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

[RINO Tom]

Hillary Clinton. She performed better than any other Democrat would have against Trump.

Very, very dubious claim.

[Pericles]

Hillary Clinton. She performed better than any other Democrat would have against Trump.

Very, very dubious claim.

[Former Kentuckian]

Hillary Clinton. She performed better than any other Democrat would have against Trump.

This literally made me laugh a little

[IceSpear]

His claim is no worse than the very common hot take about how any Democrat would've done better than Hillary.

[Mr. Smith]

Hillary Clinton. She performed better than any other Democrat would have against Trump.

Very, very dubious claim.

Not really. Any other Democrat would've take more of Trump's bait and fallen far behind in the popular vote.

But her, she winded all sorts of false claims thanks to 25 years of it.

There's a reason everyone saw her as inevitable on ALL sides of the aisle.

On other hand, every other Republican against Hillary...well it would've been 2012 Part 2....that's how wooden, phony, and elitist pretty much all the other 16 Republicans look, which is kinda impressive on it's own.


Trump v. Clinton was a perfect equilibrium for a coin toss result. Comey put it to tails. Even with that, she still won the popular vote.


The only person who could actually throw quips enough to make Trump squirm and still look good is Obama...no not even Biden, he lost to Dukakis sabotage for goodness sake.

[TDAS04]

As a person and as a leader, Hillary Clinton is criminally underrated on the Atlas Forum (and much of America).  She’s not mean, and once in office, Hillary does an excellent job.  Hillary is smart, competent, and strong; and would have made an above-average commander-in-chief.

When it comes to electability, however, this is where she may be overrated.  To be fair, she didn’t lose just for running a bad campaign.  Too many voters simply held deep-seated, erroneous hatred (often based in sexism) for her, which in the end, proved too much for her to overcome.  There probably were at least a few other potential nominees who could have closed the electoral gap with Trump more easily.

[Mister Mets]

Obama to succeed Hillary would probably have done better. He did maintain his personal popularity reasonably well as President. I'd expect he'd have done the same as Vice President, though it is an interesting counterfactual.

Biden would likely have been stronger against Trump, but Democrats didn't know the election was going to come down to the rust belt, or what would happen to Beau Biden (his cancer returned in May 20 2015).

The biggest mistake of the Democrats was clearing the path for Hillary, which elevated Sanders.

[NoTrump]

As much as I wanted Hillary to be Clinton 45, she clearly was not the most electable candidate.

I'm not certain, but I think Biden would have defeated Trump.  In hindsight, the ideal Demicratic ticket would have been Joe Biden for President, and maybe Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, or Tammy Baldwin for Vice President.

What do you think?

Agreed with all of this. Indeed, Biden was a known quality and thus had more of a chance of defeating Trump than Sanders had (in my honest opinion, of course). Still, I wouldn't have completely ruled out Sanders's chances; after all, in spite of everything that he did, Trump won both the GOP nomination and the presidency. In turn, this might mean that Sanders' perceived vulnerabilities as a socialist might not have been a very big deal either.

As for Tammy Baldwin as VP, I do think that she might have very slightly hurt Trump. Still, given the chances in public attitudes on gay rights and same-sex marriage, I doubt that she would have hurt Biden's (or Sanders's) chances too badly in 2016.

Warren and Brown are also good VP picks, but Brown would have caused the Democrats to lose a U.S. Senate seat in Ohio.

[uti2]

Obama to succeed Hillary would probably have done better. He did maintain his personal popularity reasonably well as President. I'd expect he'd have done the same as Vice President, though it is an interesting counterfactual.

Biden would likely have been stronger against Trump, but Democrats didn't know the election was going to come down to the rust belt, or what would happen to Beau Biden (his cancer returned in May 20 2015).

The biggest mistake of the Democrats was clearing the path for Hillary, which elevated Sanders.

Had they not 'cleared the path' for Hillary, and say for instance Biden had entered, it would've boosted Sanders' (or Warren's) odds and increased the likelihood of a contested convention even more, which would've weakened the democratic party even further. At least Clinton won an outright majority of the vote. Could you imagine how much more intense the 'rigged' narrative would have been in the context of the inevitably anointed DNC centrist candidate winning the nomination by only receiving a minority of the vote and a minority of the delegates?

This is why I'm skeptical of the maps posted here showing Kasich winning 370+ EVs, that would've been a serious possibility in the scenario I describe, but in the modern scenario, the Democratic party was too well-united for that type of landslide to occur. Obama correctly foresaw that the Sanders/Warren wing of the party would be problematic, which is why he let Hillary have it.

[Mister Mets]

Obama to succeed Hillary would probably have done better. He did maintain his personal popularity reasonably well as President. I'd expect he'd have done the same as Vice President, though it is an interesting counterfactual.

Biden would likely have been stronger against Trump, but Democrats didn't know the election was going to come down to the rust belt, or what would happen to Beau Biden (his cancer returned in May 20 2015).

The biggest mistake of the Democrats was clearing the path for Hillary, which elevated Sanders.

Had they not 'cleared the path' for Hillary, and say for instance Biden had entered, it would've boosted Sanders' (or Warren's) odds and increased the likelihood of a contested convention even more, which would've weakened the democratic party even further. At least Clinton won an outright majority of the vote. Could you imagine how much more intense the 'rigged' narrative would have been in the context of the inevitably anointed DNC centrist candidate winning the nomination by only receiving a minority of the vote and a minority of the delegates?

This is why I'm skeptical of the maps posted here showing Kasich winning 370+ EVs, that would've been a serious possibility in the scenario I describe, but in the modern scenario, the Democratic party was too well-united for that type of landslide to occur. Obama correctly foresaw that the Sanders/Warren wing of the party would be problematic, which is why he let Hillary have it.

