I'm Watching Hillary On CBS Sunday Morning. I'm Sorry...

[karynnj]

41. Two completely contradictory thoughts:

1) This was a change election - and we were the party seen as having been in power -- even though for at 6 of the 8 years, the Republicans controlled the House and for the last the Senate as well. Could it be that everyone misread 2016 and it would be a difficult year for any Democrat to win? Consider that McCain, in 2008, tried to run as a change candidate and he had far fewer ties to Bush - even though Bush and Cheney were not invited to the convention, they remained an albatross around McCain's neck.

2) The election was nowhere as much a landslide as 2008 and in polls in early 2015 before there was any talk of emails, Clinton beat every Republican and got over 60% support as the nominee. Later polls in late 2015 or early 2016, often showed that Biden or Sanders did better in a general election head to head. I would contend that NEITHER of these two men were likely the best we could do if this was a change election. Another Democrat, who was not being investigated as she/he for office and who had not received huge sums of money to speak to Wall Street at a point where her campaign was imminet might have been able to win because they would have HRC's strenghts and positions, but not her baggage.

In 2016, income inequality and the fact that not everyone has shared in periods of prosperity was a top issue. While it is true that every strata improved their economic well being in the Clinton years, it is also true that income inequality greatly increased. An Elizabeth Warren or a Sherrod Brown would have been able to speak to this issue - from their brain,heart and soul. Even as HRC turned against the TPP, which really was her top accomplishment as SoS, many still believed she would actually work for it - tweaked in minor ways - if elected. I FAVOR it, and think an alternative approach was for HRC to run on it explaining why it was needed, but my point is that if we had correctly read the mood on this, she was likely not the best spokesperson.

So two totally contrary opinions - no one could have won -- or someone who fit the anger better might have. The improbable strength of Bernie Sanders suggests the second might be more likely -- even if Bernie himself would have been too extreme to win.