In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2024, 03:59:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016?  (Read 12583 times)
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


« on: December 07, 2017, 12:36:20 AM »

Obama to succeed Hillary would probably have done better. He did maintain his personal popularity reasonably well as President. I'd expect he'd have done the same as Vice President, though it is an interesting counterfactual.

Biden would likely have been stronger against Trump, but Democrats didn't know the election was going to come down to the rust belt, or what would happen to Beau Biden (his cancer returned in May 20 2015).

The biggest mistake of the Democrats was clearing the path for Hillary, which elevated Sanders.

Had they not 'cleared the path' for Hillary, and say for instance Biden had entered, it would've boosted Sanders' (or Warren's) odds and increased the likelihood of a contested convention even more, which would've weakened the democratic party even further. At least Clinton won an outright majority of the vote. Could you imagine how much more intense the 'rigged' narrative would have been in the context of the inevitably anointed DNC centrist candidate winning the nomination by only receiving a minority of the vote and a minority of the delegates?

This is why I'm skeptical of the maps posted here showing Kasich winning 370+ EVs, that would've been a serious possibility in the scenario I describe, but in the modern scenario, the Democratic party was too well-united for that type of landslide to occur. Obama correctly foresaw that the Sanders/Warren wing of the party would be problematic, which is why he let Hillary have it.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2018, 07:39:50 PM »

Biden and Webb would have crushed Trump.

Webb wouldn't have the energy to actually campaign full-scale enough and would defined by Trump before it's too late. Also, the left would've stayed home in even greater droves, I would've much preferred him myself, but that's just me.

Then there's the whole Confederate Flag Issue, which Trump would've gaslighted on.

As for Biden, would've said yes, before he looked like an idiot over that one comment he made about a back alley in high school. 

Also, Trump might've gaslighted him over all those questionably touchy moments he's got with lots of women. Instead of "Crooked Hillary", it'd be "Gropey Joe", and the hypocritical base would eat it up, while the female vote would shrink massively.

He's running on the assumption that Biden wins and gets of a ton of republican endorsements, which isn't a safe assumption and is really contingent upon how he wins. Sure, Biden beating Hillary in a 1-on-1 is one thing, but it's not the only possible scenario.

Imagine a 3-way race in which Biden/Hillary/Bernie each received 33%, and the convention selected Biden, republicans would be hard-pressed to endorse a candidate of the opposing party who had been selected through convention shenanigans.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 9 queries.