And then be the nominee after being v.p. with a successful two-term president. *

It's not fair, but that may be the only way it happens.



* And then she'll face the weird additional problem of voters wanting a change despite eight good years.

66 million voters proved it last November.

Clinton won by three million votes, but as long as we have the damned Electoral College and voter suppression, it may continue not to be enough.

Your scenario might be a comfortable one for reactionaries—I especially like the loophole of Oops! Now that you have served faithfully as VP, madam, we've decided to go in a different direction, bye—but it's unnecessarily passive. Women have been getting elected on their own merits just fine, without first having served as a helpmeet to a man.

Clinton's "mistakes" (if that's what they were) that resulted in a smaller than 78,000 vote differential spread across three states, will be studied and improved upon by the next female to run for president. What that candidate will benefit by most of all, it's sad to say, is not being Hillary Clinton. The press won't be able to play Clinton Rules any more.

I no longer do.

We have to stop the hacking - even if it means going back to paper ballots.
It must be stopped immediately before the next election.

All the other talk is irrelevant - the voting machines must be made safe or else taken out of service.

Not that I want that - but it might be the only way to overcome white male bias.

will hold their sexist fire and most Dems won't engage in it either.

Factor in gender and/or race and the degree of abuse rises. But it would also come as news to Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton and Dukakis that they weren't brutalized. Her full quotes at the link acknowledge as much. She would know.

All those men suffered 30 years of abuse from the right and the LEFT. Sure they did.

But as we can see by their response, OP is not interested in reasonable discussion.

melman
32. Of course you're right

But as we can see by their response, OP is not interested in reasonable discussion.

What are you saying here? Women are unreasonable and therefore are unable to participate in reasonable discussion? WTF!

Not really helping the case with a response like that.

And thanks, Baconator.

Yes, the Democrats never seem to get away with anything.

Still, the email server would not have been an issue for any male candidate.

There wouldn't be as much made-up stuff.

Nothing like pizza-gate or claiming they were "killers."

And the republicans are the abusers. They keep destroying us - whether it's worker's rights, minority rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, i could go on and on. They don't support us, they only care about their precious money and their precious killing machines. And they keep getting elected! They're holding our country hostage for partisan politics. What will it take for America to finally break free of this abusive relationship?

Tip #1: Acknowledge the existence of abuse.

Yes! If there is one thing that drives me crazy about our party it's that we don't call the Republicans out on their ugliness and define them by it. We play defense, get abused, very often lose, put the uniform back on and do it all over again like good sports playing by rules that only we abide by.

To be honest, I had already decided to support whomever takes the fight the best to Republicans, while calling them Republicans all the while mind you, in 2020. One of the reasons why people get away with saying both parties are the same is our party does a truly piss-poor job of telling them what the Republicans are really up to and just how far they will go to hurt people and keep their power.

If the dems want to win in 2018, 2020, 2022 and beyond, we need to start kicking them in the balls. It's the only way these abusers will learn the error of their ways. Do we want the Michael Savages of the world to keep calling liberalism a mental disease? Do we want the Alex Joneses of the world to keep saying everything we do is a conspiracy theory to take your guns away? Hell no! We need to start fighting fire with fire. And this is a fight I want to be a part of!

I can't imagine a better shot than the one we just had.

The problem is - and remains - how little this concerns so many of our fellow citizens.

Not sure that it will be long enough for me, yallerdawg.

An incredibly intelligent, experienced, caring, and competent woman -- a woman who had almost no flaws, made no major mistakes, and had an almost superhuman level of control over her emotions, her behavior, and her facial expressions -- lost to an obviously mentally unstable man with zero government experience and no policy. Any woman who thinks Hillary's loss was her own fault and that another woman would do better is in denial about what the last election revealed about the depth of sexism in American society.

The US Presidential election is an oddity - any other election would have her winning.

Hillary was polarizing. (sorry, but that is the truth) If a candidate ran for office who nearly half the country didn't despise, I suspect it could be sooner rather than later that we would have a female president.

