Are Democrats in trouble if Hillary's campaign collapses?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Biden has new life, and should take heart if he wants to run.

I am not convinced that HRC is inevitable, mainly because of her personal negatives, which are very real.  If she starts polling poorly vs. GOP frontrunners, credible opposition will arise, and this is far from unlikely, IMO

[Fuzzy Bear]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

1994 made Clinton more Conservative then Reagan so you can say that 1994 was worse for liberals

It's a bit unfair to blame Hillary for 1994.  The 1994 Democratic meltdown occurred for several reasons that were predictable.  

In the 1996 ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS, Michael Barone stated what should have been obvious; that for decades, the vast majority of Americans had casting their Congressional votes for either Republicans or for Democrats who claimed to be moderates or conservatives, yet in every Congress, liberal legislation would prevail by narrow margins.  This could be obscured somewhat by the presence of Republicans as President, but the Clinton Administration brought this out into the open.  It finally dawned on people that their moderate or conservative Democratic Representative or Senator would be casting key liberal votes to get a tough bill through.  Mike Huckabee wasn't entirely wrong when he said of the 1992 Dale Bumpers:  "He talks cornbread and catfish back in Arkansas, but he votes Kennedy and Cranston up in Washington!".  That realization, coupled with redistricting in the South to ensure that there were a maximum number of 65% black Congressional Districts left many white Democrats in positions too vulnerable to maintain.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

1994 made Clinton more Conservative then Reagan so you can say that 1994 was worse for liberals

It's a bit unfair to blame Hillary for 1994.  The 1994 Democratic meltdown occurred for several reasons that were predictable.  

In the 1996 ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS, Michael Barone stated what should have been obvious; that for decades, the vast majority of Americans had casting their Congressional votes for either Republicans or for Democrats who claimed to be moderates or conservatives, yet in every Congress, liberal legislation would prevail by narrow margins.  This could be obscured somewhat by the presence of Republicans as President, but the Clinton Administration brought this out into the open.  It finally dawned on people that their moderate or conservative Democratic Representative or Senator would be casting key liberal votes to get a tough bill through.  Mike Huckabee wasn't entirely wrong when he said of the 1992 Dale Bumpers:  "He talks cornbread and catfish back in Arkansas, but he votes Kennedy and Cranston up in Washington!".  That realization, coupled with redistricting in the South to ensure that there were a maximum number of 65% black Congressional Districts left many white Democrats in positions too vulnerable to maintain.

I do agree there were many factors, but Hillary trying to ram Hillarycare down the people's throats

There are many, many legitimate criticisms one can make of Hillary and even more reasons she's not that strong a candidate.  "Hillarycare" is not one of them.  The idea that the 90s healthcare bill failed because of Hillary is absurd. 

The Clinton administration's healthcare proposal was a political disaster because they got outmaneuvered at every turn by the Republicans, they failed to get their own party to unite around a single vision for healthcare reform (Paul Wellstone, Jim Cooper, and every Democrat in between on the ideological spectrum had their own version of the bill), lost the messaging battle (especially after the Harry & Louise ad), and because the failure played into some of the negative narratives about Bill Clinton and his party since he took office.  Hillary was an awful choice to lead the push, but having someone else do it would just be rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

Putting the First Lady in charge of a Healthcare proposal was a new thing for America in 1994.  It made MRS. Clinton part of the Bill Clinton ADMINISTRATION; she was no longer just a family member.  Hillary is more associated with the Clinton Healthcare proposal than even Bill Cliinton, who would have been better off if Ira Magaziner had been the clear front man on the deal.

Because HILLARY was so vested in this plan, BILL was less able to compromise for the sake of his Administration getting credit for an accomplishment.  Bob Dole and the GOP were proposing a plan that was not unlike Obamacare/Romneycare.  Passing it would have been a HUGE compromise, but it would have allowed BILL Clinton to claim an accomplishment; a step forward.  Such a step forward, however, would have come at the expense of HILLARY Clinton's image; HER plan would have been jettisoned in favor of Bob Dole's plan, which BILL Clinton would have coopted. 

The ultimate problem for BILL Clinton in 1994 was that his Healthcare plan didn't pass.  BILL Clinton didn't get it done; if he HAD "gotten it done, the Democrats would have done better in 1994.  BILL Clinton would have looked like a guy who got it done, but HILLARY Clinton would have looked like a kid who was put in charge of something, but when it was time for the kid's proposal to be put forth, the kid's ideas were disregarded, and the kid was made to look like a kid, and not like "somebody important". 

[Fuzzy Bear]

1992 was not a realignment election.  The elections we have had since 2008, and continued white flight into the GOP have made most of the states in the South won by Bill Clinton off-limits to Democrats. 

1992 was the beginning of a realignment that was confirmed in 2000.  It was the removal of all of New England, all of the Middle Atlantic states, the industrial Midwestern states of IL and Mi, and the exodus of CA from the GOP ranks to the Democratic ranks.  

These are states that would have gone for Clinton even if Perot had not been on the ballot.  These regions were put off by the shift of the GOP toward the Evangelical Right, a movement away from the GOP that was exacerbated by Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention.  This movement had been going on since the late 1980s, but Buchanan's clarion call brought the issue out into the open.  This realignment was a counterpoint to the departure from the Democratic Party of Evangelicals and of couservative Catholics.  

After the election, Bush 41's Labor Secretary, Lynn Martin, a moderate, pro-choice Republican lashed back at the Religious Right, blaming them for Bush's loss.  "It's not enough that we're your political party; now we're going to be your church as well?" stated Martin during a moment of post-election recriminations.  What Martin couldn't see is that no Republican could be nominated for the Presidency anymore without first making a Faustian bargain with the Movement Conservatives that dominated the GOP nomination process, and Evangelicals were/are a HUGE part of this movement.  And given that America's religious mores were, as a whole, more conservative in 1988 than today, the pull of the Evangelical Right was that much stronger.  The "Culture War" speech was often cited as something that cost Bush 41 a number of states, but it may well have earned him NC, FL, VA, and almost earned him GA.