right. It is difficult for me to imagine how Nicki Haley could come out on top.  

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is difficult for me to imagine how Nicki Haley could come out on top.  

I’m sympathetic to this stance. I also acknowledge the strength of citing Condie Rice in your counter argument. 

Despite all of that, I see Haley as different.

She was governor of SC and took down confederate statues without losing her conservative cred. She was part of the Trump inner circle without the stink hitting her. She managed to disagree with him openly without him attacking her in response. She recently left on her own terms instead of being fired by tweet from the shitter or being escorted out of the building by J.Kelly. 

Anyway... Only time will tell. We can speculate until the cows come home and still be none the wiser and without any drinkable milk. 

[Raider5678]

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

More people my call themselves independent but they are still voting the same way overwhelming.

42.5% of people didn't vote.

I suspect if a promising candidate showed up, they could win. It wouldn't be a single election cycle, or even within a decade, but independents would get control of state legislatures, then Congress, some governors, and eventually the president.

Once a viable third option arises, people will leave their respective party.

At the moment, the only other option is voting for the "sworn enemy". When the other options become "sworn enemy" and "better behaving person" people from both parties will switch.

From there, with independents voting for them, they could win an election.

I doubt it'd be a landslide victory, but one day it will be a victory.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Once a viable third option arises, people will leave their respective party.

You mean like Bernie Sanders, who benefited from a massive groundswell of fund raising and grassroots passion, but who still had to align himself with one of the two major parties (despite himself being an independent for decades) merely so he could have a snowballs chance in hell and still lose in the end?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

You mean like Bernie Sanders, who benefited from a massive groundswell of fund raising and grassroots passion, but who still had to align himself with one of the two major parties (despite himself being an independent for decades) merely so he could have a snowballs chance in hell and still lose in the end?

Not the right time.

The first major area to go to independents will not be president.

Bernie Sanders stood no chance because in the court of public opinion he wasn't a viable candidate for president. Only party politicians are so far.

It won't be long before state legislatures begin going to independent candidates. It only takes 1 or 2 candidates from those to make it seem a lot more viable, and those elections are much easier to win. There are thousands of them every year.

Once the state legislatures begin to go to the Independents people will see independents as a viable "party" if you will. Then comes Congress. Then some governors. Then the President.

Bernie Sanders couldn't win not because he wasn't the right person, but because it was the wrong time.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

42.5% of people didn't vote.

Yeah, that is fairly consistent too:

11 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I suspect if a promising candidate showed up, they could win. It wouldn't be a single election cycle, or even within a decade, but independents would get control of state legislatures, then Congress, some governors, and eventually the president.

Once a viable third option arises, people will leave their respective party.

At the moment, the only other option is voting for the "sworn enemy". When the other options become "sworn enemy" and "better behaving person" people from both parties will switch.

From there, with independents voting for them, they could win an election.

I doubt it'd be a landslide victory, but one day it will be a victory.

Anything is possible but there are no current shifts in the standard trends to imply today is any more a likely time than any other. 

[Raider5678]

Just now, Ten oz said:

Anything is possible but there are no current shifts in the standard trends to imply today is any more a likely time than any other. 

After Trump, I believe anything is possible.