Klobuchar from Minnesota comes to mind. She is highly regarded.

who is now in the White House.

He was not polarizing? She was?

I didn't say that Trump wasn't polarizing. He was/is.

My opinion was (and remains) that Hillary was unlikable.

Objectively, I think she was exquisitely qualified and had everything needed to be a great leader. Subjectively, she was unlikable. I think (again, my opinion) that she was so unlikable that millions of Democrats stayed home, and millions of Trump voters showed up.

Maybe that is more quickly applied to a woman. Maybe she is "unlikeable" to a lot of people by being a competent and ambitious woman.

There IS a difference. Hillary was unliked by some largely because of 30 years of relentless propaganda created by Republicans and disseminated by media. However, a lot of people (me included) like her, a lot; therefore "unlikable" is patently false.

Trump was an overt blatant asshole and folks genuinely believed that to be his personality. That generates enthusiasm...

Clinton came across as insincere and subject to the ebb and flow of the focus group. No enthusiasm...

30 years of Republican hate-mongering did its job.

Oh...it wasn't just the right that demonized her.

republicans abused their congressional authority to go after an opponent... disgusting and shameless.

as Secretary of State and Gallup's annual poll has ranked Mrs. Clinton "most admired" more than any other person ever, male or female, including in the poll following her loss. Facile explanations that ignore the double standards that Hillary faced this year simply don't stand up to close scrutiny.

Ultimately, even the "flawed candidate" narrative comes down gender expectations. Of course Mrs. Clinton has made mistakes: she's a human being with a long history in the public eye. Only the woman in the race was held to the standard of "perfection". Hillary's mistakes were criminalized while Trump's fraud, malfeasance, and complete unsuitability to the responsibilities of the presidency were normalized.

Rebecca Traister has done excellent analysis on the confluence of factors and circumstances that led to Hillary's defeat in November. In addition, feminist scholar Susan Bordo's book "The Destruction of Hillary Clinton" is a thoughtful work concerning the role of the media narrative in her defeat.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/hillary-clinton-life-after-election.html

https://www.thecut.com/2016/11/blaming-clintons-base-for-her-loss-is-the-ultimate-insult.html

https://www.thecut.com/2016/11/hillary-clinton-didnt-shatter-the-glass-ceiling.html

http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/558341/the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-by-susan-bordo/9781612196633/

Boom.

Thank you!

Especially this:

"Only the woman in the race was held to the standard of "perfection". Hillary's mistakes were criminalized while Trump's fraud, malfeasance, and complete unsuitability to the responsibilities of the presidency were normalized."

before parroting it?

That would be a no.

Because she was a snart capable woman who didn't stay home and bake cookies? Because she wanted her own career? Because she was female?

That's why she was 'polarizing'...because she didn't 'know her place'....

Eff that

There is nothing more polarizing than that. If she had been a traditional first lady, if she had changed her name and baked cookies and focused her energies on her clothing style rather than on making the world a better place through politics, everyone would have loved her, the way they loved Barbara Bush and Laura Bush.

And they will do the same to the next female candidate.

They did as much as they could on Obama, too.

Just a hunch on my part. If that were to happen, her path to the presidency would be via the impeachment of the Mad King.

And thus our first female president, former governor of a Southern state, the deplorables having rejected the enormously qualified woman in favor of the madman.

right out in the open.

But I could be wrong. In which case I think Pence will pick Ben Carson so he can keep the crazy people happy.

Maybe Nikki Haley will be selected as Secretary of State if he fires Rex Tillerson in order to eliminate Team Russia from the new administration.

It's a very political process. It's why Nancy Pelosi keeps answering the question in the way that she does -- to the wrath of some impatient Dems who are not aware of the process. The woman, as always, can count votes -- and they are not there yet.

If we can get a massive turnout of Dem voters next year and change the House, we have a chance. Or if a miracle happens and a bunch of Repubs wake up and grab their patriotism with both hands, it might start sooner.

But impeachment of Donald Trump goes nowhere without GOP votes.

