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

[Hammy]

The better question is: Was Hillary's nomination the worst thing to happen to the Democrats/country at large?

[Intell]

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.

For people, their life hasn't changed much under either Trump or Obama. Cost of housing is still increasing, rent still unaffordable, housing costs are unaffordable. People are working 3 jobs to support their family. American towns are dying across the country. Racial Discrimination and Racism has remained the same, police deaths and violence still occurs at the same rate.

Hillary's loss was (more accurately put Trump's win) was a tragedy and his economic decision will fix none of the economic issues in America and only serves to exacerbate it. With Obama, the problems would have been slightly mitigated, with Trump you are a stabbing a wound. The long-term economic and supreme court consequences of a Trump presidency would be disastrous but people are still suffering the same problems as before and people aren't suffering because of Trump, they were suffering before him (indefinitely for black people) and since the 1980's for whites that are working or middle class.

[Averroës Nix]

A partial list of things that have been worse for Democrats than HRC's nomination, in which I do my best to offend all:

• Humphrey's nomination
• The McGovern–Fraser Commission
• McGovern's nomination
• Carter's nomination
• Cardigans
• Mondale's nomination
• Bill Clinton's nomination
• Welfare "reform"
• Bill Clinton's p****
• Rise of 24-hour cable news
• 9/11
• Kerry's nomination
• The Great Recession
• The ACA
• Expiration of the payroll tax cut
• Infatuation with Bowles-Simpson (IBS)
• State-level right-to-work legislation
• State-level voter suppression legislation
• Obama's entire second term

McGovern-Fraser is an unacknowledged villain throughout all of this. Both parties have immense problems with their presidential nomination process over the past several decades, and the modern primary cluster has a great deal to do with this.

Democrats in particular have consistently selected nominees who make for either poor general election campaigners or poor presidents. It would be difficult to design a process that produced worse results and created more enmity.

[Karpatsky]

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.

Wow, look, more 'progressives' smearing people who think beyond their slogans as privileged and out of touch. This is why I'm not a Democrat. Do you really think it's so unambiguous? How much better off would the average American be if the GOP expanded their control of the House, got their 60 seats in the Senate, further monopolized local government, gained near-total control over 2020 redistricting and then got a president in in 2020 who has the same agenda as Trump but is much more competent at enacting it?

I'm not saying that it is definitely a good thing that Clinton lost, since we can never know what might have happened, but to brush the question off like this is ridiculous.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We'll have a definitive answer on Nov. 6. If Dems get at or above 240 house seats, it was definitely worth it.

On the Supreme Court: Liberals never really had it in recent times. Kennedy wasn't really that Liberal, it's just that the media over-obsessed whenever he didn't vote conservative. Same goes for O'Connor. And as much as some Atlasians treat Garland like the second coming of Christ, remember that many progressives see him as a squishy moderate who might just be a slightly more liberal Kennedy.

And then on the Circuit Courts, Dems right now still hold a majority on 8 of the 13 appeals courts, and a 9th court is tied. Even if Trump filled all 15 announced vacancies tomorrow, Dems would still hold a majority on 7 of the 13, with 2 of the 13 tied. So Liberals still have the circuit courts, even after 2 years of Trump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Even if Trump becomes the Dems Carter , it still wont be the best thing to ever happen to the Democrats.


That undoubtedly has to be the 1932 election

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, it's not, holding Congress just means you can write legislation. Roberts Crt has judicial review and can strike down extreme legislation like amnesty for immigrants. It's a silver lining and Pelosi Congress will give Dems some governance, since Dems have lost 16/20 elections overall, it's just a check on the GOP.

[mgop]

yes it is, but they did not use it. clintonite wing of the party is still in charge and thats why they not gonna get senate majority.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hmm...

1. Democrats are still struggling how to deal with the post-2016 political reality.
2. Trump filled two seats on the Court, with more openings (of crucial seats) possibly to come, which would mean establishing a firm conservative majority for the next generation.
3. Democrats are likely to suffer Senate losses, despite the conventional wisdom, that midterms equals gains for the opposition.

