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

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

I agree 100%.

[morgankingsley]

What should have happened was have Romney win in 2012, put Hillary against him in 2016, have her lose in a landslide of biblical proportions, then after 8 years of a moderately okay republican president get a reform democrat that I would actually vote for.

[Progressive Pessimist]

What should have happened was have Romney win in 2012, put Hillary against him in 2016, have her lose in a landslide of biblical proportions, then after 8 years of a moderately okay republican president get a reform democrat that I would actually vote for.

I am far from a fan of Romney, but I do think I would prefer this reality to the one we're in now. Maybe I'm just jaded and crestfallen to the point of despair but there is no way that Romney would have been as bad as Trump currently is. We Democrats would probably have had some decent midterm results on top of everything and it wouldn't have felt like we were cheated out of an appointment to Scalia's seat, since it would have rightfully been Romney's. We just would have had to be patient for 2020.

[Da2017]

Kamala Harris She be much more in tune with the mood of the country than Clinton. Could take some of Trump,s outsider appeal. The Gop,s use of law and order hurt Clinton. Can,t use it against Harris she since is a procescutor. She'd be the anti Dukasis.

[Arbitrage1980]

Biden and Webb would have crushed Trump.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Biden or Webb.

I'm not of the opinion that Hillary's loss was because of who she was; her party had a bad image with the types of voters she needed to win. But many of those same voters voted for Biden's ticket twice when he was running with President Obama.

[Mr. Smith]

Biden and Webb would have crushed Trump.

Webb wouldn't have the energy to actually campaign full-scale enough and would defined by Trump before it's too late. Also, the left would've stayed home in even greater droves, I would've much preferred him myself, but that's just me.

Then there's the whole Confederate Flag Issue, which Trump would've gaslighted on.

As for Biden, would've said yes, before he looked like an idiot over that one comment he made about a back alley in high school. 

Also, Trump might've gaslighted him over all those questionably touchy moments he's got with lots of women. Instead of "Crooked Hillary", it'd be "Gropey Joe", and the hypocritical base would eat it up, while the female vote would shrink massively.

[uti2]

Biden and Webb would have crushed Trump.

Webb wouldn't have the energy to actually campaign full-scale enough and would defined by Trump before it's too late. Also, the left would've stayed home in even greater droves, I would've much preferred him myself, but that's just me.

Then there's the whole Confederate Flag Issue, which Trump would've gaslighted on.

As for Biden, would've said yes, before he looked like an idiot over that one comment he made about a back alley in high school. 

Also, Trump might've gaslighted him over all those questionably touchy moments he's got with lots of women. Instead of "Crooked Hillary", it'd be "Gropey Joe", and the hypocritical base would eat it up, while the female vote would shrink massively.

He's running on the assumption that Biden wins and gets of a ton of republican endorsements, which isn't a safe assumption and is really contingent upon how he wins. Sure, Biden beating Hillary in a 1-on-1 is one thing, but it's not the only possible scenario.

Imagine a 3-way race in which Biden/Hillary/Bernie each received 33%, and the convention selected Biden, republicans would be hard-pressed to endorse a candidate of the opposing party who had been selected through convention shenanigans.