I love Nancy Pelosi!

If we want Nancy Pelosi to be saying something different, we have to make sure we win back the House and perhaps even the Senate in 2018!

Do you think Obama enjoyed being called a Kenyan Moslem and being called several non human spevies? Do you think that Kerry enjoyed having his credibility and integrity damaged as liars distorted his sacrifice and genuine heroism? Do you think he enjoyed his solid marriage mocked, with him called a gigalo and his accomplished wife totally trashed?

It is possible that some voted against HRC because she was a woman. However, we were told many might vote for her BECAUSE she was a woman.

As only ONE woman has been the Democratic nominee, she is making global inferences based on a sample of one, usually a terrible idea.

about Obama and Kerry. It was the opposition party.

We were told by many Democrats and "independents" they wouldn't vote for her. Period.

And they kept their promise, didn't they?

Nailed it.

There were many self proclaimed Democrats and independents who also stated they wouldn't vote for both Kerry and Obama.

In my opinion, Kerry lost the election after his keynote speaker at the convention made a speech to a country that was wanting such a speech and left the audience wondering "why isn't this guy running?"

I'm the case of Obama, I believe there were just as many racist who didn't vote for Obama because he was not white as there were misogynists who didn't vote for Hillary due to her not being male.

You are acknowledging that there WAS misogyny involved in her loss.

You only lose it when you get back to, "It wasn't any worse than what happened to the men folk."

This is why it will be an uphill battle for any FEMALE candidate.

45 men in a row - not a problem.

In 2008 and 2012 there were racist elements involved.

Too many people give too much weight to how detrimental her gender was.

How is it that Obama overcame racism in two elections, yet Hillary couldn't overcome sexism in one?

Hillary lost two elections.

But in 2008, I guess she was "likable enough?" Remember?

Is it possible there is a lot more sexism than racism? Just by numbers, it is quite possible.

By the numbers, there would be more racism.

Women slightly outnumber men in the US.

African Americans only make up about 13% of the population.

Towards other women.

go through 30 years of abuse, investigations and ridicule at the hands of the right and the LEFT! No they did not.

Sorry, women are treated differently and considered the lesser person.

Well...you said.

"It is possible that some voted against HRC because she was a woman. However, we were told many might vote for her BECAUSE she was a woman."

Sure hope you are not saying we only voted for her because SHE WAS A WOMAN! We voted for her because she supported our beliefs. She stood for all of us. Sure hope you are not saying we voted with our vaginas and not our brains. Women actually have brains, heart, spirit and integrity.

- He was on Nixon's enemies list and was followed by the FBI for at least a year - at which point they saw that he was not breaking any laws.
- Colson (one of Nixon's dirty tricksters) smeared him as badly as the SBVT did in 2004 when Kerry ran for Congress in 1972. He used a RW paper (Lowell Sun) to fill the first few pages of the newspaper with completely dishonest stories about Kerry.
- This so poisoned the minds of some people, that Kerry and his wife had tires slashed and even rocks thrown through windows - one landing in baby Alexandra's bassinet.
- This led to Kerry opting to stay away from running for office for 10 years, during which he got a law degree, was a prosecutor and then a trial lawyer (and a part owner of a cookie store in Quincy Market.)

He then ran for Lt Governor and Senate - attacked both times, but winning.

In the Senate, in the first year, he took on investigating reports that veterans brought to him about illegal gun and drug running in support of the Contras. This led to attacks - calling him a nut case conspiracy nut and his life was repeatedly threatened. When Iran/Contra exploded he was not included in the investigation, even though his committee had done all the ground work on the Contra piece.

Kerry's committee then turned to investigating BCCI, OBL's bank and continued even though BCCI had corrupted both Democratic and Republican bigwigs to protect itself. He was attacked again.

I will agree that Clinton was FAR more well known, meaning that many attacks were far better covered.

as Hillary had to deal with sexism.

Do you not even remember the Clinton years? Impeachment ring a bell maybe?

You said 'white male Democrats were treated better'.

