Does anyone think that Hillary would risk going down in history

[Tombs]

It'd be the funniest election in history if hillary demanded to run, the DNC forbid it, and she ran as a 3rd party.

 

[semperfi211]

It'd be the funniest election in history if hillary demanded to run, the DNC forbid it, and she ran as a 3rd party.

Wouldn't something like that splitting the leftist vote give Trump an easy win?

 

[Mikey1911]

Wouldn't something like that splitting the leftist vote give Trump an easy win?

That’s why Dewey defeated Truman in ‘48 . . . oh, wait a minute.
A lot of dead people could still vote multiple times for The Hildebeest.

 

[jamil]

As a three time loser?
I mean, is it really worth it?

Oh. I thought "History" was a girl you knew. I was gonna answer, probably.

 

[Mongo59]

We need a ruling...

Do dead people need to vote in the state of their interment?

 

[jamil]

We need a ruling...

Do dead people need to vote in the state of their interment?

The way I think it would be most effective, Democrat party leaders who can get access to the voter roles and the SSA death master file, would cross-reference the two databases to get a list of dead people still on the voter roll. Then you buss in illegals and each one is assigned a name from the cross referenced list-o-deadies. And then they go vote as the deadie.

So, basically that means dead people should vote in the states in which they’re still registered to vote. That’s generally the way it works.

 

[Mongo59]

What if they die in Illinois but now identify as Californian?

If they can go from Rep to Dem then state lines don't seem to much to jump...

 

[Alpo]

As a democrat from the democratic wing of the democratic party, Hillary has really no chance of stepping into the contest. There is tremendous resentment over her loss to Trump whether on not they supported Hillary more than believing she was the lesser of two bad choices. Her mistakes in the swing electoral states are unforgivable. There is no second chance in the modern electoral process and she is no Adlai Stevenson.

It is true that the present group of candidates offer mostly unacceptable choices to the majority of the party.

Sherrod Brown would be viewed well. And while it doesn't first make any sense, Tom Hanks is probably the most respected man in Hollywood and among many many voters. He might make the best choice for a well-known candidate as any since Ronald Reagan.

 

[T.Lex]

Sherrod Brown would be viewed well.

I have heard that as well. But could he win with a late entry into the current primary craziness?

 

[jamil]

I think the thinking on the Democrat side is that there is no candidate likely to win the nomination who has a good chance to beat Trump, and so, dragging people through an impeachment is the best chance they have of seating a crazier leftist to replace RGB, even if it costs them everything. It looks to me like they’re pretty desperate.

All the candidates are ****ing crazy, which plays well to Democrats, but not so well to independents. It makes Trump’s “crazy” look mild in comparison. Maybe Tom Hanks could pull it off. I don’t think he’s seasoned enough, but then neither is Trump.

 

[Alpo]

I have heard that as well. But could he win with a late entry into the current primary craziness?

It would have to be a floor vote at the convention, I suppose. The benefit would be that whoever it would ultimately be would be out of the media spotlight and sights of the other side for a good period of the year.

 

[Alpo]

I think the thinking on the Democrat side is that there is no candidate likely to win the nomination who has a good chance to beat Trump, and so, dragging people through an impeachment is the best chance they have of seating a crazier leftist to replace RGB, even if it costs them everything. It looks to me like they’re pretty desperate.

All the candidates are ****ing crazy, which plays well to Democrats, but not so well to independents. It makes Trump’s “crazy” look mild in comparison. Maybe Tom Hanks could pull it off. I don’t think he’s seasoned enough, but then neither is Trump.

Hanks doesn't think he's qualified. But, he said this in 2016:

"In my own lifetime our streets were in chaos, our generations were fighting each other tooth and nail and every dinner table ended up being as close to a fist fight as human families will allow," he said in his speech on the night published by Vulture.

“We have been in a place where we have looked at our leaders and wondered what the hell they were thinking of. We’ve had moments with the administrations and politicians and senators and governors in which we’ve asked ourselves ‘Are they lying to us or do they really believe in this?’ That’s all right.

