Should the Democratic Party distance itself from Hillary Clinton?

[Higgins]

What do you guys think?

As a Democrat, I think Hillary should be persona non grata. She's toxic to the brand. LBJ and Nixon were never again invited to their party's conventions after they left office - and their respective parties acted as if they didn't exist. We should do the same with Hillary and Bill Clinton, and focus on Obama's legacy. The Clintons are both an embarrassment, and represent the opposite of what the Democratic Party should be.

[This is Eharding, guys]

The party didn't distance itself from Gore in 2000.

[Higgins]

The party didn't distance itself from Gore in 2000.

Gore was much less cringey and much less of a self-absorbed embarrassment.

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

The party didn't distance itself from Gore in 2000.

It was Nader's fault that Gore lost, so he got a Pass.

Obviously the democratic party should divorce itself completely from Hillary Clinton. She is the most hated nominee of either major party, aside from Trump himself, in modern history.

[MarkD]

Yes; neither D nor R.

[Beet]

The Clinton brand is kaput. Time to move on.

[This is Eharding, guys]

I see no reason for the Dems to adopt Trump-style treatment of loyal individuals. And if 2000 was Nader's fault, by the same logic 2016 is Stein's fault.

[The Govanah Jake]

Clintonism in the Democratic Party is over. The Democrats should distance themselves from both Clinton's.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, the Clintons have been a real detriment to the party. The party must run on issues that actually help ordinary people rather than these vapid neoliberal campaigns where they don't want to talk about their real positions.

[Alabama_Indy10]

The party didn't distance itself from Gore in 2000.

It was Nader's fault that Gore lost, so he got a Pass.

Obviously the democratic party should divorce itself completely from Hillary Clinton. She is the most hated nominee of either major party, aside from Trump himself, in modern history.

No.

[Higgins]

The party didn't distance itself from Gore in 2000.

It was Nader's fault that Gore lost, so he got a Pass.

Obviously the democratic party should divorce itself completely from Hillary Clinton. She is the most hated nominee of either major party, aside from Trump himself, in modern history.

No.

Yes. Gore wasn't nearly as horrible a candidate as Hillary.

[dw93]

Yes. They served their role just fine in the 90's when the Democrats had to move to the center to win. But the 90's are over. The senior citizen Democratic GI's are dead and baby boomers are pretty set in their conservative leanings. The next generation of Democrats are much more responsive to folks like Obama and to a stronger degree Bernie Sanders.

She lost to a man who had a 60% unfavorability rating on the day of the election itself. She's done her service as a First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State. It's over.

[Alabama_Indy10]

The party didn't distance itself from Gore in 2000.

It was Nader's fault that Gore lost, so he got a Pass.

Obviously the democratic party should divorce itself completely from Hillary Clinton. She is the most hated nominee of either major party, aside from Trump himself, in modern history.

No.

Yes. Gore wasn't nearly as horrible a candidate as Hillary.

You're right. I was saying no to the idea of Nader costing Gore the election.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes. They served their role just fine in the 90's when the Democrats had to move to the center to win.

Did they? Judging by the 1994 results, Bill's lack of legislative accomplishment, and the fact that they made George W. Bush seem like a fresh alternative, I wouldn't say they were the best choice for Democrats in the 1990s. In fact, their sleaze was disastrous for Democrats during that whole period and made rebuilding impossible until they were put on the shelf for a while. For example, in 1996 all the polls were showing Democrats were easily going to retake the House - then the Chinese fundraising scandal came out.

[Higgins]

Yes. They served their role just fine in the 90's when the Democrats had to move to the center to win.

Did they? Judging by the 1994 results, Bill's lack of legislative accomplishment, and the fact that they made George W. Bush seem like a fresh alternative, I wouldn't say they were the best choice for Democrats in the 1990s. In fact, their sleaze was disastrous for Democrats during that whole period and made rebuilding impossible until they were put on the shelf for a while. For example, in 1996 all the polls were showing Democrats were easily going to retake the House - then the Chinese fundraising scandal came out.

Meh, we can play a bunch of hypothetical what if scenarios all day and never agree on anything (or more importantly, test it out). The past has already occurred and in the history books. It's best to actually analyze the past and try to learn from it.

The fact of the matter is that 1980 ushered in a GOP-Southern Democrat alliance to pass an agenda that would define (and largely still defines) this era of politics and shaped our macroeconomy in a way that reversed trends which had been ongoing for decades. A moderate southern Democrat was an obvious follow up to win the Presidential election after the more liberal Democrats like Dukakis and Mondale failed to unseat the Republicans. And a moderate southern Democrat in Bill Clinton represented the ideological wing of the Party that got Reagan's agenda passed so of course he was a natural continuation of the Reagan Revolution.

And spare me the talks about Nixon (who got treated like crap by the Democratic congress of his day) or Carter (who was incompetent and couldn't work with congress). They didn't have the ability to work with their congresses to get the revolutionary measures Reagan got through in the 80's. Their incrementalism was only a sign of Reagan coming and not worthy of being analyzed as the start of the neoliberal era.

LBJ felt that FDR's court packing scheme is what brought about the Southern Dem-GOP alliance.

[Zioneer]

Yes, but mostly in the sense that I think most losing parties should distance themselves somewhat from their losing presidential candidates.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yes (D)

[dead0man]

yes, of course

[darklordoftech]

Nixon at one point gave everything the Democrats could've wanted in his healthcare proposal without losing his base and the Democrats still rejected it.

I know you like to talk about parallels between political alignments, and this brings me to one that you'll definitely find interesting: Obama gave the Republicans everything they could've wanted in his healthcare proposal and the Republicans still rejected it.

[Higgins]

Nixon at one point gave everything the Democrats could've wanted in his healthcare proposal without losing his base and the Democrats still rejected it.

