Hillary Clinton email megathread

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Can someone explain to me what makes Biden unelectable?

[Torie]

This is starting to remind me of the countless "Is Obama DOOMED?" threads from 2008.

Who did Obama beat again to secure the Dem nomination? Are you on board the EGGBOK express BRTD?

[Indy Texas]

Isn't it amazing that Biden is thought to be the strong, establishment alternative. Have we all forgotten what a gaffe machine the man is?

He's not a pathological liar.

[eric82oslo]

Can someone explain to me what makes Biden unelectable?

Why do you think he got close to 0% of the votes in the 2008 primaries? Cause noone likes him or are impressed by him. He's boring and has an annoying personality and at times has an arrogant demeanor - particulary in certain debates (like with Ryan).

[Free Bird]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

At this point, I would be willing to support an alternative to Clinton, should a serious and electable alternative emerge.  Unfortunately, nobody of that description is currently challenging her or is even rumored to be challenging her.

Right now Democrats are stuck hoping that this email scandal blows over.  Barring that, we have to hope that the Democrats have someone lined up to enter the race (who isn't Biden).  

And there lies the issue. But if you stick with such a corrupt individual, wouldn't that destroy the credibility of your party? Wouldn't it make more sense tactically to surrender 2016 and target gains in 2018 instead?

There is no such thing as 'tactically' surrendering a presidential election.  Losing the presidency won't help us in 2018.  In fact, if the economy continues to grow, then Democrats would be in an incredibly bad position in 2018, fighting against both an incumbency advantage from the economy and low turnout.

Wrong. There will be a lot of term limited governors in 2018. Easy pickings since midterms favor the opposite party. You could also maintain your at risk Senate seats versus almost invariably lose them. Losing them would almost certainly destroy your chances of taking back the Senate in 2020 and probably 2022 since the blue state Pubs will probably be filtered out next year.

[Vega]

Isn't it amazing that Biden is thought to be the strong, establishment alternative. Have we all forgotten what a gaffe machine the man is?

Biden has 0% chace in the general. He'd be dead as a fish in the Colorado river.

... so not dead at all, then?

[Landslide Lyndon]

This is starting to remind me of the countless "Is Obama DOOMED?" threads from 2008.

Who did Obama beat again to secure the Dem nomination?

And that's relevant exactly how?

[Mehmentum]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

At this point, I would be willing to support an alternative to Clinton, should a serious and electable alternative emerge.  Unfortunately, nobody of that description is currently challenging her or is even rumored to be challenging her.

Right now Democrats are stuck hoping that this email scandal blows over.  Barring that, we have to hope that the Democrats have someone lined up to enter the race (who isn't Biden).  

And there lies the issue. But if you stick with such a corrupt individual, wouldn't that destroy the credibility of your party? Wouldn't it make more sense tactically to surrender 2016 and target gains in 2018 instead?

There is no such thing as 'tactically' surrendering a presidential election.  Losing the presidency won't help us in 2018.  In fact, if the economy continues to grow, then Democrats would be in an incredibly bad position in 2018, fighting against both an incumbency advantage from the economy and low turnout.

Wrong. There will be a lot of term limited governors in 2018. Easy pickings since midterms favor the opposite party. You could also maintain your at risk Senate seats versus almost invariably lose them. Losing them would almost certainly destroy your chances of taking back the Senate in 2020 and probably 2022 since the blue state Pubs will probably be filtered out next year.

I am aware that historically the minority party usually made gains during the midterm.  Not contesting a presidential elections (and by default, the governorships, house and senate seats during that election) for a better chance in the following midterm is incredibly foolish.

You're trading the guarantee of 4 years of complete Republican control for the potential of winning some governorships.  Trading a certainty for a possibility is a bad idea in the first place.  Especially so when the thing you're giving away (the presidency) is more valuable than the thing you'd be gaining (breaking up some Republican gerrymanders in the House).  The President is much more powerful than the House of Representatives.

[Torie]

This is starting to remind me of the countless "Is Obama DOOMED?" threads from 2008.

Who did Obama beat again to secure the Dem nomination?

And that's relevant exactly how?

I was being snarky honey.