And Bill Clinton certainly was not. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that he was.

And what does his impeachment WHILE he was President have to do with how he was treated while he was running for the office?

No. This thread is obviously about more than just running for office.

And the OP is right. They are already going after Elizabeth Warren, in case she runs.

And think about all the things they attack women for if they have no 'ammunition' to use at the moment, including appearance,
what she is wearing..

What about the racist mayor in the south who affirmed a post someone made, calling Michelle Obama a type of primate compared to
Melania's appearance. We saw sexist, racist remarks against her left and right in this era.

I adore Michelle Obama and think she would make an excellent president. And yet, I am so worried as to how she would be treated if she ran. After what Hillary went through, it would just be unbearable.

She was demonized by left and right for over 30 years for trying to do her job. Ring a bell?

that Bill was treated much better? I somehow doubt it.

Bill Clinton did something incredibly stupid and lied about it, yet I never stopped supporting him. You want to know who paid the highest price for that??? It was Hillary. She has been spat on and ridiculed for standing by her husband, forgiving him. She was called weak a fool and an enabler. She was ridiculed for her looks and her inability to hold on to her husband. You see...it will always be the woman's fault. Always.

So yup...damn straight she would believe she was treated worse...she was never anyway responsible for what her husband did...yet was found quilty.

for her husband's dalliances. And she was criticized by left and right for not appearing "vulnerable" and not explaining why she stayed married to Bill. Find me one male presidential candidate who was expected to open up like that.

Women are never allowed to be strong and hard. We are always expected to apologize, profusely, for ourselves, our own strength, our partners, etc..

This election was proof that sexism is alive and quite well. And people still deny it exists.

Pitch perfect Ellie. Thank you.

Exhibit A: Trump bringing four women who accused Bill Clinton to a presidential debate: Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Kathy Shelton. He originally was going to have them actually confront Bill Clinton as he walked in but they were stopped by the Commission on Presidential Debates. They ended up sitting together in the audience.

He was trying to rattle Hillary, not Bill. He UNDERSTANDS Bill, after all. Or thinks he does.

His honor and his service, which were sterling, were smeared. The word "swiftboat" has since been used by others to call attacks on themselves dishonest and beyond the pale. They attacked his character in many many ways. They attacked his reputation as one of the cleanest politicians in DC. In fact, most things that were said about Hillary were also said about a white male when he ran for reelection. Bill Clinton.

I would not say all attacks on - say - Al Gore (or Kerry) were because he was male. There could be other reasons. Similarly, I do not think the attacks on HRC were because she was female. Which attacks do you think were levied against her that would not have been levied against a Henry Clinton? It is impossible to do an analysis that women are treated worse when there is only one.

I think ANY human, male or female, white, black or any other color, will be attacked if they are a Democrat. Any negative in their past will be used and if there is little to attack, they will make stuff up.

and admit what a bad campaigner he had been -- like they keep doing with Hillary?

He blamed no one. Immediately after he lost, there were a spate of articles that blamed Kerry for "not fighting back" and then spoke of how this was something in the Clinton tool kit - they knew how to fight the right wing. Kerry took the high road and did not respond to this.

Kerry is STILL trashed here, on Daily Kos, twitter etc as a poor campaigner. Yet, he had a tougher race in 2004 than 2016 - and he nearly beat a wartime President 3 years after 911. When there was a poll in March 2005, he would have won, even when the results weighted the responses based on who they said they voted for. (They observed that the results were a more dramatic shift when they did not normalize the data this way. They speculated that some who said they voted for Kerry and were still for Kerry had actually voted for Bush, but did not want to admit it.) However, in November 2004, too many still clung to Bush because of 911. If you remember the polls actually shifted to Kerry in the last week until the OBL tape came out.

different times, different challenges.

2016 shattered conventional wisdom among political consultants, the use of technology to target voters while ignoring ground game (Trump still won the E.C. using this strategy) following a two term* Democratic President, Citizen's United, dark money funding conservative political activism, acrimonious political atmosphere, rampant gerry mandering, a gutted voting rights act. Kerry had a lot of pressure but comparing the races requires context.

