In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016?

[TJ in Oregon]

Sanders would have absolutely demolished Trump. He would have won every swing state and possibly GA, IN, and MO.

[Nichlemn]

Does no-one remember how Hillary Clinton was the popular former Secretary of State with 60%+ approval, while Trump was the race-baiting laughingstock who would lose in a massive landslide if he were somehow nominated?

In another timeline, it may have been Sanders losing to Rubio after being successfully painted as a left-wing extremist, with the consensus being that the "Tea Party of the left" had cost the Democrats a probable win by rejecting the qualified establishment moderate in Hillary Clinton for "McGovern 2.0".

[Sumner 1868]

Does no-one remember how Hillary Clinton was the popular former Secretary of State with 60%+ approval, while Trump was the race-baiting laughingstock who would lose in a massive landslide if he were somehow nominated?

In 1991 George Bush Sr. had a 90+ approval rating.

[Mail-order President]

Bernie

[adamevans]

Hillary should've left politics after Bill Clinton's term.

[CookieDamage]

Does no-one remember how Hillary Clinton was the popular former Secretary of State with 60%+ approval, while Trump was the race-baiting laughingstock who would lose in a massive landslide if he were somehow nominated?

In another timeline, it may have been Sanders losing to Rubio after being successfully painted as a left-wing extremist, with the consensus being that the "Tea Party of the left" had cost the Democrats a probable win by rejecting the qualified establishment moderate in Hillary Clinton for "McGovern 2.0".

[Progressive Pessimist]

Does no-one remember how Hillary Clinton was the popular former Secretary of State with 60%+ approval, while Drumpf was the race-baiting laughingstock who would lose in a massive landslide if he were somehow nominated?

In another timeline, it may have been Sanders losing to Rubio after being successfully painted as a left-wing extremist, with the consensus being that the "Tea Party of the left" had cost the Democrats a probable win by rejecting the qualified establishment moderate in Hillary Clinton for "McGovern 2.0".

This is definitely true and let's be honest here, Clinton was always going to win as long as she ran. Sanders may have been a surprising opponent but he still lost badly.

In spite of that, if I go with the hypothetical of Clinton not running at all. This would have been Biden's best chance. There was still a somewhat weak bench for the Democrats and if anyone else like a Warren or Booker ran against Biden, he probably would have defeated them still.

 I still don't know if he would win or not though. I think a third term after eight years of a Democratic White House would have been an uphill battle for anyone even against Trump and that doesn't even take Russian interference or other outside factors into account. Obama could have won though. Obama running for a third term would have trounced Trump. That I will say with some confidence.

[LBJer]

Does no-one remember how Hillary Clinton was the popular former Secretary of State with 60%+ approval, while Drumpf was the race-baiting laughingstock who would lose in a massive landslide if he were somehow nominated?

In another timeline, it may have been Sanders losing to Rubio after being successfully painted as a left-wing extremist, with the consensus being that the "Tea Party of the left" had cost the Democrats a probable win by rejecting the qualified establishment moderate in Hillary Clinton for "McGovern 2.0".

This is definitely true and let's be honest here, Clinton was always going to win as long as she ran. Sanders may have been a surprising opponent but he still lost badly.

By primary standards (primaries are typically won/lost by much bigger margins than the general election), Sanders did NOT lose badly.  Clinton's victory was only a modest one.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don't think it would have mattered. Most of the problem was the image of the Democrats as a whole and Hillary's bad campaign strategy. Any Dem who didn't spend any time campaigning in rural Pennsylvania would likely have been blown out there like Hillary was, etc.

[Lord Admirale]

Joe Biden.

[RFayette]

Sanders would have absolutely demolished Trump. He would have won every swing state and possibly GA, IN, and MO.

I wouldn’t go that far, but this.

[Mondegreen]

You have to go much further back than the 2016 primaries to fix the structural rot in AmeriKKKan politics and culture. I'd suggest looking into Lasch.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Boyknee, he would reverse a lot of the inroads trump made with the WWC, winning the rust belt, possibly including Ohio, but losing VA or some other state.

[beaver2.0]

Biden.

[DevinM626]

Elizabeth Warren; she has a lot of both Bernie and Hillary's strengths without their respective flaws, is likeable in a folksy grandma sort of way, and could've been sold as an "outsider" candidate, being a one-term Senator with populist leanings, in a year in which the electorate was craving such a candidate.

[Sadader]

Hillary Clinton

[RINO Tom]

Hillary Clinton

So you think they were just doomed to certain defeat against Donald Trump?  LOL

[Politician]

Bernie Sanders, obviously. Or Joe Biden.

[Sadader]

Hillary Clinton

So you think they were just doomed to certain defeat against Donald Trump?  LOL

Just because the result happened doesn’t mean that it was predestined. People (for some irrational reason) seem to think that the points

a) Hillary had a better chance of winning than other candidates
and
b) Hillary didn’t win

are mutually exclusive. They’re not. The iteration we got was bad, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the hypothetical iterations of other campaigns would have been better than the average Hillary result, but this is a useless question (for that reason) anyway.

[NewYorkExpress]

Elizabeth Warren would have probably been the best candidate.

That said, it's clear Russia preferred Trump, so assuming he came out the Republican Primary, it didn't matter who the Democrats nominated. Putin was going to do everything possible to ensure Trump won in November.

[Lord Admirale]

Joe Biden

[Confused Democrat]

Sanders would have held the rust belt.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Sanders would have held the rust belt.

I agree with this.  Biden would've had a shot at holding it as well. 

[Politician]

Update: Bernie or Biden.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

In order to secure the presidency: Biden

In terms of long-term political success: A narrow loss in 2016 is probably the best outcome for Democrats if we look at what this means for the 2018/2020 congressional/gubernatorial elections. If we had a Democratic president right now, the Democrats' would likely have no chance at a majority in either chamber or improving their very weak position in state legislatures, and the incumbent president would probably have an uphill fight in 2020 after 12 years of a Democratic president. Because Trump won in 2016, the Democrats are probably favored to win the House and several governorships this year, the 2020 Senate map is very promising as well, and I would argue that Trump is likely going to lose reelection. I think the Democrats are well poised to control both chambers and the presidency during the 2021-2023 period, and hopefully they could capitalize on it as well as they did in 2009-2011.