[Simfan34]

This is starting to remind me of the countless "Is Obama DOOMED?" threads from 2008.

Who did Obama beat again to secure the Dem nomination? Are you on board the EGGBOK express BRTD?

Eggbok?

[rbt48]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

Sounds pretty bleak for HRC.

[Torie]

This is starting to remind me of the countless "Is Obama DOOMED?" threads from 2008.

Who did Obama beat again to secure the Dem nomination? Are you on board the EGGBOK express BRTD?

Eggbok?

Didn't know of that definition, which is two words. See my post above on this page for mine.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can someone explain to me what makes Biden unelectable?

Why do you think he got close to 0% of the votes in the 2008 primaries? Cause noone likes him or are impressed by him. He's boring and has an annoying personality and at times has an arrogant demeanor - particulary in certain debates (like with Ryan).

He got near zero votes because he was Yesterday's News.  Since then, he's been Obama's Vice President, highly visible to all of America, and he hasn't ruined his good name yet.

Biden isn't the strongest possible candidate for the Democrats, but he's not a sure loser, either. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Isn't it amazing that Biden is thought to be the strong, establishment alternative. Have we all forgotten what a gaffe machine the man is?

Well, Hillary hasn't been doing so great. Biden is the only establishment alternative we've heard about, so he pretty much wins that by default.

[xavier110]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

I mean, this was largely what the Hillary fans said for most of 2007 - that the others were unelectable. Obama would not get through a GE intact (never had any difficult races--something they still said AFTER he freaking beat her in caucuses/primaries), Edwards was a goon, etc. Look at how that turned out.

The unelectable defense usually only arises when you have a sh*t candidate. Hillary is one.

[Yelnoc]

Isn't it amazing that Biden is thought to be the strong, establishment alternative. Have we all forgotten what a gaffe machine the man is?

Well, Hillary hasn't been doing so great. Biden is the only establishment alternative we've heard about, so he pretty much wins that by default.

If Clinton collapses and Biden makes a late entrance is as an establishment savior, then, in my opinion, Sanders becomes the front runner. Crazy, I know, but what's the alternative? Biden has no natural constituency and excites nobody. Hillary isn't about to drop out. In that scenario, we assume Clinton's donors switch to Biden, but she already has enough money to run a campaign through New Hampshire, and she's not just going to drop out. If Biden gets in and gains traction, Sanders will start topping national polls.

[Torie]

Well, it's nice that the Dem primary now has the potential to be a chaotic as the Pub primary. Maybe this election will get as interesting as the one in 1968, which if a novel, would be dismissed as absurd.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Isn't it amazing that Biden is thought to be the strong, establishment alternative. Have we all forgotten what a gaffe machine the man is?

Well, Hillary hasn't been doing so great. Biden is the only establishment alternative we've heard about, so he pretty much wins that by default.

If Clinton collapses and Biden makes a late entrance is as an establishment savior, then, in my opinion, Sanders becomes the front runner. Crazy, I know, but what's the alternative? Biden has no natural constituency and excites nobody. Hillary isn't about to drop out. In that scenario, we assume Clinton's donors switch to Biden, but she already has enough money to run a campaign through New Hampshire, and she's not just going to drop out. If Biden gets in and gains traction, Sanders will start topping national polls.

The key word was establishment. I didn't say that Sanders wasn't the strongest candidate.

[eric82oslo]

Isn't it amazing that Biden is thought to be the strong, establishment alternative. Have we all forgotten what a gaffe machine the man is?

Biden has 0% chace in the general. He'd be dead as a fish in the Colorado river.

... so not dead at all, then?

As far as I've seen during the past few days, the Colorado river or at least a source river leading down to it, has been pretty yellow and toxic.

[Skill and Chance]

She has become a complete disaster since starting her campaign.  Seriously, it would only be a plus for Democrats if she dropped out tomorrow.  Exactly what advantage does she still have at this point?  Being a woman?  That ship has sailed.  It's not like any women who have ever voted Republican in the past 20 years are going to support her now.  There are plenty of other Democratic women who could run.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

She has become a complete disaster since starting her campaign.  Seriously, it would only be a plus for Democrats if she dropped out tomorrow.  Exactly what advantage does she still have at this point?  Being a woman?  That ship has sailed.  It's not like any women who have ever voted Republican in the past 20 years are going to support her now.  There are plenty of other Democratic women who could run.