Who cares? At least that nasty neocon corporate $hill is not the President

[morgankingsley]

I wouldn't say best thing ever. But I would say it was better for them than any of their post 1992 results, which is funny because it was their worst electoral post 1992 result

[RaphaelDLG]

I want to add to my original post also that our planet is going to be destroyed and literally millions will die prematurely because of it, and while Hillary is evil overall and weak on climate issues, like virtually all American politicians, there is an ocean of difference between her and our climate denier in chief, and Hillary would have worked with the international community to combat or curb climate change at least to some extent, not turn the presidency into a platform for lethally pernicious nonsense and further destroy our world.

This issue without a doubt effects everyone; unfortunately some people were too childish to realize that being an adult means making the meaningful, correct choice between the lesser of two evils in order to make some gains and prevent further losses, not blow up the world because you don't have someone inspiring or morally pure to vote for and identify with.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

L0L. "Evil overall."

[Mr. Smith]

Hmm...

1. Democrats are still struggling how to deal with the post-2016 political reality.
2. Trump filled two seats on the Court, with more openings (of crucial seats) possibly to come, which would mean establishing a firm conservative majority for the next generation.
3. Democrats are likely to suffer Senate losses, despite the conventional wisdom, that midterms equals gains for the opposition.

Who cares? At least that nasty neocon corporate $hill is not the President

1. They've done nothing but struggle since 1968 anyway
2. Hillary would've been blocked of those chances anyway
3. So you're saying there'd have been a BlueWave after a bunch of IceSpear's and DeplorableHaters and BLMers got together and managed to smash the pithy Deplorables in their anger?

Oh who cares, at least that orange cheeto saying mean things on Twitter isn't president!

[OneJ]

Under a Clinton presidency, the GOP would've likely kept the House (whether or not they make gains is another story) and I could definitely see them making major gains in the Senate this year. Governorships and state legislatures also wouldn't look good for the Democrats either. The Republicans would've found some way to block Hillary's SCOTUS pick(s) anyway, just like they did under Obama with Garland. By 2020, Clinton would have likely lost reelection anyway. The silver lining in this scenario for Democrats probably won't be visible until the 2021-2022 elections.

Not sure if Hillary presidency would've been much better than Trump's presidency at all.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

A partial list of things that have been worse for Democrats than HRC's nomination, in which I do my best to offend all:

• Humphrey's nomination
• The McGovern–Fraser Commission
• McGovern's nomination
• Carter's nomination
• Cardigans
• Mondale's nomination
• Bill Clinton's nomination
• Welfare "reform"
• Bill Clinton's p****
• Rise of 24-hour cable news
• 9/11
• Kerry's nomination
• The Great Recession
• The ACA
• Expiration of the payroll tax cut
• Infatuation with Bowles-Simpson (IBS)
• State-level right-to-work legislation
• State-level voter suppression legislation
• Obama's entire second term

McGovern-Fraser is an unacknowledged villain throughout all of this. Both parties have immense problems with their presidential nomination process over the past several decades, and the modern primary cluster has a great deal to do with this.

Democrats in particular have consistently selected nominees who make for either poor general election campaigners or poor presidents. It would be difficult to design a process that produced worse results and created more enmity.

McGovern-Fraser set the stage for the social issue-identity politics that dominates the Democratic Party today.  It's what set the stage for the decline of Organized Labor as a force in our politics.

I was a young teenage liberal from a Democratic family (at least my Mom and Grandma were, and my late father was) during McGovern's run for office.  I had hoped that McGovern would work a miracle and beat Nixon because I wanted the Vietnam War to end, but I also remember thinking that there was something wrong with the AFL-CIO actually remaining neutral.  Weren't Democrats "The Party of the People"?  I watched their convention in 1972, and all I could think of while watching a bunch of longhairs, blacks with huge Afros, and radical Women's Libbers was how this wasn't going to go down well at all with the adults I knew.  Yet all these people were delegates, in part because of the fact that they were McGovern loyalists (and he was, after all, the winner), and in part because of the rules set forth my McGovern-Fraser.  Lawfully-elected delegations were unseated over challenges, and unelected delegates who were deemed more representative took their place.