Bill Clinton was always labeled a political genius,but he won against a President at 39%, with a strong third party candidate also in the race who spent over a year bashing GHWB.

I agree with many points you listed, but many existed even before 2004. The only one that I disagree with is gerrymandering, which can not affect anything at a state level - There are only two states - NE and ME where it could have any impact as those states award on a district level. Others started long ago. The Republicans used a more primitive technology - using CHOICEPOINT which used credit history data to target different mailpieces to different voters as far back as 2004. Companies were already using the same technique on mailpieces they sent. In addition, 2004 was the first year of McCain/Feingold which found their loophole in the PACs like the SBVT. (One ironic thing was that M/F required the candidate to be heard approving all of his messages. The PAC ads did NOT have that and allowed candidates to claim "not me".)

I would argue that following a popular 2 term Democrat is not harder than running against an incumbent President at a 60% plus approval rating in December 2003. There are models which use variable that reflect the economy and other measures to predict the likelihood of which party wins with generic nominees. We did better than anyone would have predicted in 2004 and it was widely predicted that we had the advantage in 2016.

I think most people would agree that 2008 and 1992 were the two years where it was most likely we would win. this would likely be followed by 2012 and 1996 (at least after Dole won). If I had to order the rest, it would be 2016, then 2000, with 2004 being the toughest.

why these discussions become contentious is because of the focus on personalities. I'm not really interested in that...

Systems are what we have to target - A gerrymandered congress stalled any fix of the ACA - what was the talk right up to election day on Nov 8th? - the cost of premiums. Trump campaigned on getting rid of the ACA, and now that the electorate understands there's no replacement better than what they had, the ACA is more popular.

The anti-establishment narrative and wanting a "change" reflected poorly on Democrats, the idea that you can work within the system to make changes - something every President has done - was suddenly an idea that was out of touch.

As for communications - The onslaught of information and weaponization of data is on a scale never seen before - it is immediate and intuitiv, nothing like we saw in previous elections ( which goes without saying). And we have to find ways to counter that with strong effective data operations of our own.

Further, people tend to forget that Trump beat out 18 supposedly talented Republican politicians - including the ever affable John Kasich who performed terribly in the primaries. There was a zeitgeist at work last year that we have not seen in politics in a long time and it's a warning for the challenges ahead.

First thing I thought of when I saw this OP. You want brutality? That was brutal.

Last edited Sun Jun 4, 2017, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)

in much detail on his own service. He speaks often of the lessons learned in Vietnam, but very little about his own personal experiences. In 2015, Wendy Sherman spoke of the last meeting on the Iran deal after the deal was signed off on by all countries. Each foreign minister spoke of what it meant to them. She said Kerry spoke last, and spoke of how he became emotional enough that he choked up - saying that his experience as a young man meant that if he were ever in a position of power, he hoped to help prevent a war.

I think Rove gambled that lying about the service of a man who takes his honor and integrity very seriously would not just hurt him, but revive many terrible memories of that time. In 2006, he was at a veteran event in NH where the NH NG head was speaking of a PTSD program he had. Kerry had one of his Vietnam crew with him. One thing his crew member said was that he and many of the others had recurrences of PTSD from the attacks - which really were on them as much as Kerry. I would be willing to guess that the impact on those guys had to be extremely hard on Kerry. It was not just against him and the others were far more vulnerable.

and then watching that horror show play out. Kerry is a great American, one of the greatest in our lifetimes. That statement holds up when you consider the sum total of his Vietnam experience alone, from distinguished service to principled and courageous protest to unpacking the POW-MIA issue and paving the way to normalizing relations. And to see a lowlife like Rove calculatingly turn it all into a cheap campaign issue, all in the service of a candidate who spent the war occasionally keeping the skies of Texas safe. Too many Americans are just thoughtless and/or cruel enough to make such hackery pay off.