Elizabeth Warren should have ran, or even Kristen Gillibrand.

[Skill and Chance]

She has become a complete disaster since starting her campaign.  Seriously, it would only be a plus for Democrats if she dropped out tomorrow.  Exactly what advantage does she still have at this point?  Being a woman?  That ship has sailed.  It's not like any women who have ever voted Republican in the past 20 years are going to support her now.  There are plenty of other Democratic women who could run.

Elizabeth Warren should have ran, or even Kristen Gillibrand.

They still can and very well might in a post-Hillary field.  Warren is perfect for reassembling the Obama coalition, and she has room to reach a couple % more of the rural white vote on economic grounds to offset any fall in black turnout.  Not sure what is so special about Gillibrand, though.  I would prefer Klobuchar among female Dem senators.

[Bull Moose Base]

She has become a complete disaster since starting her campaign.  Seriously, it would only be a plus for Democrats if she dropped out tomorrow.  Exactly what advantage does she still have at this point?  Being a woman?  That ship has sailed.  It's not like any women who have ever voted Republican in the past 20 years are going to support her now.  There are plenty of other Democratic women who could run.

Elizabeth Warren should have ran, or even Kristen Gillibrand.

They still can and very well might in a post-Hillary field.  Warren is perfect for reassembling the Obama coalition, and she has room to reach a couple % more of the rural white vote on economic grounds to offset any fall in black turnout.  Not sure what is so special about Gillibrand, though.  I would prefer Klobuchar among female Dem senators.

What post-Hillary field? People think Hillary will imminently drop out because of the email thing? Hillary is neither going to drop out nor lose the support of the establishment until the nomination is clinched by someone, and that someone is overwhelmingly likely to be her.

Calm down, everyone.

[Skill and Chance]

She has become a complete disaster since starting her campaign.  Seriously, it would only be a plus for Democrats if she dropped out tomorrow.  Exactly what advantage does she still have at this point?  Being a woman?  That ship has sailed.  It's not like any women who have ever voted Republican in the past 20 years are going to support her now.  There are plenty of other Democratic women who could run.

Elizabeth Warren should have ran, or even Kristen Gillibrand.

They still can and very well might in a post-Hillary field.  Warren is perfect for reassembling the Obama coalition, and she has room to reach a couple % more of the rural white vote on economic grounds to offset any fall in black turnout.  Not sure what is so special about Gillibrand, though.  I would prefer Klobuchar among female Dem senators.

What post-Hillary field? People think Hillary will imminently drop out because of the email thing? Hillary is neither going to drop out nor lose the support of the establishment until the nomination is clinched by someone, and that someone is overwhelmingly likely to be her.

Calm down, everyone.

It's a hypothetical and I got a bit hyperbolic earlier in the thread.  Nevertheless, I think there's a very strong argument that as of now she is no longer the most electable Democrat.  And she is becoming more, not less of a liability with time.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/upshot/is-hillary-clinton-really-in-danger-of-losing-the-primary.html?rref=upshot&smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Mrs. Clinton’s advantage among the majority of Democratic voters is underpinned by just about all of the forces that help shape public opinion and determine the outcome of primary elections. Her policy views are smack-dab in the middle of the Democratic electorate, denying Mr. Sanders much room to challenge her on the left. She has won the so-called invisible primary, the behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that helps decide the nomination. She has more endorsements and cash than just about any candidate in American history.

Her commanding advantage among party elites has not been shaken by the concerns about her email account. Just ask Joe Biden.

The possibility that Mr. Biden might run for president has led many to imagine that Mrs. Clinton’s sagging support has Democrats on the verge of drafting him into the race. But the reaction from Democratic elites to a possible Biden run has been tepid at best. Major Democratic figures have publicly argued against his candidacy. My colleagues Carl Hulse and Jason Horowitz reported that the skepticism even extends to Mr. Biden’s friends and many Obama 2008 supporters — exactly the sort of people who ought to be most receptive to his candidacy.