Clinton says she is being urged by 'many, many, many people' to run in 2020

[brooklynite]

Politico

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday declined to rule out launching a future presidential campaign after her two failed bids, saying “many, many, many people” were pressuring her to enter the race.

“I, as I say, never, never, never say never,” the former secretary of State said on BBC Radio 5 Live. “I will certainly tell you, I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.”

“But as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans,” Clinton added.

Whereas in previous election cycles the field narrowed as the primaries approached, 2020 is different: Democrats continue to join, indicating an unsettled and broadening race less than three months before the Iowa caucuses and as polls reflect shifting support for top-tier candidates.

As someone who maxed out to Clinton, volunteered for Clinton and put her staff up in my home, I'm thinking "no".

[scheming daemons]

1. Agreed. No.

[evertonfc]

2. 3.2.1

It's to late or there is already enough candidates!

[Uncle Joe]

3. Trial balloon, I imagine.

Thanks for the thread brooklynite.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Yes Uncle Joe, that's possible, especially given the fact that Hillary mentions how

all these figures are urging her to run. I think there's a 50-50 chance Hillary does run, as I've been saying all along. Will she? Who knows... should she? Probably not if your ridin' with Biden.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Well, well, well, wudda you know... no shocker there. As I've been saying, Hillary has left the door

open for a possible 2020 run, now saying "never, never, never say never"!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[unitedwethrive]

5. I'd vote for her, but I doubt she'll have enough support.

I'm not sure why people don't like her, she only lost because of the Russian help that Mushroom Penis received.

[Celerity]

20. these will soon be updated by Gallup, but it is not a pretty set of charts, almost 30 years of RW

systemic smears and hit jobs have taken their cumulative toll. It is outrageous.

Hillary Clinton Favorability, 1993–2019





https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

[Polybius]

75. It shouldn't have been that close with or without help

She only got more votes because she ran against Trump. 2008 was her year. Had she won we'd be in Obama's first term right now.

[redqueen]

6. What is she doing?

First she launches the Tulsi circus and now this?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Yeah, Hillary's attack on Tulsi only succeeded in giving her much needed press coverage.

Now Tulsi keeps moving up in the polls and has qualified for the November debate... more than likely, Tulsi will qualify for the December debate also.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[apcalc]

53. Tulsi moving up in polls? Please post links. I don't see it.

[CentralMass]

82. From CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton/index.html
"After Clinton's attack on Gabbard -- calling her "favorite of the Russians" -- the Hawaii Democrat's poll numbers rose, earning her a place on the November debate stage."

[Tarc]

78. When either Gabbard, or Yang for that matter, go above 2% in the RCP, let us know

Til then, they are back-of-the-packers, who eve if they qualify for the next debate, will be given the least airtime.

[redqueen]

84. Yeah, um, not sure wth that has to do with anything I said

[Tarc]

93. Dear heart, there is no "circus", and Hillary's accurate critiques did not give any significant bump

Edging up from "completely nonexistent" to "mostly nonexistent" doesn't matter much.

It is time for the bottom-dwellers to exit the race.

[redqueen]

96. Well aren't you just a precious little unity builder

[C_U_L8R]

7. What's going on?

It seems like everybody had the same dumb strategy to hop in late. Thank you, no.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. Hillary's strategy might not be a bad one... unless you're Joe Biden.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[The Valley Below]

65. Not really. Tulsi's rise in NH seems like it has come directly at the expense of BS.

[demmiblue]

8. No thank you. n/t

[Celerity]

9. The only one who could jump in now and easily win, going away, is Michelle Obama, and that is not

going happen. I so doubt she ever runs for POTUS.

Clinton jumping in now will cause massive chaos and really would increase Rumps chances, IMHO. Biden would lose his mind, as would Warren and Sanders. I have no idea what Pete would do. I do not think we will ever find out as I do not see Sec. Clinton jumping in. I rate this 10% chance, max, and that is being really generous.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. I totally agree with you... were Michelle Obama to run, she would be formidable!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Celerity]

23. she was my first choice by 10,000 kilometres the day after Rump stole the election

But she has been crystal clear, she never wants to run. I think she hates elected politics, at least at POTUS level. The hate and violence if she ran and then CRUSHED Rump would be withering, far beyond anything ever seen against a POTUS before. The most radical one one hundredth of one percent (so around 10,000 lunatic psychos) of the legions of MAGAts would probably foment open rebellions and so many assassination attempts it would be jaw-dropping. We all now Rump will be winding them up till he dies (hopefully in a Super Max prison.).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Yes, Michelle didnt hedge one bit... no doubt she would displace Joe as the front runner on Day 1!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[eShirl]

11. wouldn't liddle' Donald just flip out

[groundloop]

15. Yes, and it would be just the red flag needed to fire up the repub base.

The one thing about repubs is that nothing gets them fired up like the word "Clinton".