Your post is both touching and illuminating. I remember wondering why Kerry didn't hit back harder and faster at the swiftboaters, never thinking that there might have been more complex emotions at play that Rove was exploiting. Getting back to the OP, if you want an example of brutalization of a Democratic presidential candidate, here it is.

over and over and over.

And no one ever told him he should throw in the towel and never aim for a leadership position again.

And no one's asking Bernie to shut up and go away, despite his primary loss.

They both returned to their elected positions of Senator. In Kerry's case, there were whisper campaigns - rampant on DK and DU that Reid and others were upset that Kerry acted as if he were one of the Democratic leaders and that he should be one of the voices speaking on issues. As to Hillary, as soon as she lost, there were rumors she might run for mayor of NYC.

I would guess that you have forgotten that it was a question Kerry was asked. He usually managed to deftly change the subject and speak about whatever he wanted to speak about. He did speak for over 30 minutes on voting problems in 2004 when the Rosa Parks voting act was renewed. In general, he was always more focussed on what the party should be doing going forward.

As to Clinton, if she wants to run again for President, it is her decision to make. Just as a huge percent of Democrats rejected the idea that Kerry run in 2008, it is likely that many who supported HRC in the 2016 primaries would prefer someone else. HRC's PAC seems geared to do what Kerry tried to do in 2005/2006 - to help Democrats win elections. Obviously that would keep her a leader and position her for 2020. If she is seen as the person changing the tide and she is a leading voice for the Democrats, more power to her. That it also is the best path to argue that she is the best nominee is absolutely fair.

the most extreme deplorables. They had made the military into an organization no one could criticize without being seen as unpatriotic.

They did not attack Kerry's work as Senator, like they did with the email server and Benghazi.

While Kerry was treated badly by the media and was slandered by the Republicans via the Swift Boaters, the media and the electorate were not manipulated by foreign state operatives bent on undermining American influence, interests, and institutions.

Similarly, the FBI's role in this election cannot be overestimated. They broke with long-standing protocol and policy by publicly excoriating one candidate for non-criminal "carelessness" while neglecting to inform Americans that her opponent's campaign was being investigated for actions that bordered on treason.

Here is a better sampling pool: Iran-Contra, Outing Valerie Plame, and the fake email scandal. Which was legitimately the worst or second worst?

For the country to have believed that HRC belonged in jail was ridiculous. For Comey to have trashed our democracy the way he did was ridiculous. There are many reasons that can be contemplated as contributing factors, but it seems reasonable to speculate that gender issues are in the mix.

And perhaps she is thinking about the absurd post-election coverage. How about that book, Shattered, that suddenly announced that the Clinton campaign team was at war with each other, offering absolutely no evidence. They made all sorts of previously unheard of accusations, presented them as absolute fact, and the media almost immediately, and universally, accepted it all as true.

I bet a count of coverage hours on that email server would dwarf any of that.

Obama being a Muslim was only for the most extreme idiots. The email BS was a lot more general.

It wasn't due to her being a woman. It was due to an absolutely crazy amount of flukes which occurred at once. The timing of the Comey email thing was ridiculous, nobody could have anticipated how divisive Bernie's campaign was, Jill stein was an almost 'nader-like' spoiler, and ultimately I think voter complacency did Hillary in. There was a widespread assumption that she would win in the biggest landslide ever, I mean just look at her joke of an opponent. This led to low democratic turnout for Hillary and a lot of people who 'voted their conscience'.

It was also due to a ridiculous amount of Russian tampering in the election ranging from hackings to paid trolls/bots posting fake news against Hillary.

as you mentioned, the Democratic primary was very divisive. I was a huge Bernie fan, but voted in the end for Hillary. I know too many Democrat voters who thought so little of Hillary that they sat out the election. Much of it rationale was a view that American politics was becoming more and more "legacy" driven. (Kennedy's, Bushes, Clintons, etc'.) As a result, we have a loon as CIC.

It might be heresy, but while she was very qualified, she wasn't likable.

Just my 2 cents.

are not very good Democrats, now are they?

You said...

"I know too many Democrat voters who thought so little of Hillary that they sat out the election."

