It's the idea that the Midwest leans red, therefore it must be true that only centrist politicians have any shot at converting Republican voters to the Democratic side. This ignores the now recognized fact that winning elections is about getting turnout from your side rather than winning over some imaginary on-the-fence voters.

But I'll even go out on a limb and postulate that far right voters can be converted with the right message. These are the "desperate for any solution to an economy that isn't working for them" people. You see it with the former Ron Paul turned Bernie Bros turned Gary Johnson voters. You see it when Democratic representatives are elected in red states where unions are still big and the Democrats are about labor issues rather than pandering on social issues to obscure their corporate shilling. If there's some polling that compares HRC vs R and Warren vs R and it shows HRC faring better then OK, I'll consider that, but I don't think such a poll exists.

Zany far-left by US standards? I'm not aware of any of her policies more extreme than acknowledging that income inequality exists, it is bad, and policies that enable or accelerate it should be stopped.

If this was a hypothetical world where her 2016 campaign didn't exist and/or she somehow makes it through a competitive, open primary then sure. But if she pushes her way into the nomination again in the real world I think there would be so much outrage on the left + so much motivation for the right to turn out for Trump again that it would be dangerously close.

This isn't true at all.

You're right that people hate women (I wrote a post on here just prior to the election about how that wasn't getting enough attention) but that doesn't mean all women are equal candidates.

Completely disagree that Warren has "less appeal to the midwest than Hillary." That strikes me as a nonsense statement.

Why don't we like Swalwell again?

I like Swalwell...but what, its been since Garfield since someone has gone from congress to president? But Trump showed rules don't matter anymore and I want everyone to run who wants to run. Once again on the exception a crowded primary field leads to some tv star (Oprah) winning the nomination after votes being split.

This Mcfaul guy seems like a real peach, he’s using this publicity to pimp his book, lol.

Oh stop with this bull****. Hillary was fine. You’re underplaying the effect of moron Comey and the russian interference. Every single poll ever had her winning by 10+ points and then she gets blown out at the last second. It was like 1/1000000 fluke. And she STILL wins the popular vote by a significant margin.

She lacks charisma but her policies are fine. She wrote a 300 page ****ing book on them. This attacking of Hillary is pure hindsight 20/20 bull****.

This search for the next democratic presidential nominee reminds me of the story of Goldilocks and the TWO bears.

As evidenced by the complete and total lack of criticism of Clinton as the nominee from the left prior to her defeat.

I'll agree her stated policies this past go around were fine, but the rest of this post is pretty wrong. It's not hindsight to say Hillary was a bad candidate. A ton of people in this very forum were saying it at the time. Go look up any CPHoya post for some of the hottest takes along these lines.

Also, while it's true Trump needed the help of some fluke events to win, the fact it was close at all says a lot. Trump had (easily) the worst favorable/unfavorable ratings in history.

And no, Hillary was not up by 10+ in every single poll until the last second. The Comey thing happened on Oct 28th. Polling at that time had Clinton up by an average of 5.7%, according to the 538 tracker.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

do you mean The House?

yeah yeah obv

And who was the 2nd worst? Hillary.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...cord-breaking/

that hillary post is among the worst, wrongest takes i have seen on this forum. truly awful.

Looks like everyone else has already picked out the errors in your post but to bring the discussion back on topic, would you support Hillary if she entered the primary for 2020? Would you specifically be against Warren if she runs because [woman/no charisma/too much like Hillary/"Pocahontas"/other]?

Lol at "people hate women"; that is just ridiculous on it's face. The contingent of people whose vote in Trump vs. Warren is decided by gender is ~0

Counterpoint: you are wrong

Really? You think there is a significant contingent of people who would vote for a hypothetical male version of Warren over Trump, but would also vote for Trump over the actual Warren? I am... skeptical.

Yes, of course. Are you suggesting that sexism isn't a thing?

I literally posted a link in this thread YESTERDAY from a 2007 poll which found that 11 percent of moderates and 4 percent of liberals would not vote for a woman President, even if otherwise qualified.

No, I'm suggesting it would make a negligible difference in an election where
(a) disregarding gender, the candidates are already so different that the level of overlap between groups who like or even tolerate them is likely to be extremely small
(b) the woman is running on the left

*shrug* polls say a lot of things. Find me a "liberal" who votes Trump over Warren because they won't vote for a woman and you have found someone who was already voting for Trump against ~anyone the Democrats put up.

They don't have to vote for either candidate. They can stay home or vote for Johnson.

"Polls say a lot of things." lol what kind of rebuttal is that?

STRONG ARGUMENT

Polls say a lot of things
Polls say a lot of things
Polls say a lot of things
Polls say a lot of things
Polls say a lot of things
Polls say a lot of things

According that poll only 67% would vote for someone "married for the 3rd time" so Warren has a built in 21 point advantage over Trump.