As Hillary flails, there’s talk of Biden
I’ve seen a number of articles recently about it, such as this:
A prominent Democratic donor worried about the party’s chances of winning the presidency emailed dozens of fans of Vice President Joe Biden on Friday, urging them to remain prepared to donate if Biden jumps into the race.
The donor, Bill Bartmann, cited new polling showing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nearly tied with the Hillary Clinton, eroding the 30-point lead the former secretary of state held at the end of last year. Bartmann and other party insiders are concerned that Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, is too far to the left to win against a Republican in the Nov. 8 presidential election.
“We cannot afford to lose the White House,” Bartmann wrote in the email, seen by Reuters.
The problem isn’t really the emails, although it’s often framed that way. The problem is that apparently Obama was being too kind when he said to Hillary in 2008, “You’re likable enough.”
At the moment, Hillary isn’t likable enough. I think she would be forgiven the emails by most Democrats if she was.
Study that video from 2008. It seems to have been taken not long before the New Hampshire primaries, so that’s eight years ago. Hillary was a mere slip of a girl at the time at 60, and now she’s 68. The difference—particularly for a woman—is generally quite large between those two ages. That’s not an indictment, it’s just a reality of life. You can see a certain hardness in Hillary when she listens to what is in fact a rather rude question, but that hardness passes and she makes what actually is a pretty good (and almost charming) comeback under the circumstances. Notice, also, the smooth nastiness of Obama, whom I have never found the least bit likable and have long been amazed that anyone does.
These days not only does Hillary look considerably older, but that hardness has taken over the image she projects, and any humor seems a lot more false. She seems brittle and ill-at-ease, quite angry at something or many things, and not angry in a good way. I think she’s frightened, and well she might be. It’s not going well for her.
The Democrats’ problem—and it’s why she seemed to be coasting to an anointment in the first place—is that they have few alternatives. Biden could be nominated, and he even could win (depending on who the Republican is, I suppose). But he’s a weak candidate, too, and he’s now 73.
The Democrats realize they have a dilemma, and that’s why they continue to cling to Hillary (bitterly). I’ve never understand why Elizabeth Warren didn’t run, because although she’s no spring chicken either (in fact, at 66 she’s almost Hillary’s age) she looks pretty good for her age, and doesn’t have the same sort of baggage as Hillary. Of course, she has different baggage, but in the scheme of things it’s rather light.
I’ve read many analyses of why the Democrat bench is so shallow, and most of it boils down to the fact that Democrats control fewer state governments and governorships and that therefore they don’t have the same volume of choices.
But I don’t think that is enough to explain it. After all, there are governors who are Democrats, and there certainly are members of Congress, plenty of them. I think it’s that the Democratic governors don’t have such great records for the most part, and/or are in very liberal states and probably have the same drawbacks as Warren and Sanders do, which is that they are pretty far to the left. The entire party has moved to the left. Obama was able to hide his leftism from a lot of people (although I think it was pretty obvious) because he had less of a record, I suppose, and because he’s gifted at hiding things. But other people probably can’t do it so effectively.
The Democratic Party has for the most part rejected the previously-winning strategy of Bill Clinton, which was to pull to the middle or to seem to pull to the middle. In recent years Obama has been so far left, and the party has also been so far left, that unless the population follows suit, the Democrats are in some difficulty. The voters certainly have become more leftist in recent years—for example, 52% of Hillary supporters now view “socialism” positively (even more of Sanders’ supporters do), and 32% of all Americans view it positively.
But it’s still not a majority. Not yet, although they’re working on it.
This is my BIGGEST fear.
HRC indicted and then pardoned. Biden comes in at the last minute. Sympathy factor and MSM bandwagon and he wins.
Sorry his son died, but it happens. Not relevant.
“[I’ll] never understand why Elizabeth Warren didn’t run…”
I’m convinced it’s the Clintons. They cleared the way for Hillary early by both bribes and threats, and the thing is, everyone in the party knows how truly vicious she is. There’s no doubt at all that she would enact those threats if challenged.
On top of that, it’s also unlikely for the same party to win again after two terms in office. Other candidates know that if someone’s going to fail, let it be Hillary who takes the fall.
Finally, I’m thinking that this panic to find a replacement for Hillary is not just because Bernie would lose in a general election, but because some Democrats worry he might win. Wall Street does not want to deal with a socialist who can’t be bought off, and if there’s one thing Bernie projects, it’s authenticity.
Cornhead:
Well, Hillary may drop out for health reasons (although I don’t think she will), but I still am about 90% sure she will not be indicted.
However, I understand your fear. I think it’s highly possible a Democrat could win this election, whoever it may be, and however it happens.
My leading theory, though, is that somehow the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot.
The “shoot themselves in the foot” scenario I worry about is a brokered convention. If none of the top 3 have a majority and Trump isn’t leading, I think he’ll start horsetrading. I don’t think he’ll go 3rd party because that’s a quixotic move that would eliminate his negotiating position.
He’ll sell his support. If it’s to Rubio, I think Trump can drag enough supporters along to make it work. That’s a possibility because of the establishment’s deep pockets.
If that happens, with the obvious stench of backroom dealing to get Trump’s delegates going to the amnesty poster-boy, I think GOP turnout in the general will collapse.
If Trump leads, he would demand one of the other capitulate. Again, if Rubio makes him some kind of deal, it might be a Trump/Rubio ticket.
