Hillary is perhaps the single prominent living Democrat who would be a less effective candidate that old man Biden.
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
-46 points (17.1% liked)
politics
18828 readers
4578 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Thought some of you would find this entertaining. I think I remember The Hill being extremely biased towards Clinton during the 2016 primary, and it’s interesting to see that continue.
I know this post is gonna get downvoted lmao, it’s a pretty garbage and tone-deaf take, but it’s still kind of relevant and I thought it was funny
thank you for your sacrifice
This isn’t just biased toward Clinton at this point. This is pathetic and laughable. This is also never reading another TheHill article again.
"Lets replace the person who beat Trump with the person who couldn't"
Author either has brainworms or has struck absolute gold on clickbaiting.
It’s legit worth a read, the author clearly loves Hillary Clinton. Truly reminiscent of the 2016 puff pieces. Clinton’s positive press takes a tone like no other politician’s, with lofty adjectives like “mightiest” and unmatched.
The author also notes it’s her turn still:
Then there is the obvious, yet still historic, potential for her to become the country’s first female president — a milestone that unfortunately has still not been met.
As if there aren’t substantially better women from Whitmer to Harris to Michelle Obama to even not quite of age Ocasio-Cortez. None of whom have ever lost to Trump before, which is nice.
Finally, he mentions that “according to a poll released in the wake of Biden’s disastrous debate, Clinton is already favored to take down Trump, 43 percent to 41 percent”. That is not a comforting lead and has a lot of room to go down when voters think “this again??”
Anyway even though the author is serious, the piece only serves as humorous clickbait. Not even the DNC is bold enough to run Clinton again
The most ridiculous part of all these hypotheticals is a really simple one: Does whichever random person want to run for president right now?
Think about it. You weren't planning on it, you don't have your organization set up, you haven't been considering how you'd govern as president in the current climate, you've just been busy doing whatever it is you do in your day-to-day. Then suddenly wham, you're the nominee now! Go campaign like crazy, try to win an election against a salesman, and if you win, wow! Six months from now, you're president, leader of the country for 4 years with things like Gaza on your plate. Good luck, we're sure you'll do fine!
It's completely asinine. Nobody in their right mind would sign up for that, it's being set up for failure.
Clinton probably shares the most responsibility of any individual person for the Trump presidency. Only a Trump supporter would want Clinton at this point.
Let's ignore the fact that she's even more unpopular than Joe Biden and already lost to Trump once; she's 76 years old. Are they really suggesting we just swap geriatrics? Can we please get a president who will actually have to live with the consequences of their actions?
2016: Hillary vs Trump. Hillary lost.
2020: Biden vs Trump. Biden won.
yeah, let's get rid of Biden and run Hillary. fuck's sake
No
absolute dumbest take I've seen.
Yes... Because we need another crook in office who has already lost to Trump once...
Fuck Clinton, she got us into this disaster of a mess with her pied Piper strategy and both of them encouraging trump to run.
Biden. Kamala. Or open revolt.
And it sure as hell isn't Clinton. She's still giving sound bites that hurt Dems. She's smart, wonky and a good Cabinet pick. She's not what will win the Presidency.
And she wasn't on the ticket.
I wouldn't put money against the party trying it again.