Were they Faux News watchers?

They elected tRump. Kudos to them...not.

the silly things you read here.

I thought she was unlikable. A lot of Bernie voters didn't like her.

I would estimate half the people who voted for Trump did so not because they liked Trump, but found him more likable than Hillary.

As I said, I voted for her in the end. I think a female Democratic Party candidate can and will be elected in my lifetime.

she forgets that.

Not quite the Obama margin, but handily.

Situational influence is everything. Everything. Yet the media and virtually everyone totally ignores it while obsessed with the daily trivia...whatever was said or done on the campaign trail.

If we had run the same woman on the heels of a Republican president with tanked approval rating for 3+ years post-Katrina, then all the familiar onslaughts would have been flicked aside. Instead we ran her in the exponentially more difficult environment of 8 years of a Democratic president, and one who had managed to turn off white working class voters along the way, causing massive unrest among a huge pivotal voting block.

Any Democrat will be brutalized. That stems from 1980 to 1992 when Republicans thought they found an electoral lock on the presidency, and it would never budge. Bill Clinton ruined their playbook and now every subsequent Democratic nominee for the foreseeable will be twisted and turned. Hillary actually did a remarkable job of standing up to it. Her mistakes were mostly self-inflicted, like the deplorables line and misreading the playing field while prioritizing the wrong states.

If we run a woman again in 2020, it will be an incomparably ignorant error and probably set back the opportunity for a generation or more. Incumbents whose party has been in power only one term simply do not lose. Trump has massive advantage. We need a very strong charismatic male candidate and hope that Trump's approval rating stays where it is, as unlikely as that may be.

I'll read the impeachment talk while understanding the likelihood is so minuscule it's mostly a waste of time. Happy Adjusters believe in impeachment potential. I don't respect Happy Adjusters...the type who overreact to every new development and make the truth anything they want it to be.

Big picture dictates.

If Hillary got the same percentage of the female vote that Obama got from the African American vote, we'd all be talking about Hillary's presidency right now.

Women of other races voted for Hillary, just not White women.

Truly shocked. I mean it's not even MEN who are to blame. Women turned on one of their own.

Okay, I do have a college degree. Almost all of my white female friends voted for Hillary. My daughter's white female friends voted for Hillary. They also have degrees. White females with low education tend to vote against their interests. They also tend to make other bad life choices.

When you consider where those women voters are. Those voters are women that don't consider Hillary one of their own. Yes the gender is the same but the mentality is not.

For decades Democrats have lost the white vote and often the white women vote and almost always the married white women vote. Before the 2008 and 2016 elections, many articles were written that even white Republican women would vote for the first woman President.

This article splits white women by those with college degree and those without. Clinton won those with degrees and lost those without. Note that the table also includes the male numbers by the same categories -- what can be seen is that Clinton did better with women than men. The split between Trump and Clinton in all categories is eye opening.

As things are going, both Trump and Pence will either be gone via removal from office or will be radioactive. But the woman that run has to live on the campaign trail, completely out working her republican opponent to shame.

If the Republican Party is way out of favor in 2020, I can see them throwing a republican woman up against us to create a softer image for them.

Don't run for president.
Yes, any woman LIBERAL is going to be brutalized by the right. But if a conservative woman were to run, not so much (although Trump did say that Carly Fiorina was ugly.)

Most other women that would run for president will not have it as bad as Hillary had it. Hillary unfairly was always hated by the mainstream media ever since she was first lady. No woman that would run would have that unfortunate baggage. It is a shame that what happened to Hillary kept one of the most intelligent and experienced woman from being president, but others do not have the 30 years of baggage.

Please note to anyone that would report this, I am not saying she has baggage or is inept, I am just pointing out the bias against her that Warren or any other woman would not have.

Everyone else, not just better, but damn near perfect. She was not perfect. The next female candidate will have to be. It isn't fair, but it's the world we live in.

No one is and to say that sounds a little naïve to me. No one person I know is perfect.

Knows something about it.