Or someone else would have emerged, and won the primary fair and square in a scenario where Klobuchar, Booker, Warren and Murphy would have been more comfortable seeking the nomination.

[beaver2.0]

Hillary Clinton. She performed better than any other Democrat would have against Trump.

I doubt this very, very much.

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

well biden would’ve been a good choice for winning the election itself, but hillary was probably the best thing that happened to democrats in terms of their long-term prospects

I completely agree. Could you imagine the sh**tstorm for Democrats in the midterms? Manchin? Dead. Donnelly? Dead. Tester? Dead. Heitkamp? Dead. Brown? Dead. McCaskill? Dead. Nelson? Dead. If 2016 had been narrow for Hillary and Republicans had a good year in 2018 then a supermajority wouldn't have been out of question.

[LimoLiberal]

well biden would’ve been a good choice for winning the election itself, but hillary was probably the best thing that happened to democrats in terms of their long-term prospects

I completely agree. Could you imagine the sh**tstorm for Democrats in the midterms? Manchin? Dead. Donnelly? Dead. Tester? Dead. Heitkamp? Dead. Brown? Dead. McCaskill? Dead. Nelson? Dead. If 2016 had been narrow for Hillary and Republicans had a good year in 2018 then a supermajority wouldn't have been out of question.

Heitkamp would have lost by like 35 points instead of the 15 points she'll lose by now.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

well biden would’ve been a good choice for winning the election itself, but hillary was probably the best thing that happened to democrats in terms of their long-term prospects

I completely agree. Could you imagine the sh**tstorm for Democrats in the midterms? Manchin? Dead. Donnelly? Dead. Tester? Dead. Heitkamp? Dead. Brown? Dead. McCaskill? Dead. Nelson? Dead. If 2016 had been narrow for Hillary and Republicans had a good year in 2018 then a supermajority wouldn't have been out of question.

Heitkamp would have lost by like 35 points instead of the 15 points she'll lose by now.

That's the last straw. ignored.

[Cold War Liberal]

Barack Obama, to succeed the popular two-term president, Hillary Clinton, to whom he narrowly lost the nomination in 2008.

[Mr. Smith]

Biden. Out of the declared ones, O’Malley. That might sound funny but he would’ve held onto WI, MI, and PA. Hillary was a godawful candidate and Dems should have been able to win those states without a problem.

O'Malley might have lost Nevada, New Hampshire, and still Wisconsin instead.

[Fuzzy Bear]

They should have let a full field fight it out, with no special favoritism toward Hillary.  Since we now know (thanks to Donna Brazile) that the Clintons became the "owners" of the Democratic Party (around 2012), this wasn't going to happen.

A Clintonless Free For All would likely have produced a Democrat that at least Democrats liked, and not just one they got stuck with.

[Young Conservative]

Literally almost anyone else

[Adam Griffin]

Assuming we don't go back in time and change history to produce President Hillary Clinton (2009-2017), either Biden or Sanders would have won. Biden would have prevented the hemorrhaging of previously-reliable WWC voters in pivotal states and Sanders would have completely negated Trump's appeal as an "outsider" to leaning voters across a wide variety of demographics. Either way, it would have been enough to keep PA/WI/MI in the Democratic column.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Literally almost anyone else

[OSR stands with Israel]

Assuming we don't go back in time and change history to produce President Hillary Clinton (2009-2017), either Biden or Sanders would have won. Biden would have prevented the hemorrhaging of previously-reliable WWC voters in pivotal states and Sanders would have completely negated Trump's appeal as an "outsider" to leaning voters across a wide variety of demographics. Either way, it would have been enough to keep PA/WI/MI in the Democratic column.

Sanders would have lost NV though , and maybe even VA

[Adam Griffin]

Assuming we don't go back in time and change history to produce President Hillary Clinton (2009-2017), either Biden or Sanders would have won. Biden would have prevented the hemorrhaging of previously-reliable WWC voters in pivotal states and Sanders would have completely negated Trump's appeal as an "outsider" to leaning voters across a wide variety of demographics. Either way, it would have been enough to keep PA/WI/MI in the Democratic column.

Sanders would have lost NV though , and maybe even VA

Maybe the former (very skeptical)...but against Trump, definitely not the latter. Throw in ME-2 and Sanders is still at 273.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Assuming we don't go back in time and change history to produce President Hillary Clinton (2009-2017), either Biden or Sanders would have won. Biden would have prevented the hemorrhaging of previously-reliable WWC voters in pivotal states and Sanders would have completely negated Trump's appeal as an "outsider" to leaning voters across a wide variety of demographics. Either way, it would have been enough to keep PA/WI/MI in the Democratic column.

Sanders would have lost NV though , and maybe even VA

Well, not to mention the guy went through the primaries pretty much completely unscathed because Hillary didn't need to go negative to win. I feel like "outsider" could become "ostracized and ineffectual kook" pretty quickly.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Assuming we don't go back in time and change history to produce President Hillary Clinton (2009-2017), either Biden or Sanders would have won. Biden would have prevented the hemorrhaging of previously-reliable WWC voters in pivotal states and Sanders would have completely negated Trump's appeal as an "outsider" to leaning voters across a wide variety of demographics. Either way, it would have been enough to keep PA/WI/MI in the Democratic column.

Sanders would have lost NV though , and maybe even VA

Maybe the former (very skeptical)...but against Trump, definitely not the latter. Throw in ME-2 and Sanders is still at 273.

Hillary only won NV by two points and she was a much better fit for the State than Sanders was .


Also while VA is now a dem state but a Democratic Establishment state. A Populist Dem would lose to a Republican (though Trump is also not an establishment candidate so that might negate the fact that Sanders is an populist)

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Joe Biden.