"YOU'RE FIRED!"

[Solomon Zorn]

Hillary is done. Who do the Democrats look to next?

[Blackleaf]

Maybe Michelle Obama?

EDIT: Nah. She'll be sick of politics for a while.

[Nonsensei]

Maybe Michelle Obama?

EDIT: Nah. She'll be sick of politics for a while.

If a white woman cant make it a black woman will be even less likely.

The dems will be looking for a white man next time around. Probably one with a strong case of mouth diarrhea and an ego the size of Brooklyn. if you can't beat em, join em.

[Solomon Zorn]

Maybe Michelle Obama?

EDIT: Nah. She'll be sick of politics for a while.

Love her to death, but I don't know if she is ready for the Presidency.

EDIT: She would make a good senator, maybe...

[Solomon Zorn]

I think a white man is probably more pragmatic, than a woman or minority, next time around. Only because, if this election proved anything, it's that there are still a lot of white men who vote.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is the fault of the Democratic Party.  They are to blame for Trump.  They've got work to do to fix their mistake.  Here's why.

There are times when it is wise to put forward a weak candidate, such as when you know you'll lose to a strong incumbent.  Think Mondale in '84 or Dole in '96.  Reagan was going to win reelection, Clinton was going to win reelection.  The objective then is to put forth someone credible enough to run, but someone you're willing to waste on a hopeless campaign.  You have to run someone or the 3rd parties will grow and that's the worst case situation.

There are times to run a strong candidate, such as when you know the incumbent is weak or that the race is wide open.  Weak incumbents are like Carter in '80 or Bush in '92.  Wide open include '88, '08, and '16.

In 2004 the Democrats screwed the pooch.  They should have run a Reagan/Clinton, instead they ran a Mondale/Dole.  That's why we had 8 years of Bush Jr instead of 4.

'16 was wide open, which means you run a strong candidate.  Instead you ran Hillary.  She was not good, she was not strong, she had massive negatives.  You did have a good candidate, his name was Bernie.  You let Hillary conspire with Wasserman to steal the primary from him.

Had you run Bernie, Trump would have been creamed.  You let the party machinery mis-read the angry mood of the voters, ran a status-quo candidate, and lost to an anti-establishment candidate.

You picked a Mondale/Dole AGAIN when you should have picked a strong candidate.  This was the time to pick a strong candidate.  This is an even worse replay of '04 when you should have picked a Reagan/Clinton and instead picked a Mondale/Dole.

But if you continue to blame race or gender, you'll never fix the problems that made you lose to a Trump.  It wasn't that Hillary is a woman.  It was that Hillary was a bad candidate.  Try picking winners if you want to win.  We have Trump because the Democrats made it possible.

[Solomon Zorn]

I tend to agree, Jason. I don't know that Bernie could have won, either though. The Republican propaganda machine is so well entrenched.

But I want to see what ideas you guys have for a new candidate.

[Nonsensei]

This is the fault of the Democratic Party.  They are to blame for Trump.  They've got work to do to fix their mistake.  Here's why.

There are times when it is wise to put forward a weak candidate, such as when you know you'll lose to a strong incumbent.  Think Mondale in '84 or Dole in '96.  Reagan was going to win reelection, Clinton was going to win reelection.  The objective then is to put forth someone credible enough to run, but someone you're willing to waste on a hopeless campaign.  You have to run someone or the 3rd parties will grow and that's the worst case situation.

There are times to run a strong candidate, such as when you know the incumbent is weak or that the race is wide open.  Weak incumbents are like Carter in '80 or Bush in '92.  Wide open include '88, '08, and '16.

In 2004 the Democrats screwed the pooch.  They should have run a Reagan/Clinton, instead they ran a Mondale/Dole.  That's why we had 8 years of Bush Jr instead of 4.

'16 was wide open, which means you run a strong candidate.  Instead you ran Hillary.  She was not good, she was not strong, she had massive negatives.  You did have a good candidate, his name was Bernie.  You let Hillary conspire with Wasserman to steal the primary from him.

Had you run Bernie, Trump would have been creamed.  You let the party machinery mis-read the angry mood of the voters, ran a status-quo candidate, and lost to an anti-establishment candidate.

You picked a Mondale/Dole AGAIN when you should have picked a strong candidate.  This was the time to pick a strong candidate.  This is an even worse replay of '04 when you should have picked a Reagan/Clinton and instead picked a Mondale/Dole.

But if you continue to blame race or gender, you'll never fix the problems that made you lose to a Trump.  It wasn't that Hillary is a woman.  It was that Hillary was a bad candidate.  Try picking winners if you want to win.  We have Trump because the Democrats made it possible.

I don't agree that racism and sexism weren't a huge factor in Trumps success. His disparagement of Latinos and muslims gained him a huge following and enormous support. If Hillary Clinton had been a man she would be our next president. It may not be a direct and straightforward involvement, but racism and sexism definitely played a role in this, and considering how close some key states were it may have made all the difference.

[drunkenshoe]

I think a white man is probably more pragmatic, than a woman or minority, next time around. Only because, if this election proved anything, it's that there are still a lot of white men who vote.

This conversation just went on fb 10 minutes ago:

Jumpty: 'Wait, is this a punishment for voting for a black dude last time?'...another American: 'Yes. Also for gay marriage and the new health care. Too fast of an advancement for the white folk.' Me: You know what? Yes.

Remember Jumpty?

[drunkenshoe]

I don't agree that racism and sexism weren't a huge factor in Trumps success. His disparagement of Latinos and muslims gained him a huge following and enormous support. If Hillary Clinton had been a man she would be our next president. It may not be a direct and straightforward involvement, but racism and sexism definitely played a role in this, and considering how close some key states were it may have made all the difference.

Agreed. This is a good analysis.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hmmm, I thought this thread was about Trump's apprenticeship starting on Jan. 20th. It will be fun to watch a novice squirm.

[Unbeliever]

Hillary is done. Who do the Democrats look to next?

I'm not so confident there will be a 'next.' But maybe the trend will continue of the Republicans making a big mess and then the Dems getting to clean it up, if they can.

It is, though, another first for American democracy - the first president having no experience in either government or the military.

Interesting times, indeed...

[Unbeliever]

I tend to agree, Jason. I don't know that Bernie could have won, either though. The Republican propaganda machine is so well entrenched.

Also the scrubbing of legitimate Democratic voters from the rolls, massive media attention on Trump, and the racist factor contributed.

But mostly, the president is the billionaire's choice.

[Unbeliever]

Just Like After Reconstruction, Trump Vote Highlights White Backlash to Recent Racial Progress

[Solomon Zorn]

Gold Five:"Stay on target...Stay on target"

This thread has drifted. Still looking for candidates. Biden might have had a good shot this time, I could probably get behind him. But I refuse to believe that in a country of 300,000,000 people, we can't find a few to get excited about.