lol . "I can’t fathom why the Clintons would make like aging rock stars and go on a tour of Canada and the U.S. at a moment when Democrats are hoping to break the stranglehold of their cloistered, superannuated leadership and exult in a mosaic of exciting new faces." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/01/opinion/sunday/hillary-bill-clinton-tour.html
It sounds like she is gearing up to run again. She may not be a very good candidate, even in the primaries this time around. But the question is do the Democrats have anyone that they can broadly agree is better? It is not at all clear that they do.
I think we can all assume that Robert Francis O'Rouke is going to run, and he'd probably beat her unless the process is rigged for Hillary again.
I don't know about that at all. Beto did as well as he did because he was backed by a tsunami of out of state money and because of the pathological hatred that many Democrat leftists have for Ted Cruz. Is that same money going to back him against a well financed Hillary Clinton and about 20 other Democrat presidential wannabees? And without the Cruz hatred, how much love for Beto among the Democrats is there really?
The only reason he crashed once he had to start talking about his stances was due to him running in Texas. If he was running in New York or California, those kinds of left wing stances would be welcomed. I personally think he'd be very popular among Democrats nationally, more so than Hillary.
Maureen Dowd has spent the last 30 years recycling the same columns about the Clintons and the Bushes for the Times. She had better hope it's not curtains for them, because God knows we need to hear more of what she has to say about it.
Beto is an exceptionally promising candidate regardless of party. He lost because he is a liberal, and campaigned as a liberal in a conservative state. At the end of the day, he lost because most of Texas did not agree with his political positions. There was even some polling data that showed that a majority of those that voted against him still had a positive opinion of him and his campaign. While it is very odd to have someone that lost a senate seat be a Presidential nominee, it very well could happen. He has charisma, he has lots of energy, comes across as a decent human being and isn't afraid to articulate his positions. He is the perfect foil for Trump. He also likely would get a solid amount of independents and motivate non voters to vote. The only real issue is would he play in a state like Pennsylvania? Michigan? Florida? When you have an open field like the Democrats have, people tend to rise to the top. Also don't under estimate his ability to raise money and utilize alternative media sources.
Is it really an open field? I can't wait for <70+ yr old Progressive-looking candidate> to challenge Trump!
My guess is she was trying to build support for a run but the total disinterest in listening to her talk will help quash the idea. She will probably try another time or two in the coming months, just to be sure. Nobody wants to accept that they are obsolete or yesterday's news, or that they lost in the Super Bowl and will never get another chance to win it. If you'd gotten that close, you'd undoubtedly think about trying again, too. It shouldn't surprise anybody that she wants to run. The only surprise will be if anybody else thinks it is a good idea.
Yeah it is pretty open, especially after the Clinton "fiasco". No one has the inside track at this point. There are a number of possible candidates that can separate themselves from the field.
While nearly potential presidential candidate can probably beat Hillary Clinton's record low favorability at this point (36%), Sanders' favorability is about what it was at the end of his primary run. So much so that it wasn't even news that the most popular senator in America was re-elected to his senate seat, but somehow isn't as "realistic" a candidate as Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Michelle Obama, or any random celebrity. Unfortunately Sanders' popularity is with the US public and not Democratic Party super-delegates or media pundits, which is why he isn't mentioned as a likely candidate, even though it's pretty clear he intends on running and would start with a huge advantage over anyone else running against him.
She reminds me of dwight Howard. Great start even HOF worthy. Couple of failed presidential/championship runs - Lakers, rockets Now just hanging on, really isn't wanted but finds someone to pay a little bit.
I agree with nearly every bit of your post, Nook, my only disagreement being your use of the word "most" to describe the number of Texans who don't agree with his political positions. I would have agreed with "majority," though. A majority for now. A majority that is shrinking, in my opinion. Beto did well enough to frighten the national GOP and trump into thinking that Cruz might lose. That's a big step forward for the Democratic Party in Texas, in my opinion. Perhaps some campaign funds and assistance for the state party will make it's way from the national party to Texas. It's needed, it is past due, and Texas is changing. Beto carried all of urban Texas worth mentioning by large margins and also did well in the suburbs. Only a shrinking White rural Texas saved Cruz from defeat and the GOP knows it, so yes, Texas changes. Beto O'Rourke would be a formidable candidate in 2020. I'll do what little I can to help when he formally announces that he is a candidate for President of these United States. That would be change I could believe in. Bill Clinton, excepting his personal peccadilloes, had a successful two term presidency. Barack Obama had a largely successful presidency, bringing the economy from the brink, where George Bush had left it, and leaving a strong, growing economy. I disagreed with some important foreign policy mistakes that President Obama made, but overall, he was good for the country. Obama still has an important role to play in national politics, as does his intelligent, attractive wife. The Clintons? It's time to retire. Thanks, and turn the light on when you leave.
Disagree that Robert O' Rourke is formidable. He couldn't even beat Lyin' Ted. Sorry... but the guy won't win. You would be putting up a soft baller on immigration against a man who was given a near mandate to build a wall on the southern border. You do realize that most people are in favor of defending this country's borders and Beto is as soft as they get. What nickname will Trump use? Soft Robert?
Her running again would be unbelievably stupid and selfish on her behalf, she swung and missed a T ball, time for her to retire her presidential desires.
Very fair take. In the end, like Dwight I think people will objectively look back on both sides and say they were both actually pretty good at what they did even when they were polarizing at the end of their careers.
