Was Hillary's loss the best thing to ever happen to the Democrats?

[Politician]

They averted a 2018 Senate Wipeout, got the chance to retake the House and gain greatly at the statewide level and tarred the GOP with Trump. Could Hillary's loss actually be described as a net positive for Dems?

[warm istanbul]

Shouldn't we wait until after Nov. 6th to speculate on that?

[IceSpear]

Yeah, losing the Supreme Court for a generation in exchange for fleeting electoral victories where they won't be able to accomplish a damn thing due to divided government sure was worth it.

But we get to see more blue on the map or something, so I guess that's enough for Atlas.

[MT Treasurer]

Shouldn't we wait until after Nov. 6th to speculate on that?

[TDAS04]

Doesn’t feel like it.  In any case, “the best thing ever” seems like a bit of a stretch for a loss.  Will the Trump presidency be a bad thing for the Republicans long-term?  We’ll see, depends on whether or not enough Americans eventually see Trumpism for what it is.

[RaphaelDLG]

Yeah, losing the Supreme Court for a generation in exchange for fleeting electoral victories where they won't be able to accomplish a damn thing due to divided government sure was worth it.

But we get to see more blue on the map or something, so I guess that's enough for Atlas.

This, and also the millions of people who have suffered or will suffer or even die under Trump's policies.

Look, I got no love for Hillary, but the left coalition winning is always better,
1) because you get to enact left policies
2) because winning makes it easier to win in the moderate and long term, not harder

you can't play some ridiculous three dimensional chess that is impossible to play and never pans out the way you think

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Part of me hopes the Democrats fall short this year just so this ridiculous talking point dies.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We have to wait til Justice Thomas retires to take back CRT, so no.

[TML]

One of the good things to come out of this is that positions like universal health care, free higher education, a livable minimum wage, etc. are now much more popular than 10-20 years ago, and terms like socialism are no longer taboo in the political mainstream. I also believe that Democratic wins down-ballot during the Trump administration will help them rebuild their bench, and that there exists the potential for an FDR-type candidate to emerge and win in 2020.

[Xing]

When you mention the House (if they win it) and avoiding huge losses in the Senate, I think the word you're looking for is "silver lining." As for whether or not it was a net positive, definitely not.

[Mr. Smith]

Considering the circumstances, yes.

So what if the Supreme Court goes, it's been a lost cause on balance since 1969 with Fortas anyway.

It's the lower courts and redistricting that need the attention, and those were swamped GOP during Obama's time and likely would've been swamped even more under Hillary. And there's no guarantee Hillary'd be re-elected in 2020...more likely goes the way of 41...and how would that go for redistricting again? Exactly.

But now, Obamacare is actually definitively unmovable at the core, simple donations rather than dark money are coming into the fold, Southern states [besides Virginia] are actually considering voting for black governors...most notable in Florida where every Democrat not named Bill Nelson seems to flounder at the statewide like.

And the Senate map, while unfavorable yes, likely would've become a supermajority.

[warm istanbul]

One of the good things to come out of this is that positions like universal health care, free higher education, a livable minimum wage, etc. are now much more popular than 10-20 years ago, and terms like socialism are no longer taboo in the political mainstream. I also believe that Democratic wins down-ballot during the Trump administration will help them rebuild their bench, and that there exists the potential for an FDR-type candidate to emerge and win in 2020.

but will that translate into actual results? There's a natural tendency for public opinion to rebel against the prevailing orthodoxy. Trump happened because people got mad over Obama's policies, and now policies strongly opposed by the Trump administration might be gaining ground as part of a back lash. But as soon as the Dems get back into office who is to say things won't swing back the other way? Or if they don't, who is to say that whoever is in power makes good on their promises?

People seem to forget that Obama ran in 2008 significantly to the left of how he governed; his campaign message was a response to a (correctly) perceived ideological shift in the Overton window after nearly a decade of Bush (and more than 20 years of neoconservatism, when you consider that Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all championed it). When he got into office he governed as more or less a centrist who leaned to the right on economic issues. And yet within two years he had already been constantly put on the defensive for being a "socialist" and "far left".

I would love to be optimistic, but honestly I can't. Maybe it's just my personality, but I don't see Trumpism or its long term consquences simply giving up without quite a fight.

[History505]

Shouldn't we wait until after Nov. 6th to speculate on that?

[here2view]

When you mention the House (if they win it) and avoiding huge losses in the Senate, I think the word you're looking for is "silver lining." As for whether or not it was a net positive, definitely not.

[Mr.Phips]

Well see what happens this November.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

They averted a 2018 Senate Wipeout, got the chance to retake the House and gain greatly at the statewide level and tarred the GOP with Trump. Could Hillary's loss actually be described as a net positive for Dems?

“Wipeout” some polls I have read have the Republicans gaining seats.

[Karpatsky]

They averted a 2018 Senate Wipeout, got the chance to retake the House and gain greatly at the statewide level and tarred the GOP with Trump. Could Hillary's loss actually be described as a net positive for Dems?

“Wipeout” some polls I have read have the Republicans gaining seats.

Yeah, but the map would probably look less like ~+1-2 R gains and more like this:

I honestly believe the Democrats may have averted a bigger problem in 2020 by losing 2016. If McConnell was serious about holding open Supreme Court seats for the whole presidency (which he probably would have) and if Republicans in the House continued the constant investigation to drag Clinton down (which they definitely would have) and if the Republicans maintained and extended their grip on state government going into the new census (which they might anyways) you might have seen a scenario in 2021 where the Republicans have constitutional amendment levels of power in both chambers and have three or four seats on the Court to fill, including RBG's.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was definitely one of the best things ever to happen to them.

[dw93]

Only time will tell. I do think losing in 2004 was good thing for the Democrats, and I also think winning 1976 was bad for them.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It was definitely one of the best things ever to happen to them.

No, it wasn't, losing Garland was heartwriching

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yeah, losing the Supreme Court for a generation in exchange for fleeting electoral victories where they won't be able to accomplish a damn thing due to divided government sure was worth it.

But we get to see more blue on the map or something, so I guess that's enough for Atlas.

You nailed it.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

If they had to lose a race, I think they're more glad they lost 2004.

[Green Line]

It was the worst thing to ever happen to the Democrats - and the country.  We were deprived of our savior and now the Democrats will go hard left (crazy).

[Mr. Smith]

It was the worst thing to ever happen to the Democrats - and the country.  We were deprived of our savior and now the Democrats will go hard left (crazy).

Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson weren't hard left.

[7,052,770]

ITT: A bunch of privileged whites who aren't suffering under Trump have no sympathy for the millions of people who are suffering under him, instead caring about their party winning elections in the way people care about their favorite sports team winning games.