Rep. Wayne Hays (D-Ohio) said it best:  "They reformed us out of a Presidency in 1968, and now, they're going to reform us out of a party!"  Hays was a ruthless scumbag in many ways, but he was entirely correct here; people who were VESTED in the Democratic Party were being pushed aside by people who were not vested in the Democratic Party; they were vested in their particular movements, and their presence in the Democratic Party over time has made the Democratic Party subject to the movements of Radical Feminism, movements like BLM, LGBT, and the Open Borders crowd.  Maybe that's why the GOP wins; in the GOP camp, the tail doesn't wag the dog.  You don't see the Religious Right giving ultimatums to the GOP in the way many of the leaders of the mass constituencies of the Democratic Party do to THEIR party.

[Mechavada]

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.

[Mechavada]

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.

That's more astute.  There is never such a thing as a "good loss".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

John McCain promised that Republicans would be united against any Hillary appointee to the Supreme Court. So there would be a lot of 4-4 rulings for now, but the Republican elected in 2020 would restore the court to 5 right-wingers.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If the wave is full blown Dems win all three branches and get to 30 governors and the senate as well as the House, it would be a blessing and Dems can expand the Crts to 11 Appellate Jurisdictions.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

No, because the Democratic Party is in ASHES.

Watch The Young Turks' election night 2016 video...they said it themselves!

[AudmanOut]

No because we got trump.

[Tweedledum]

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.

Would Hillary's SCOTUS pick have been given a hearing by the GOP-controlled Senate, though? I would think Yes because the GOP said that the winner of 2016 should decide who gets to fill Scalia's seat, but given that the GOP would have suspected that it would have gotten an even larger Senate majority after 2018, might it have decided to leave this seat unfilled for four years?

[TML]

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.

Would Hillary's SCOTUS pick have been given a hearing by the GOP-controlled Senate, though? I would think Yes because the GOP said that the winner of 2016 should decide who gets to fill Scalia's seat, but given that the GOP would have suspected that it would have gotten an even larger Senate majority after 2018, might it have decided to leave this seat unfilled for four years?

I suspect that what might have transpired is that the Senate would consent to holding hearings (remember that Grassley stated that he wouldn't refuse hearings simply because the nominee was picked by Clinton), but following the hearings, Republican Senators would unite to vote down her nominees if they weren't conservative enough. I don't think Republican Senators would have continued to refuse holding hearings because that would probably have provided ammunition for Democratic Senate candidates to use against them in 2018.

[Tweedledum]

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.

Would Hillary's SCOTUS pick have been given a hearing by the GOP-controlled Senate, though? I would think Yes because the GOP said that the winner of 2016 should decide who gets to fill Scalia's seat, but given that the GOP would have suspected that it would have gotten an even larger Senate majority after 2018, might it have decided to leave this seat unfilled for four years?

I suspect that what might have transpired is that the Senate would consent to holding hearings (remember that Grassley stated that he wouldn't refuse hearings simply because the nominee was picked by Clinton), but following the hearings, Republican Senators would unite to vote down her nominees if they weren't conservative enough. I don't think Republican Senators would have continued to refuse holding hearings because that would probably have provided ammunition for Democratic Senate candidates to use against them in 2018.

Would the GOP have been able to maintain a united front? After all, Sotomayor and Kagan both got some Republican votes.

[TML]

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.

Would Hillary's SCOTUS pick have been given a hearing by the GOP-controlled Senate, though? I would think Yes because the GOP said that the winner of 2016 should decide who gets to fill Scalia's seat, but given that the GOP would have suspected that it would have gotten an even larger Senate majority after 2018, might it have decided to leave this seat unfilled for four years?

I suspect that what might have transpired is that the Senate would consent to holding hearings (remember that Grassley stated that he wouldn't refuse hearings simply because the nominee was picked by Clinton), but following the hearings, Republican Senators would unite to vote down her nominees if they weren't conservative enough. I don't think Republican Senators would have continued to refuse holding hearings because that would probably have provided ammunition for Democratic Senate candidates to use against them in 2018.

Would the GOP have been able to maintain a united front? After all, Sotomayor and Kagan both got some Republican votes.

If the Republican party was more popular than the Democratic party overall, then probably yes.