Sorry, I fully supported Hillary in the last presidential general election but NO. We have plenty of good candidates already in the race.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Agreed!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Otto Lidenbrock]

16. Admire Hillary but not now

She and President Clinton don't need the mudslinging in their direction anymore.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. That's what I would've thought, but then there's Hillary saying things that leave people to wonder

whether she's running again.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Otto Lidenbrock]

33. I guess she's trolling

The mere mention of her name winds up MAGA dummies

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. Very possible... and quite amusing if that's Hillary's true intention. I still think she's at least

considering the option of running.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[redqueen]

41. How is firing up their base a good idea??

[Mme. Defarge]

17. Are they Republicans?

[ritapria]

18. I believe it is too late for a new candidate to compete in Ia, NH, NV

Hillary has a huge following in SC and would likely make her first stand there ……...If she makes a late bid , she would do serious damage to Joe Biden's Firewall in SC. - and across the South ... Despite her demurrals , it would appear Hillary is seriously considering another run ……

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. Yes, SC makes sense, but Hillary at least would have to declare very soon...

to meet the upcoming California primary deadline, as another poster here pointed out to me.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ritapria]

26. Very True

[betsuni]

19. She's teasing.

She'll think about being president for a few seconds and then remember campaigning: hours in the hair and make-up chair, dealing with the press, constant travel, the inevitable resurrection of Crooked Hillary-Goldman Sachs/Wall Street-corrupt-establishment-emails ... and NO.

"Whoever wins next time is going to have a big task trying to fix everything that's been broken."

[myohmy2]

22. nope...

...don't do it...

…you've had two bites at the apple already and a third bite will piss too many people off...

...now, if every day of the week for the last three years you had been slamming trump hard for steeling the 2016 election, I would say you might have earned that third bite...

...but unless they come to you in the middle of the night with a locked Convention, just say no...

...

[BeyondGeography]

25. Is it many, many, many?

Or many, many, many, many?

[MFGsunny]

28. How about NO? n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. I'm now leaning NO too... think it would be too disruptive.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[MFGsunny]

37. Am right there with you.

Her competence is clear to me.
YET, at this juncture, her entry would net us disruptive distractions & electoral chaos ... just my 2 cents.

[moonscape]

31. This seems a little tone-deaf to me. There is no dearth of people

who would say this, but is she aware of her unfavorables? And how without them she might've, in spite of Russia, beat 45 in the first place?

I like Hillary, but the thought of this exhausts (and scares) me.

[appalachiablue]

32. FYI, Politico article page is down:

We're sorry, but that page cannot be found
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/hillary-clinton-presidential-run-2020-000325

[redqueen]

44. Weird, its still up at the Hill

And the examiner

[highplainsdem]

64. That Politico link works for me.

[appalachiablue]

67. Funny, it's up now after being down for hours

[Gothmog]

34. She is not going to run

I was a Clinton delegate to Philadelphia, a member of the Clinton Victory Counsel program and a maxed out donor.

[left-of-center2012]

35. Here's a working link - Yours didn't work for me.

"Clinton says she is being urged by ‘many, many, many people’ to run in 2020"

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/hillary-clinton-presidential-run-2020-070318

Yours gave me:

[pangaia]

36. "under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it."'''

Senator Clinton, you would have been a super president !

That said, I can not agree that you are 'under enormous pressure ." Come on.. Don't blame it on others. If you still want to be president, or would like to be, just say so. And if you will probably not run in spite of those feelings, just say so. Playing the snare drum part in Bolero is being under enormous pressure-or not- depending on one's confidence..

[helpisontheway]

38. Stay away Hillary. Last thing we need is for the haters to screw up this election

to stick it to the Clintons. People in the states we need despise you. It is not fair. It is not rational. It is unfortunate because I think you would be the best president out of the entire group.

