Will 2016 be the most depressing election in generations?

[Oakvale]

I've been thinking this recently. Hillary Clinton running against some random Republican Senator/Governor/whatever is a situation where everyone loses, regardless of the outcome.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

LOL @ this troll topic.

[Oakvale]

LOL @ this troll topic.

[LeBron]

I've been thinking this recently. Hillary Clinton running against some random Republican Senator/Governor/whatever is a situation where everyone loses, regardless of the outcome.

No, an election where everyone would lose is where the Democratic nominee is Brian Schweitzer. He's only a DINO.

As long as we get a real liberal like Hillary Clinton, Biden, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Sherrod Brown, one of the Vermontans etc., it will be an active, vigorous campaign. As for Republicans, with Christie in hot oil now and pretty much doomed, if they could get Huntsman, a Hillary vs. Huntsman match-up would be highly competitive and worth getting into. Otherwise, Hillary would crush just about anyone else Republicans would attempt to throw at her.

[bedstuy]

We tried a non-depressing candidate in 2008 and it turns out America wasn't ready for it.  

I'm just hoping for some excitement on the Republican side and the nomination of Rand Paul or Ted Cruz and not some dead-eyed Miller lite drinker.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I really don't want to choose between a power-hungry sociopath and some fascist nutcase, so yes.

[Oakvale]

I've been thinking this recently. Hillary Clinton running against some random Republican Senator/Governor/whatever is a situation where everyone loses, regardless of the outcome.

No, an election where everyone would lose is where the Democratic nominee is Brian Schweitzer. He's only a DINO.

As long as we get a real liberal like Hillary Clinton,

what

I really don't want to choose between a power-hungry sociopath and some fascist nutcase, so yes.

Good post, Snowstalker, this about sums up where I am, too. Vote Nader?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I've been thinking this recently. Hillary Clinton running against some random Republican Senator/Governor/whatever is a situation where everyone loses, regardless of the outcome.

No, an election where everyone would lose is where the Democratic nominee is Brian Schweitzer. He's only a DINO.

As long as we get a real liberal like Hillary Clinton, Biden, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Sherrod Brown, one of the Vermontans etc., it will be an active, vigorous campaign. As for Republicans, with Christie in hot oil now and pretty much doomed, if they could get Huntsman, a Hillary vs. Huntsman match-up would be highly competitive and worth getting into. Otherwise, Hillary would crush just about anyone else Republicans would attempt to throw at her.

In what world is Clinton a REAL Liberal and Schweitzer a DINO?

[eric82oslo]

LOL @ this troll topic.

Now I understand why he called my post in the other topic insane.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

It's hard to get any more depressing than 1996.

[The Dowager Mod]

It will only be depressing for the teabaggers..

[New_Conservative]

No, not at all.

[LeBron]

I've been thinking this recently. Hillary Clinton running against some random Republican Senator/Governor/whatever is a situation where everyone loses, regardless of the outcome.

No, an election where everyone would lose is where the Democratic nominee is Brian Schweitzer. He's only a DINO.

As long as we get a real liberal like Hillary Clinton, Biden, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Sherrod Brown, one of the Vermontans etc., it will be an active, vigorous campaign. As for Republicans, with Christie in hot oil now and pretty much doomed, if they could get Huntsman, a Hillary vs. Huntsman match-up would be highly competitive and worth getting into. Otherwise, Hillary would crush just about anyone else Republicans would attempt to throw at her.

In what world is Clinton a REAL Liberal and Schweitzer a DINO?

Clinton never gave up on her own party (see MT Sen: 2014), and last time I checked, Clinton isn't an NRA darling like Schweitzer. He doesn't represent the true values of the establishment, true leftist base of the Democratic Party and would really be better off as an independent given how, like Sanders, he's attempting to move farther left to the Democrats ideologically on some social and economic issues. Although that drastically failed as someone whose proven to be more about the needs his own, flawed state before that of the country while Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example. Schweitzer could learn something from that. By running for President, you need to think of everyone in the party nationwide, not just pleasing your own state (especially one that prefers Cruz over him).

[Oakvale]

Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example.

I'm not sure I understand this. You know Hillary Clinton was a Senator for New York, not Arkansas, right?

[LeBron]

Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example.

I'm not sure I understand this. You know Hillary Clinton was a Senator for New York, not Arkansas, right?

Yeah, but read the bolded part. At one time, she was First Lady of Arkansas and Bill governed as a small govt Democratic Governor, but ever since Hillary nationalized herself in politics, she's always put the U.S. before Arkansas, New York, Illinois or any one state.

[hopper]

I've been thinking this recently. Hillary Clinton running against some random Republican Senator/Governor/whatever is a situation where everyone loses, regardless of the outcome.

No, an election where everyone would lose is where the Democratic nominee is Brian Schweitzer. He's only a DINO.

