Hillary Clinton is clearly the best candidate for left/liberal Democrats

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

If I were a Democrat (I'm kind of a RINO and an Obama 2012 voter) I'd be swooning about Hillary because she is a commanding payment and does, in a political sense, have the skills to pay the bills.  She may lose, and she may be deflated from where she is not, but she won't be a complete loser like McGovern or Mondale, and she won't go into the tank (literally and figuratively) like Dukakis, nor will she quit like Carter.

Example:  Carter went out early in 1980 to concede defeat.  He knew for days he would lose and he was a goner at 9 pm on Election Night 1980, but there were Democrats in Western states whose fates were still in the balance.  Rather then semi-crying, "I said I'd never lie to you, so I can't say it doesn't hurt.", Carter should have put his war face on and used his "concession" to rally voters in the Central time zone west to the polls.  He should have mentioned specific endangered candidates by name:  Gaylord Nelson, John Culver, Frank Church, Alan Cranston, Warren Magnuson,  George McGovern, Gary Hart, Mike Gravel, Dixy Lee Ray, Adlai Stevenson, pictured their troubles, and emphasized to the voters in those states that it wasn't over until every vote was cast and counted.  

Hillary would never do that.  She's got some view of her role as a PARTY leader that some of these guys never did.  Failure in party leadership is why McGovern and Mondale tanked and why Carter's Presidency failed.  I don't like her on some levels, and I'm not thrilled over the likelihood that she'll be no better than most of the GOP on trade, but she gets it as a party leader, and that's something that a lot of Presidential candidates don't get.  Being a PARTY leader is part of the job of being President.  If a sitting President is not the REAL leader of his political party, his/her Presidency is going to tank.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

To those who say O'Malley would be some fantastic candidate, I have two responses:
1)
2)

We can debate how much O'Malley is responsible for these things, but they aren't good omens for his elect ability.

[Maxwell]

Additionally, I resent the idea that it's Hillary or nothing. Despite the fact that they are unpopular on Atlas, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee, and Martin O'Malley could all win the general election. I may not like all of them, but they could win. The Blue Wall would not fall because Martin O'Malley won the Democratic nomination. Or Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee for that matter.

Hillary would be a great president. But making an entire thread to declare that she is the only valid candidate is ridiculous.

Agree 100%. Hillary supporters like King assert forcefully that the GOP can't win in 2016 because of the blue wall. But then they claim that Hillary is the ONLY one who can win and that Webb, Sanders, O'Malley,... would get crushed and the election would be likely R if they somehow won the nomination. There is no logic to that argument.

Pls stop confusing what I say with what other people say. Thanks.

Webb, Sanders, and O'Malley would lose to everyone in the GOP field except Ted Cruz.

Okey dokey? Why would Webb and O'Malley lose to everyone in the GOP field? Because they aren't battle-tested like Hillary (who after all won in NEW YORK of all places)?

As for O'Malley, it's obvious he wouldn't win given the situation in Baltimore and Hogan's win in 2014.  He'd tank with the white vote.

Webb's biggest problem would be appealing to the Democratic base, which is necessary to win a Presidential election.

1.) That's ridiculous. He won in 2010. 2010. He ran on his record, and he has a record to run on, and the only reason Brown lost in 2014 is because he let Hogan get away with all that nonsense about O'Malley's tax hikes. His tax hikes went to good things, and when O'Malley ran in 2010, that's what he told people. Brown led a piss poor campaign, that's why he lost. That and running in a midterm year. Don't try to blame that on anything else. And saying he would lose because of Baltimore is as ridiculous as saying Hillary would lose because of Benghazi.

2.) Republicans win without the Democratic base. Webb could appeal to Southern conservadems who have abandoned the Democratic party and to moderate swing voters. His brand of populism is still alive and well.

I absolutely hate the suggestion that only Hillary can win. Especially since that suggestion is an enemy to logic.

Give me a reason why O'Malley would lose beyond "muuuh 2014" and why Webb would lose beyond "muuuh liberal base."

What people on Atlas don't realize is that elections aren't computer models. Candidates surge and collapse all the time. If a candidate got on a debate stage, and people agreed with what they said, that could change the entire dynamic of the race.