"We have this magnificent thing that is in place, it's a magnificent document, and it starts off with these phrases that if you're smart enough, you memorized in school, or, just read it enough so you learned it by heart, or, you kind of watched those things on ABC where they taught you little songs, and the song goes like, [sings] "We the People ... in Order to form a more perfect Union. establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare," and it goes on and on.

"That. That document is going to protect us, over and over again, whether or not our neighbors preserve and protect and defend it themselves [sic].

"We are going to be all right, because we constantly get to tell the whole world who we are. We constantly get to define ourselves as Americans. We do have the greatest country in the world. We may move at a slow pace, but we do have the greatest country in the world, because we are always moving towards a more perfect Union. That journey never ceases. It never stops. Sometimes, like in a Bruce Springsteen song, one step forward, two steps back. But we still, aggregately, move forward."

Sounds thoughtful, and presidential, to me.

 

[T.Lex]

It would have to be a floor vote at the convention, I suppose.

I don't see something like that happening in my lifetime - for either party.

Part of the problem is the fractious nature of our culture right now, especially in terms of politics. A floor vote would probably require a plurality of the actual vote-getters to agree on a non-candidate. In a game theory kind of way, that would mean that they thought their own futures would be better by having someone else become the nominee, after participating in a grueling year-long debacle of a primary campaign.

Intriguing to think about, but that's about it.

Whoever participates in the Iowa straw polls will be the Dem slate to choose from at the convention, methinks. I'm not sure when that deadline is, but it has to be getting pretty close. There's still time for Sherrod, but he seemed pretty explicit earlier in the year.

 

[Mikey1911]

Hanks doesn't think he's qualified. But, he said this in 2016:





Sounds thoughtful, and presidential, to me.

Well, then, let Mr. Hanks run for Governor in (the Peoples’ Republic of) California, if he wants to follow in Reagan’s steps.
Replacing Gavin Newsome shouldn’t be too much of a challenge, the longer the power is off and the greater the number of acres are burned.

 

[Alpo]

I don't see something like that happening in my lifetime - for either party.

Part of the problem is the fractious nature of our culture right now, especially in terms of politics. A floor vote would probably require a plurality of the actual vote-getters to agree on a non-candidate. In a game theory kind of way, that would mean that they thought their own futures would be better by having someone else become the nominee, after participating in a grueling year-long debacle of a primary campaign.

Intriguing to think about, but that's about it.

Whoever participates in the Iowa straw polls will be the Dem slate to choose from at the convention, methinks. I'm not sure when that deadline is, but it has to be getting pretty close. There's still time for Sherrod, but he seemed pretty explicit earlier in the year.

It has happened in my lifetime. I think the last brokered democrat convention was 1952 with Adlai Stevenson. I could be wrong, however.

 

[T.Lex]

It has happened in my lifetime. I think the last brokered democrat convention was 1952 with Adlai Stevenson. I could be wrong, however.

Yeah, just look at how well that worked out.

 

[Mikey1911]

Yeah, just look at how well that worked out.

“Ike” liked it!

 

[BugI02]

After the party's record of screwing Bernie to favor Clinton, pulling some Democrat lightweight out of a hat at the convention isn't going to work. It will just cement the idea that the party power structure will never support the will of the people (which will be deliciously ironic and true all at the same time). The ensuing fratricide will be bloody and all-encompassing

 

[JettaKnight]

For those suggesting that she would join the race - is that based on any personal or published accounts of Dems (or people that vote in the Dem primaries) actually wanting her to run?

Pretty sure only conservatives want this... why? Don't we have enough Dems running to point out stupidity?

 

[jamil]

Hanks doesn't think he's qualified. But, he said this in 2016:



Sounds thoughtful, and presidential, to me.

Okay. There’s no ****ing way that he can win THIS democratic nomination. 1) he’s obviously not woke enough. 2) He dared to speak positively of the US constitution. 3) He said America is the greatest country.

The party of AOC will not nominate a guy like that. But, a guy like that could be president. That’s not an endorsement of Hanks. It’s just saying that if Trump can be president and say the things he says, and we’re still doing alright, it’s unlikely a guy like that would **** things up too bad either.

Not saying that just anyone can be president and not **** things up. I think it’s the activist/ideologue presidents who tend to **** things up.