Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw
You folks do understand the difference between what a person wants and what a person observes, right? I might want a warm sunny day, but if the weather forecast says cold and rainy, I'm not going to pretend otherwise....
Some of us were discussing why the Democrats even nominated Clinton in the first place, given that she was still under investigation at the time (Comey's "extremely careless" comments came after the convention). Why didn't they just pick another candidate who would be just as attractive to the electorate without all the baggage?? It was daft on their part to nominate her in the first place, given how much risk was attached.
Anybody remember the Herschel Walker trade? often seen as one of the most lopsided trades in sports history, the Dallas Cowboys traded Herschel Walker and four draft picks to the Minnesota Vikings for five players as well as what turned out to be eight draft choices as a result of conditional picks. Walker then had at best a mediocre few seasons with Minnesota before being traded again.
The Democrats made an even worse deal than that: to continue the analogy, it would be as if the Vikings traded every one of their draft picks for the next six years only for Walker, who then blew out a knee in his fifth game and never played again.
I am referring to the manner in which PPACA was passed through Congress in 2010 (not about whether it was a good law or not or whether they meant well or not, merely the process they went through to get it passed). Most of the promising Democrats' futures were wiped out in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, about the only Democrats who retained office were those in extremely safe districts / states anyway.
As a result of the process by which PPACA was passed, there were no decent young candidates for the Democrats to pick from, no Marco Rubios nor Scott Walkers even available as alternatives. If the Trump surge continues and he surprises us all next Wednesday morning, and if the Republicans hang onto a 51-49 Senate advantage as a result of last-minute revulsion at Clinton (the last Wikileaks dump hasn't happened yet....), you can chalk it up 100% to Pelosi and Reid in 2010. They were the ones who authored this mess today.
As has been posted before, given two terms, how the economy should have been going faster, PPCAC, etc- this should have been an easy job for the Republicans to take over the White House. So in that respect, Hillary Clinton was given her chance to win, but as a sacrificial lamb vs. one that should have had an easy time to win.
IMHO, Democrats who considered running know history, know how this "should" have played out, and other than Bernie bringing up really solid left ideas, didn't want to sacrifice the rest of their careers by running now and losing. There were all of 3 people who started out in this race, so it's not as if this was totally unknown.
The Hillary hate started so early and completely, that for some reason, trump was nominated to take her down. In essence - people who identified with the republican party took it personally and emotionally that Hillary Clinton could not be President. They, and you, can not wrap your head around the idea that the number and time of investigations do not mean guilt.
Once that happened, historical trends stood on their head.
Basically, politics have changed SO much that the sacrificial lamb that Hillary Clinton should have been is now likely to become President because the republican party is falling apart so very, very badly.
Don't blame Democrats for that. Blame republicans.
Meanwhile, in actual votes, of which 2/3rds of the total is most likely already cast, Hillary leads by 6% in the EV polling. So, how is Trump going to turn a 6% deficit with 2/3rd of the vote in, into a 6% victory? 