Additionally, I resent the idea that it's Hillary or nothing. Despite the fact that they are unpopular on Atlas, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee, and Martin O'Malley could all win the general election. I may not like all of them, but they could win. The Blue Wall would not fall because Martin O'Malley won the Democratic nomination. Or Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee for that matter.

Hillary would be a great president. But making an entire thread to declare that she is the only valid candidate is ridiculous.

Agree 100%. Hillary supporters like King assert forcefully that the GOP can't win in 2016 because of the blue wall. But then they claim that Hillary is the ONLY one who can win and that Webb, Sanders, O'Malley,... would get crushed and the election would be likely R if they somehow won the nomination. There is no logic to that argument.

Pls stop confusing what I say with what other people say. Thanks.

Webb, Sanders, and O'Malley would lose to everyone in the GOP field except Ted Cruz.

Can I ask why? That really doesn't make any sense. Jim Webb was a moderate populist senator from the swing state of Virginia. Martin O'Malley was the effective governor of the state of Maryland. He has an amazing record of efficiency. They aren't joke candidates, so why do you think they would lose in such spectacular fashion?

This, among many other reasons, is why O'Malley will lose if nominated

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well said, but what about her plan to bomb every country once she gets into office?

There's this thing called Congressional approval for war that all these progressive activists can attempt to control by, you know, attempting to care about Congressional elections.

By that logic, might as well just elect a Republican president and focus on winning back Congress. There are congressional approval for bills too, and that's something that has actually been followed within the past three generations.

[IceSpear]

You know, I hate when people try to trivialize others' qualms about Hillary. Nothing against you personally, bedstuy, but these threads just keep popping up. Let me start by saying I like Hillary Clinton. She would make a good president. She is a liberal. She isn't a right wing neoliberal warmonger. I don't buy into those phony right-wing Clinton conspiracy theories, I have legitimate policy concerns when it comes to Hillary.

Additionally, I resent the idea that it's Hillary or nothing. Despite the fact that they are unpopular on Atlas, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee, and Martin O'Malley could all win the general election. I may not like all of them, but they could win. The Blue Wall would not fall because Martin O'Malley won the Democratic nomination. Or Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee for that matter.

Hillary would be a great president. But making an entire thread to declare that she is the only valid candidate is ridiculous.

Chafee would be lucky to crack 200 EVs. Even Sanders is more electable.

[WVdemocrat]

You know, I hate when people try to trivialize others' qualms about Hillary. Nothing against you personally, bedstuy, but these threads just keep popping up. Let me start by saying I like Hillary Clinton. She would make a good president. She is a liberal. She isn't a right wing neoliberal warmonger. I don't buy into those phony right-wing Clinton conspiracy theories, I have legitimate policy concerns when it comes to Hillary.

Additionally, I resent the idea that it's Hillary or nothing. Despite the fact that they are unpopular on Atlas, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee, and Martin O'Malley could all win the general election. I may not like all of them, but they could win. The Blue Wall would not fall because Martin O'Malley won the Democratic nomination. Or Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee for that matter.

Hillary would be a great president. But making an entire thread to declare that she is the only valid candidate is ridiculous.

Chafee would be lucky to crack 200 EVs. Even Sanders is more electable.

The bleu firewal will hoddld up, comradde! CO and PENN are CLEAR DEMOCRAY

It's called the Blue Wall. It's not the Blue Wall, But Only If Hillary Is The Nominee. It is supposed to indicate what states any minimally effective Democrat can expect to carry. Below is what I consider the Blue Wall to be.

Dem: 201
Rep: 181
Toss-up: 156

And that is being very generous to Republicans. I included Indiana and NE-02 in the GOP base, and at the same time I included Gore 2000, Kerry 2004, and even Dukakis 1988 states as toss-ups. That is being more than generous, and that is any minimally effective Democrat's base.

Don't kid yourself. Sanders is not more electable. He is a self-described Socialist. That is a dirty word in America. You don't realize how that would affect the choice of voters. The Republican nominee would turn into Joe McCarthy, fearmongering about America being taking over by communists. Chaffee switched sides. I get it. Democrats won't believe him, Republicans won't like him. He'd lose most probably, but Sanders would be crushed.

Tell me, do you honestly believe Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat who can win?