Dems: Do you wish Hillary had decided not to run?

[JRP1994]

Thoughts?

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Who exactly could they have run who is younger with less baggage but already nationally known and well-respected? Hillary isn't perfect, but there's a reason nobody wanted to run against her except Bernie and Jim Webb.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No.

[windjammer]

No.

[LLR]

Yes, but no such candidate exists, so I voted no.

[Mr. Morden]

Who exactly could they have run who is younger with less baggage but already nationally known and well-respected?

Why is already being nationally known a prerequisite for running for president?  The Democratic Party has nominated plenty of people for president who weren't that well known nationally before they ran.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes.

Al Franken would've been much better.

[Sbane]

I wish Uncle Joe had ran.

[7,052,770]

What a ridiculous question. Of course not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. And not because of their politics, but because she's objectively a terrible candidate. She might blow this election yet, when any remotely competent Democrat would have it in the bag.

[President Johnson]

Sure, but I would have supported Big Don anyway. But another Democratic candidate would make a TRUMP loss less terrifying/more acceptable for me. Hillary is just a bad candidate, too much out of touch with everything, too unenthusiastic and too much baggage. I could only reluctantly prefer her over a terrible GOP candidate (like Cruz).

I'd rather have Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, Jim Webb or Kirsten Gilibrand as the nominee (in that order).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'll be frank: I have very little confidence in Hillary, but she's the nominee now and I'll take her over every Republican, not just Trump.

Being Polish, I'm used to choosing the lesser of two evils

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Yeeeeeeeeep.

Or alternately, it might have been best if she had run, and had been beaten by Sanders. Gotta lance the boil on the Democratic party at some point.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Who exactly could they have run who is younger with less baggage but already nationally known and well-respected?

Why is already being nationally known a prerequisite for running for president?  The Democratic Party has nominated plenty of people for president who weren't that well known nationally before they ran.

Not a prerequisite, but an advantage. An unknown candidate has to spend a lot of money (which he may not have) to introduce himself to voters and donors throughout the country. Hillary started out being a known quantity to them already. Plus, it's hard for the opposition to define someone who is already defined.

[Zioneer]

Yes. I don't like her or Bernie as candidates, and Democrats have a fairly good bench that could have picked things up if she didn't run.

[IceSpear]

Yes. And not because of their politics, but because she's objectively a terrible candidate. She might blow this election yet, when any remotely competent Democrat would have it in the bag.

You know that hypothetical polls only had Obama doing a few points better, right? And that's while he was floating above the fray for a while while Hillary was subjected to the Republican hate machine for over a year.

Some of you guys seem to have a hard time grasping that 45% of the country will vote for any Republican under any circumstances. Secondly, the Republican hate machine/attack machine was not going to roll over and die if Dems nominated anybody else. And lastly, the media has a vested interest in forcing/manufacturing a horse race under any circumstances.

NO candidate would be a lock against Trump.

[Virginiá]

I would have liked it much better if Warren had been the nominee. I feel confident she would do even better against Trump. Clinton isn't someone I look up to at all, and she has so much freakin baggage it's unbelievable. In terms of this election, it doesn't really matter if her "scandals" are real or imagined - She has been the right's punching bag for years and has suffered from that. Her approvals/trustworthiness polls show it.

I could be wrong, but I legitimately feel like we blew a chance to have a true landslide this election. We may have a big win yet with lots of downballot wins, but I can't help but think it will be less than we could have gotten with a better candidate.

* And yes, maybe polarization may prevent a 61%+ PV win, but I don't think a 57% - 58% margin is off the table with Trump had we fielded a better, less controversial candidate that could inspire people to vote. Polarization may prevent large wins most of the time, but it's not universal.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes. And not because of their politics, but because she's objectively a terrible candidate. She might blow this election yet, when any remotely competent Democrat would have it in the bag.

You know that hypothetical polls only had Obama doing a few points better, right? And that's while he was floating above the fray for a while while Hillary was subjected to the Republican hate machine for over a year.

Some of you guys seem to have a hard time grasping that 45% of the country will vote for any Republican under any circumstances. Secondly, the Republican hate machine/attack machine was not going to roll over and die if Dems nominated anybody else. And lastly, the media has a vested interest in forcing/manufacturing a horse race under any circumstances.

NO candidate would be a lock against Trump.

Franken would've, his telegenic-ness would've done more than enough to make trump the thin-skinned crawl under his hide.  All Fox and them could do is be pearl-clutchers like they were when Paul Ryan got smashed by Biden.

As long as everything's as sensationalized as it is, the ideal candidate is one who is telegenic, delivers  excellent zingers and sick burns as well as sound, but convicted policies [and not silly centrism].

A campaign like John Bel Edwards 2015 run against Vitter, would be most optimal. But even Obama '08 or Reagan's campaign's would suffice.

Only Franken could pull any of these off.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes. And not because of their politics, but because she's objectively a terrible candidate. She might blow this election yet, when any remotely competent Democrat would have it in the bag.

You know that hypothetical polls only had Obama doing a few points better, right? And that's while he was floating above the fray for a while while Hillary was subjected to the Republican hate machine for over a year.

Some of you guys seem to have a hard time grasping that 45% of the country will vote for any Republican under any circumstances. Secondly, the Republican hate machine/attack machine was not going to roll over and die if Dems nominated anybody else. And lastly, the media has a vested interest in forcing/manufacturing a horse race under any circumstances.

NO candidate would be a lock against Trump.

Franken would've, his telegenic-ness would've done more than enough to make trump the thin-skinned crawl under his hide.  All Fox and them could do is be pearl-clutchers like they were when Paul Ryan got smashed by Biden.

As long as everything's as sensationalized as it is, the ideal candidate is one who is telegenic, delivers  excellent zingers and sick burns as well as sound, but convicted policies [and not silly centrism].

A campaign like John Bel Edwards 2015 run against Vitter, would be most optimal. But even Obama '08 or Reagan's campaign's would suffice.

Only Franken could pull any of these off.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes, because even though Hillary has a decent advantage against trump (probably), a mainstream nominee would likely crush her. And she will probably be facing a nominee significantly better then trump in 2020.

[IceSpear]

I would have liked it much better if Warren had been the nominee. I feel confident she would do even better against Trump. Clinton isn't someone I look up to at all, and she has so much freakin baggage it's unbelievable. In terms of this election, it doesn't really matter if her "scandals" are real or imagined - She has been the right's punching bag for years and has suffered from that. Her approvals/trustworthiness polls show it.

I could be wrong, but I legitimately feel like we blew a chance to have a true landslide this election. We may have a big win yet with lots of downballot wins, but I can't help but think it will be less than we could have gotten with a better candidate.

* And yes, maybe polarization may prevent a 61%+ PV win, but I don't think a 57% - 58% margin is off the table with Trump had we fielded a better, less controversial candidate that could inspire people to vote. Polarization may prevent large wins most of the time, but it's not universal.

I think a white male populist (preferably a Southerner, think Bill Clinton or John Edwards without the scandal) could've gotten 57-58% in 2008, since the country was much less polarized then. But now? Forget it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yes (sane, normal, etc)

[Xing]

Of course I wish that we had a relatively young candidate with all of the qualifications of Hillary and none of the baggage. But now's not the time to think about alternative realities. Too much is at stake in this election.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Honestly, if the dem ticket was reversed I'd like it a lot more. With Hillary at the top, I basically feel: "Well, it's not as bad as Trump". With Kaine at the top, I could actually get somewhat enthusiastic about voting for it.

[Santander]

Evan Bayh was the only one with the financial muscle, political skill, and establishment backing to do it properly.