I know you like to talk about parallels between political alignments, and this brings me to one that you'll definitely find interesting: Obama gave the Republicans everything they could've wanted in his healthcare proposal and the Republicans still rejected it.

Two different situations. Nixon gave his healthcare proposal which had everything in his State of the Union for 1974. By that time, he had very very little political capitol left and no Democrats willing to work on him with anything besides helping him out the door.

[RINO Tom]

Yes. They served their role just fine in the 90's when the Democrats had to move to the center to win.

Did they? Judging by the 1994 results, Bill's lack of legislative accomplishment, and the fact that they made George W. Bush seem like a fresh alternative, I wouldn't say they were the best choice for Democrats in the 1990s. In fact, their sleaze was disastrous for Democrats during that whole period and made rebuilding impossible until they were put on the shelf for a while. For example, in 1996 all the polls were showing Democrats were easily going to retake the House - then the Chinese fundraising scandal came out.

Meh, we can play a bunch of hypothetical what if scenarios all day and never agree on anything (or more importantly, test it out). The past has already occurred and in the history books. It's best to actually analyze the past and try to learn from it.

The fact of the matter is that 1980 ushered in a GOP-Southern Democrat alliance to pass an agenda that would define (and largely still defines) this era of politics and shaped our macroeconomy in a way that reversed trends which had been ongoing for decades. A moderate southern Democrat was an obvious follow up to win the Presidential election after the more liberal Democrats like Dukakis and Mondale failed to unseat the Republicans. And a moderate southern Democrat in Bill Clinton represented the ideological wing of the Party that got Reagan's agenda passed so of course he was a natural continuation of the Reagan Revolution.

And spare me the talks about Nixon (who got treated like crap by the Democratic congress of his day) or Carter (who was incompetent and couldn't work with congress). They didn't have the ability to work with their congresses to get the revolutionary measures Reagan got through in the 80's. Their incrementalism was only a sign of Reagan coming and not worthy of being analyzed as the start of the neoliberal era.

LBJ felt that FDR's court packing scheme is what brought about the Southern Dem-GOP alliance.

I think this is accurate.  I remember reading an article that for the first 2-3 years of FDR's Presidency, Southern Democrats voted more loyally for his economic initiatives (and effectively "more liberal") than Northern Democrats even.  The combination of him strengthening the federal government a bit too much for their liking and the New Deal significantly elevating the fortunes of Black Americans gave a frosty feel to that friendship REAL fast.

[Illiniwek]

They shouldn't make a point to throw her under the bus, but they should just move on. Talk about new people with new ideas.

[RINO Tom]

They shouldn't make a point to throw her under the bus, but they should just move on. Talk about new people with new ideas.

Also, this.  I know I'm a somewhat partisan Republican, so my opinion will no doubt be taken with a grain of salt ... but the Democratic Party is viewed by many as this entity that just waits and sees what the GOP does, finds what's wrong with that and bltches about it on the campaign trail. 

You HAVE to vote Democratic because the GOP is (allegedly) racist!  Are YOU a racist?!  You HAVE to vote Democratic because the GOP (allgedly) hates the poor!  Do YOU hate the poor?!  You HAVE to vote Democratic because the GOP is (allegedly) anti-science!  Are YOU anti-science?!

The voters who don't believe (or even are slightly unsure about) the allegation Democrats make about the GOP are literally never going to buy that message, and even some who might softly agree with some of those accusations still won't see that as an inspiring or (more importantly) compelling enough reason to vote D.

The Democratic Party needs a positive message that has nothing to do with the GOP.  The New Deal wasn't BASED on the GOP, it was in reaction to the Great Depression.  Frankly, FDR didn't give a shlt what Republicans in Congress were chirping about, he had his own plan to help Americans, and he presented it to them ... and it worked.  Compare that with Hillary Clinton, who more or less insinuated that you'd have to be insane/racist/sexist/xenophobic/dumb/etc. not to see that she is CLEARLY the sensible alternative to this mad man, and frankly a lot of people (and apparently a large enough chunk of former Democrats) just rolled their eyes.  I think this "Better Deal" is a really underrated step in the right direction, though.

[RINO Tom]

Nixon at one point gave everything the Democrats could've wanted in his healthcare proposal without losing his base and the Democrats still rejected it.

I know you like to talk about parallels between political alignments, and this brings me to one that you'll definitely find interesting: Obama gave the Republicans everything they could've wanted in his healthcare proposal and the Republicans still rejected it.

Two different situations. Nixon gave his healthcare proposal which had everything in his State of the Union for 1974. By that time, he had very very little political capitol left and no Democrats willing to work on him with anything besides helping him out the door.

Ted Kennedy would go on to say his biggest mistake in his political life was rejecting Nixon's healthcare proposal. The situation may have been slightly different than Obama, but the hostility Democrats had towards Nixon at the time caused many to look back with regret at the opportunities they missed.

The bolded seems to be fading from history in favor of the "Southern Democrats were right-wingers and more conservative than a lot of Republicans" and "Nixon was actually pretty liberal muh EPA" narratives.  The fact is, Democrats hated Nixon much more than they hated Reagan (21st Century attitudes aside), and many Southern Democrats led the charge for his impeachment.

[7,052,770]

The party didn't distance itself from Gore in 2000.

It was Nader's fault that Gore lost, so he got a Pass.

Obviously the democratic party should divorce itself completely from Hillary Clinton. She is the most hated nominee of either major party, aside from Trump himself, in modern history.

If it's Nader's fault Gore lost, it's Stein's fault Hillary lost. Logical consistency and all that.

Obviously I put the blame on voters and not on candidates, but if you're going to blame Nader rather than the "liberal" nimrods who failed to vote Gore, you have to do the same for Stein.