Hillary might run again in 2024?

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

durangodawood said:
I dont recall even being aware of the junior senator from Illinois before he ran for what would be two terms in office.

Only an endorsement from Oprah made that candidacy possible back in 2008, not the candidate's undistinguished stint as a Senator.

Tom 1 · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
You asked for "sources." In fact, you asked for "something, please." The sources I gave covered everything that I thought you were asking about.

Oh come on. I can't see how you thought one inconclusive article about one thing you said would support your other claims - do you really think that? Maybe you have some justification for stating your opinions as fact, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to expect them to be based on something.

durangodawood · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
Only an endorsement from Oprah made that candidacy possible back in 2008, not the candidate's undistinguished stint as a Senator.

You seem to be missing the point. Thats 3 of the last 3 presidential terms filled by candidates who were undistinguished as politicians.

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

durangodawood said:
You seem to be missing the point. Thats 3 of the last 3 presidential terms filled by candidates who were undistinguished as politicians.

I think it's you who missed the point. The issue was about the fact that the Democratic Party is facing the next presidential election with a weak lineup of potential candidates, even as concerns its people holding elective office as Governors or Senators or Congressmen. It's from those ranks that presidential contenders most often come.

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

Tom 1 said:
Oh come on. I can't see how you thought one inconclusive article about one thing you said would support your other claims - do you really think that?

Now, you don't appear even to be referring to the same sources as I gave you.

durangodawood · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
I think it's you who missed the point. The issue was about the fact that the Democratic Party is facing the next presidential election with a weak lineup of potential candidates, even as concerns its people holding elective office as Governors or Senators or Congressmen. It's from those ranks that presidential contenders most often come.

You and I have no idea about most of these people. Just like with Obama. Trump wasnt even in this category. You overrate "prominent contender" status.

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

durangodawood said:
You and I have no idea about most of these people. Just like with Obama. Trump wasnt even in this category. You overrate "prominent contender" status.

Frankly, I don't know what you're going on about. My point was only to point out that the Democrats have a very weak bench as they approach the 2024 elections, and that was the topic here--who the candidates in that election might be.

Tom 1 · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
Now, you don't appear even to be referring to the same sources as I gave you.

Source. A vague indication to somehow verify all of your unsubstantiated notions on Wikipedia isn't a 'source'. The National Review article contains an inconclusive discussion of opinions about one of your assertions. I'm forced to conclude you don't understand what the concept of sources that support claims means.

GreatLakes4Ever · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
I think it's you who missed the point. The issue was about the fact that the Democratic Party is facing the next presidential election with a weak lineup of potential candidates, even as concerns its people holding elective office as Governors or Senators or Congressmen. It's from those ranks that presidential contenders most often come.

Awfully early yet to say the options for Democrats are set. At this point in the 2016 cycle (mid January 2014) a Qunnipiac poll had the top Republican as Rand Paul. Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, and Jen Bush also led polls from January 2014.

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

Tom 1 said:
Source. A vague indication to somehow verify all of your unsubstantiated notions on Wikipedia isn't a 'source'. The National Review article contains an inconclusive discussion of opinions about one of your assertions.

Except that any opinions that were included were incidental to your doubts about the facts of the matter we were talking about. If it was verification of the facts you wanted, you have it now.

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

GreatLakes4Ever said:
Awfully early yet to say the options for Democrats are set.

Oh, I do agree. And I've said that myself.

But if we are to guess based upon the situation today, it's as I described. Any number of things could cause a change between now and two years from now, although that's not much time as these things go. Where are there any promising "rising stars" in the Party whom any of us could identify, for instance?

GreatLakes4Ever · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
Oh, I do agree. And I've said that myself.

But if we are to guess based upon the situation today, it's as I described. Any number of things could cause a change between now and two years from now, although that's not much time as these things go. Where are there any promising "rising stars" in the Party whom any of us could identify, for instance?

Two years was enough time for both Marco Rubio and Scott Walker to rise up to be the favorite to be the Republican nominee in 2016 to statistical footnotes. There was even a small Ben Carson wave before the first poll with Trump leading shows up.

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

GreatLakes4Ever said:
Two years was enough time for both Marco Rubio and Scott Walker to rise up to be the favorite to be the Republican nominee in 2016 to statistical footnotes.

I don't think so. Both of them were nationally known and were seen as rising stars in the party from years earlier.

I cannot think of any Democratic parallel at the present. Some supporters have tried to make out that Stacey Abrams fits this role, but she is the main one saying it and she has yet to win even a statewide race, unlike both Rubio and Walker whom you mentioned.

rambot · Jan 17, 2022

Strange. When I started a thread talking about Trump scaring away other candidates, right wingers hopped on me saying it was too early to start these discussions and the thread died so quick.

Apparently, again, Democrats get more scrutiny.

Tom 1 · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
Except that any opinions that were included were incidental to your doubts about the facts of the matter we were talking about. If it was verification of the facts you wanted, you have it now.

You state your opinions as if they are facts. When asked to substantiate them you mumble Wikipedia and proceed to waffle about something else. Wouldn’t it be simpler to simply admit that your opinions, however dear they are to you, are just opinions. That would be a good starting point for a real discussion.

durangodawood · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
Frankly, I don't know what you're going on about. My point was only to point out that the Democrats have a very weak bench as they approach the 2024 elections, and that was the topic here--who the candidates in that election might be.

My point is the bench is irrelevant. Look at 44 & 45.

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

Tom 1 said:
You state your opinions as if they are facts. .

In the first place, you were not complaining about MY opinions. You don't care for the opinion expressed in those articles.

But the opinions that you want to argue about were expressed along with references to the historic developments that you asked about and which were treated in those articles. Now you don't want to hear them!

And in the second place, if you will not separate opinion from actual events and the mention of those events, it's not my fault. As a result, it appears that there's nothing more I can do for you.

Albion · Jan 17, 2022

durangodawood said:
My point is the bench is irrelevant. Look at 44 & 45.

Irrelevant to what? Winning the election?

This discussion had concerned what the situation facing the Democratic Party appears to be with regards to the upcoming Presidential election.

That's it, and there's nothing about it that requires an argument.

Tom 1 · Jan 17, 2022

Albion said:
In the first place, you were not complaining about MY opinions. You don't care for the opinion expressed in those articles.

But the opinions that you want to argue about were expressed along with references to the historic developments that you asked about and which were treated in those articles. Now you don't want to hear them!

And in the second place, if you will not separate opinion from actual events and the mention of those events, it's not my fault. As a result, it appears that there's nothing more I can do for you.

Which articles? As you are aware, you didn't provide any articles to support your opinions. You posted one that gives some vague support to one of the things you said. As you are aware, what you have just said is not accurate. If that isn't clear, I'll try and make it clearer.

How many opinions? 5
How many attempts to support any of these with a source, as requested? 1
To how many of your opinions does this source have any relevance? 1
How many unsupported assertions left? 4

Anything still not clear?

cow451 · Jan 21, 2022

Basil the Great said:
I read somewhere this week that Hillary Clinton is seriously looking at a possible third try for President in 2024. If Biden chooses not to run, which seems likely at this time, what would Hillary's chances be? Would she only go if Harris decides not to run or might she even take on the VP in the primaries and caucuses?

Trump’s only hope is that Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.

Hillary might run again in 2024?

If Biden does not run in 2024, will Hillary Clinton try again?

Yes, Hillary will decide to make a third try for the Presidency

No, she is done with politics

Facilitator

Optimistic sceptic

Dis Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Dis Member

Facilitator

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Senior Member

Optimistic sceptic

Dis Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Optimistic sceptic

Standing with Ukraine.

Similar threads