Brazille considered replacing Clinton with Biden last September

[Anonymous]

The civil war in the Republican party is Trump vs. never-Trump.

The civil war in the Democratic party is those who blame Sanders for Trump vs. those who blame Clinton for Trump.

[Anonymous]

Why would Biden get to skip all the primaries? Shouldn't it have gone to Bernie? Under normal circumstances, Biden would have beat Trump. But if you this happened, I think Bernie supporters would have not voted en masse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if Clinton was more qualified than Biden (which is arguable to say the least) she was not more "electable" and isn't that what the ball-game is all about?

Ironically the whole point of superdelegates was to safeguard against the primaries picking someone unelectable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The civil war in the Republican party is Trump vs. never-Trump.

The civil war in the Democratic party is those who blame Sanders for Trump vs. those who blame Clinton for Trump.

How about those who blame Clinton for Clinton. Without Bill's sexual peccadilloes, Hillary would have been the former First Lady who got a gig with Weight Watchers and "O" Magazine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Bringing up sexism here, when there are clearly other concerns, sounds more and more like Kevin Spacey coming out as homosexual to deflect from charges of sexual assault.

I think it was an important lesson.

All candidates have flaws, particularly those who have been in politics for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

I get it. A woman needs to be perfect to be electable. Nevermind Clinton won the primary and the popular vote. I think you can stop obsessing over her now and whether Biden should have run or whether he or Bernie could have won. It does not matter now. The Dems need a new candidate who is not 70+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're probably aware that Hilary also lost the white female vote? That's a big voting block - would you say a bossy woman makes them feel inadequate too?

[Anonymous]

I agree with what she's saying but it could have been said on November 8.

Replacing the candidate is done by the DNC who can yank a candidate that wants to stay. I'm not 100% sure of the whole process.

But switching in September? That's going to look erratic as fuck. Trump would've won by more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The civil war in the Republican party is Trump vs. never-Trump.

The civil war in the Democratic party is those who blame Sanders for Trump vs. those who blame Clinton for Trump.

This is the Clintonite understanding. But Trump is actually a symptom, not the disease.

Sanders backers were largely of the mind that the country was in a serious mess long before Trump and that much of that mess was due to the Clintons and their cronies. Obama also deserves blame, for sure, but he came to prominence as a seeming outsider who actually opposed the Iraq war. He also handled his minority status in a much more constructive way than Clinton handled being the first woman nominee. Still, many Sanders backers see Obama as something of a disappointment who was much too concerned with preserving the status quo.

In a serious fight, sense of purpose matters enormously. Sanders backers are deeply concerned with the dire situation of many and are successfully reaching out to others who are concerned. Clintonites are a small group of people who've made a lot of money recently and are largely concerned with protecting their privileges. I'd be very doubtful of this ending well for the Clintonites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

I get it. A woman needs to be perfect to be electable. Nevermind Clinton won the primary and the popular vote. I think you can stop obsessing over her now and whether Biden should have run or whether he or Bernie could have won. It does not matter now. The Dems need a new candidate who is not 70+.

No. She just, first and foremost, needs to not be obviously and fatally flawed. Hillariously (Hillary-ariously?), she was the picture of insider privilege, with money and connections fueling her candidacy, not her record, which included years of being given prominent positions and f-ing them up. She can't claim to be this plucky outsider and victim when she's basically the Democrats answer to George W. Bush: a hyper-entitled f-up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would Biden get to skip all the primaries? Shouldn't it have gone to Bernie? Under normal circumstances, Biden would have beat Trump. But if you this happened, I think Bernie supporters would have not voted en masse.

I don't know the details, but one of the revelations of the Sanders suit against the DNC, the one that got thrown out of court, is that the DNC is basically legally allowed to do as it pleases. It might be political suicide, but something like this might be possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're projecting your delusions on others to an embarrassing degree. Many Trump supporters voted for Sarah Palin. Many Sanders supporters voted for or supported Elizabeth Warren or Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard, etc.

You insult women massively when you pretend that Hillary had the exclusive mantle of female leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're probably aware that Hilary also lost the white female vote? That's a big voting block - would you say a bossy woman makes them feel inadequate too?

+1