Does anyone think that Hillary would risk going down in history

[jamil]

Maybe we could get big money out of government as well.

Now that’s just crazy talk right there.

 

[Mikey1911]

Maybe we could get big money out of government as well.

If we got big money out of government, what would there be left to follow??

 

[jamil]

If we got big money out of government, what would there be left to follow??

Yeah. Put Leadeye right out of business.

 

[Alamo]

OK, so late to the party, but...

The question was would Hillary risk it, not whether the Dems would, or is it even possible.

So, would Hillary risk it?

OH YEAH.

She basically has nothing to lose.

She's tried twice and right now her "legacy" is she got snookered by the black man the first time, and despite everything she did to rig the primary and the general election, she lost again to the orange man. She had to close her foundation where she collected all her bribes, no more access to sell, and nobody important really wants to hear from her.

She apparently really thinks that she lost to Trump because of the Russians (despite all the $$$ they gave her and Bill) or the Ukrainians or Fox news or the VRWC, so she can't really accept that she was responsible for anything. So she can't see that there's no longer a reasonable path there for her, because every one who hated her before still hates her plus to the extent that being a white woman counts for anything in the Dem Party, Warren (despite her bull**** family history) has that sewed up. She has nothing to lose by running again, and if she could weasel in via some kind of convention floor fight she'd jump on that like a Democrat on a tax. She'd be somebody again for a little while. You can bet her remaining henchmen like Blumenthal will be hanging close to Dem HQ as the convention approaches in case Warren implodes and all the rest of the commies kill each other off in the first rounds of voting.

 

[BigRed]

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

Willy say, "Yes. I am convinced I can get her to go down again."

 

[GrinderCB]

I had to look it up. There are "perennial candidates" who run almost every time but have little to no chance of winning, like Ralph Nader. They pretty much run because they want their message heard on the national stage and feel that the Republicans and Democrats don't address their issues. Harold Stassen, former governor of Minnesota, holds the record as a perennial candidate having run for President nine times.

FDR was the Democrats' nominee four times and won every time (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944) thus holding the overall record for party nominations. Of course, he was an incumbent nominee three of those times.

Several men were their party's nominee three times but only William Jennings Bryan lost all three times as the Democrats' nominee in 1896, 1900 and 1908. Henry Clay got electoral votes three times as his party's nominee, but with different parties. He was a Democratic-Republican candidate in 1824, a National Republican in 1832, and a Whig in 1844. Of course at that point in history the American political system was in extreme flux and political parties came and went practically every election. The conventional "Democrat vs Republican" arrangement didn't settle in until 1856.

 

[jamil]

I had to look it up. There are "perennial candidates" who run almost every time but have little to no chance of winning, like Ralph Nader. They pretty much run because they want their message heard on the national stage and feel that the Republicans and Democrats don't address their issues. Harold Stassen, former governor of Minnesota, holds the record as a perennial candidate having run for President nine times.

FDR was the Democrats' nominee four times and won every time (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944) thus holding the overall record for party nominations. Of course, he was an incumbent nominee three of those times.

Several men were their party's nominee three times but only William Jennings Bryan lost all three times as the Democrats' nominee in 1896, 1900 and 1908. Henry Clay got electoral votes three times as his party's nominee, but with different parties. He was a Democratic-Republican candidate in 1824, a National Republican in 1832, and a Whig in 1844. Of course at that point in history the American political system was in extreme flux and political parties came and went practically every election. The conventional "Democrat vs Republican" arrangement didn't settle in until 1856.

I read somewhere that Democrats kinda didn't like FDR. He was so popular many Democrats in congress resented him because they didn't dare go against him on any issue.

 

[zz47331]

She needs to be locked up and the key threw away with a bunch of her wacky cronies

 

[nonobaddog]

Hillary who?

 

[KittySlayer]

I read somewhere that Democrats kinda didn't like FDR. He was so popular many Democrats in congress resented him because they didn't dare go against him on any issue.

Deja Vu?

Sounds like Trump and the Republicans. Some RINOs dug their heels in and contributed to the blue wave (puddle) last election but most are happy to hang on his coat tails for their own benefit.

 

[Libertarian01]

Well,

If she would have risked going down on Bill it may have saved him from impeachment...

 

[Leadeye]

Well,

If she would have risked going down on Bill it may have saved him from impeachment...

Good point.

 

[KellyinAvon]

 

[wingrider1800]

Well,

If she would have risked going down on Bill it may have saved him from impeachment...

I really think old Bill would have let them gone down together just to keep peace.