As long as we get a real liberal like Hillary Clinton, Biden, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Sherrod Brown, one of the Vermontans etc., it will be an active, vigorous campaign. As for Republicans, with Christie in hot oil now and pretty much doomed, if they could get Huntsman, a Hillary vs. Huntsman match-up would be highly competitive and worth getting into. Otherwise, Hillary would crush just about anyone else Republicans would attempt to throw at her.

In what world is Clinton a REAL Liberal and Schweitzer a DINO?

Clinton never gave up on her own party (see MT Sen: 2014), and last time I checked, Clinton isn't an NRA darling like Schweitzer. He doesn't represent the true values of the establishment, true leftist base of the Democratic Party and would really be better off as an independent given how, like Sanders, he's attempting to move farther left to the Democrats ideologically on some social and economic issues. Although that drastically failed as someone whose proven to be more about the needs his own, flawed state before that of the country while Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example. Schweitzer could learn something from that. By running for President, you need to think of everyone in the party nationwide, not just pleasing your own state (especially one that prefers Cruz over him).

If Schweitzer flips on issues he will be like a Mitt Romney of 2012 for the Dems and very likely he won't win the Democratic Party nomination for President in 2016 like Romney won the Republican Nomination for President in 2012. I will say though Schweitzer's decision not to run for US Senate in 2014 he did what he thought was best for him. It would be annoying to fly back and forth to Montana every couple of weeks.

Like Sanders-Bernie is a socialist democrat or labels himself as such he doesn't need to move to the left to satisfy Dem Voters because he was already there to begin with.

[hopper]

I do think it would it would be depressing to watch Rubio or Cruz as her opponent in the General. She wouldn't even break a sweat debating those 2. She would have to work hard in debates against Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, or Scott Walker. I do think Walker is the only one that can beat her now but even than like Christie you take demography into account its very hard for the Republicans to win.

[IceSpear]

It will only be depressing for the teabaggers..

[Cryptic]

It will only be depressing for the teabaggers..

[Morning in Atlas]

HILLDAWG FOREVER

[Mordecai]

It will be if Jeb Bush becomes the Republican nominee.

[ElectionsGuy]

I think 2004 was probably the worst election for a libertarian.. so 2016 will be a little better, but it will probably still be somewhat bad (it really depends on the republican candidates for me). 2012 was pretty depressing as well, it was hyped up to be this big thing and it ended up being a status quo election.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Clinton never gave up on her own party (see MT Sen: 2014), and last time I checked, Clinton isn't an NRA darling like Schweitzer. He doesn't represent the true values of the establishment, true leftist base of the Democratic Party and would really be better off as an independent given how, like Sanders, he's attempting to move farther left to the Democrats ideologically on some social and economic issues. Although that drastically failed as someone whose proven to be more about the needs his own, flawed state before that of the country while Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example. Schweitzer could learn something from that. By running for President, you need to think of everyone in the party nationwide, not just pleasing your own state (especially one that prefers Cruz over him).

This is a really strange combination of words.

Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example.

I'm not sure I understand this. You know Hillary Clinton was a Senator for New York, not Arkansas, right?

Yeah, but read the bolded part. At one time, she was First Lady of Arkansas and Bill governed as a small govt Democratic Governor, but ever since Hillary nationalized herself in politics, she's always put the U.S. before Arkansas, New York, Illinois or any one state.

But Schweitzer has not, yet, nationalized himself in politics. He has been Governor of Montana, and focused on Montana in that capacity. If he seems like he's been more sluggish in nationalizing himself than you would prefer for a prospective Presidential candidate, that's fine, but I don't think it's fair impugn him for it in the way that you are.

[SWE]

I've been thinking this recently. Hillary Clinton running against some random Republican Senator/Governor/whatever is a situation where everyone loses, regardless of the outcome.

No, an election where everyone would lose is where the Democratic nominee is Brian Schweitzer. He's only a DINO.

As long as we get a real liberal like Hillary Clinton, Biden, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Sherrod Brown, one of the Vermontans etc., it will be an active, vigorous campaign. As for Republicans, with Christie in hot oil now and pretty much doomed, if they could get Huntsman, a Hillary vs. Huntsman match-up would be highly competitive and worth getting into. Otherwise, Hillary would crush just about anyone else Republicans would attempt to throw at her.

In what world is Clinton a REAL Liberal and Schweitzer a DINO?

Clinton never gave up on her own party (see MT Sen: 2014), and last time I checked, Clinton isn't an NRA darling like Schweitzer. He doesn't represent the true values of the establishment, true leftist base of the Democratic Party and would really be better off as an independent given how, like Sanders, he's attempting to move farther left to the Democrats ideologically on some social and economic issues. Although that drastically failed as someone whose proven to be more about the needs his own, flawed state before that of the country while Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example. Schweitzer could learn something from that. By running for President, you need to think of everyone in the party nationwide, not just pleasing your own state (especially one that prefers Cruz over him).

Last I checked, Schweitzer didn't vote for the Iraq War, PATRIOT Act, support NSA spying, or oppose single-payer. A case can be made that Schweitzer is a DINO, but he's much, much better than Hillary.

And what the heck is the "establishment, true leftist base of the Democratic party"?