In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 01:31:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016?  (Read 12473 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,740


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

« on: November 23, 2017, 09:41:28 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNHfeBJ81I
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,740


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2017, 02:52:36 AM »

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

This.

Everything would've been better if WWC!Hillary had won instead of  Elite Stoner Obama. And Obama with his talent would've been able to better back his credentials AND once elected been crushingly effective.

Oh and Hillary would've left office with much higher approvals than Obama because she wouldn't have been so naive with Congressional negotiations.

Because she was so effective with HillaryCare? LOL.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 13 queries.