Neo
I don’t buy a health excuse and a dropout. It would be an excuse for bad poll results and the Clintons never quit.
Given the gravity and number of her crimes, she must have a pardon. President Cruz will allow AG Christie to prosecute.
Cornhead:
I don’t think it will happen. I’ve consistently said Clinton will be the nominee, IMHO.
But what I’m saying in my previous comment is that a dropout is more likely than an indictment, but neither is likely. However, a dropout would not be voluntary. It would be as a result of great pressure from others (for example, threat of revelation or accusation of something very bad, much worse than anything revealed so far).
Whenever I hear the call to wake up Biden and get him in th game I, because I am depraved, always think of the scene in Pulp Fiction where they wake the Gimp Up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8kPqAV_74M
(Warning: disturbing)
If Hillary is elected, it ends all pretense regarding the rule of law and that, will ultimately lead to civil war.
Sanders is just not electable.
The GOP may, unintentionally (Rubio) or intentionally (Cruz) engineer its own collapse in voter turnout.
Obama wants Hillary out of the race but his successor will need the votes of her supporters, thus the incremental leaks, a “death by a thousand cuts” email revelations. Much of the mass media is cooperating with Obama’s strategy.
If Hillary drops out, it will either be to avoid a DOJ indictment or before indictment, to secure a secret, previously agreed to Presidential pardon.
In such a case, despite their negatives, drafting a Biden/Warren ticket, becomes IMO, a certainty.
You owe me a keyboard, vanderleun.
That was perfectly good bourbon, too. (wipes tears)
I have consistently said I do not think hrc will be the nominee. Yesterday’s papers soiled by bribes, lies, hacked emails, a trail of women abused by slick willy, and the blood of 4 dead in Benghazi. Add in the bad blood between the clintonistas and the obama thugs, and the fat lady sings.
Always remember bho operates by the chicago way.
I think I was the first here to say that the Evil Empress would be forced out and Good Old Uncle Joe(TM0 will be the nominee. Cornhead is absolutely right — sympathy shouldn’t affect the vote, but it will. Cruz or Rubio might be good against Hillary — although I stand by my prediction that Cruz won’t — he can’t — get any moderate, independent, or Reagan Democrat votes, and Rubio just made an absolute fool of himself at the debate — he’s toast — but neither of them could beat Joe.
I’ve been told by people with better political sense than I that a fat man can’t be elected president in the age of television. Bush and Kasich are just two whiney schlemiels. That leaves Fiorina and Carson and I don’t think either of them can get the nod, and the Donald. Much as I am appalled, he looks like the only way for us to win.
Richard Saunders:
Since indications are that Trump would get creamed in a general election against all the Democrat possibilities, and that Cruz has a chance of winning a general election against the members of that same group, I have no idea why you would say Trump is “the only way for us to win.” I am convinced he is not only the best and most certain way for us to lose, but the worst candidate of all those standing on that stage.
I do not understand this strange persistence of the myth that Trump has the best chance, even from people who don’t like him. It is illogical. All polls indicate Cruz has a better chance. And he’s the better man by far. Trump’s unfavorables are sky high. He also consistently gets the highest “will not vote for” scores by far. And it’s not as though people are not familiar with him. They’re very familiar with him, and they’ve either liked or hated him for years.
Neo _ why? Because I think Cruz is another Goldwater. A lot of non-conservative people will tell pollsters they like him, respect his integrity, his brains, and then the Dems will come up with another “Daisy” ad and they won’t vote for him. Do you see union people, Reagan Democrats. coming out for Cruz? Moderates? Independents? I haven’t seen any. but they show up at Trump rallies.
That’s why.
Richard Saunders:
But that’s not what my question was.
I understand that Cruz may lose, and isn’t a charismatic guy, and that his conservatism (or what most people have been told of his conservatism) may be too extreme for a lot of people. That’s why I’m torn between him and Rubio, among others.
But my point—and I’ll repeat it—was that Trump is less electable, for completely different reasons:
That’s what I wrote in my earlier comment. I’ve written posts on the subject, too. I don’t know how to say it more simply and clearly and succinctly, but I’ll try: all signs point to the fact that Trump would have an even worse chance of being elected than Cruz would. So why do you ignore these facts? It’s been true for all the polls for months and months and months. Trump always does the worst in a general against ALL the Democratic contenders, and his unfavorables are stable and sky-high. What’s more, Cruz does better, and if you think polls are rigged or fixed in some way, why would they be rigged to uniformly and falsely favor Cruz, of all people?
Why do I ignore the polls? Gut feelings based on painful experience.
Richard Saunders:
It’s one thing to ignore polls that say your guy is ahead, because you’re afraid of being disappointed. It’s even understandable to ignore polls that say your guy isn’t ahead, and to keep hoping.
But—considering that you’re not a Trump supporter, at least that’s my understanding (I haven’t gone back and read everything you’ve written on him, so correct me if I’m wrong)—why would you ignore the polls that say that Trump is dead last in the general as compared to ALL the other GOP candidates, and why would you say instead that Trump’s the only hope of winning? That’s not just ignoring all the polls, it’s flipping them on their head to say the opposite of what you want. Why do that? There’s no logic whatsoever to it. Have the Trumpers brainwashed you by repeating it over and over? Seriously, I don’t understand.