[boomer_wv]

40. Clinton

Had her chance and blew it. Forget anything else that did happen; she and her campaign were derelict in their duty. They didn't effectively identify their weakness in the rust belt and do anything to address it. In the final weeks of the campaign they were flirting with going to Arizona and Georgia when all they needed to do was sure up Michigan and PA.

I don't want to have a rematch of 2016.

[StevieM]

61. This is total nonsense.

She campaigned in both Michigan and Pennsylvania throughout the election, including in the final weeks. Then again, it is absurd that all we talk about is where her rallies were held, as if ground operations and advertising is irrelevant.

I think she should be very proud of the campaign that she ran. While Donald Trump was spreading hatred, she was focused on a message that we were all stronger together.

She didn't blow anything. She put together a campaign that had her primed for a decisive victory, which is why she was campaigning in close states like Georgia and Arizona. It would have been derelict in duty not to campaign in those places. Ultimately, the entire election was turned upside down in the final week and a half by James Comey.

If you take out the Comey intervention she would have won comfortably. If you take out Comey's July press conference, along with Vladimir Putin's antics, she would have destroyed Trump.

[boomer_wv]

80. She

Did she win either of those states?

There were three states that she had to carry to ensure that Trump had no path to victory. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. She lost them all and by a close enough margin that the time and resources she spent trying to "run up the score" could have made the difference.

And no, she didn't run a good campaign. Her "deplorables" comment served to increase enthusiasm for Trump. People who supported him but might have stayed home were more motivated to show up to vote against her for things like that. Her VP pick was a total flop. He managed to lose to wooden Pence and did nothing to expand her base or reinforce weaknesses she had. her campaign was always woefully prepared to respond to the obvious attacks that Trump was going to bring.

Comey had an impact on the election, but it wasn't massive. This was going to be a very close race before that happened. It never should have been.

[StevieM]

81. I think you are wrong about everything.

First, you are absolutely wrong that Comey didn't have a massive impact on the election. His October intervention turned the race upside down. And that was on top of his devastating, and illegitimate, July press conference.

Second, it would not have been wise to pursue a narrow path to victory. Widening the map is a common, and correct strategy. And it makes no sense to suggest that she shouldn't have been in GA, AZ and NC, given that she did better in them then she did in OH and IA, which were always seen as battleground states.

She wasn't trying to run up the score, she was trying to secure a victory. And she campaigned in Pennsylvania more than any other state, in a first place tie with Florida and Ohio. Oh, and you didn't even mention Florida, where she also campaigned vigorously and also came very close.

The bottom line is that she was never going to win PA or FL, while losing MI and WI. MI and WI were more solid then PA and FL, so she was wise to focus on nailing Florida and Pennsylvania down. In fact, when Trump finally thought he could win, because of the Comey intervention, the first thing he did was cancel an appearance in Wisconsin.

Spending more resources in the states you mentioned would not have altered the outcome of the election, or even those states. Eliminating Comey's interference would have allowed for a very comfortable victory.

I see no evidence that the Basket of Deplorables was a significant moment in that race. It never caught on the way that Romney's 47 percent comment did, or even the way that Obama's bitter comments did. It wasn't until after the election that the media started to develop the narrative of the revenge of the deplorables. But I don't believe it motivated anybody. Comey's last minute stunt was what motivated people to return to the GOP camp. People said at the time that they could feel the ground suddenly moving under their feet.

I wasn't a big fan of Tim Kaine. I thought she should have picked Tom Vilsack. But he was hardly a disaster, like Sarah Palin or Dan Quayle. He was just there.

I totally disagree that she didn't run a good campaign. But, in any event, that wasn't what I said. I said that she should be proud of the fact that while Donald Trump was openly trying to divide us, and spread hatred, she ran a campaign whose slogan was "Stronger Together."

[boomer_wv]

83. The correct strategy

is the one that lost? You have to be kidding. You have the benefit of hindsight and you still can't see where she screwed up? She was never going to win PA? She should have walked away with PA. She took it for granted

You're making excuses, and excuses aren't going to beat Trump. If we can't identify and learn from 2016 failure we are going to be in for another bad night.

[StevieM]

86. Your analysis has many flaws IMO.

First, you misread what I said about Pennsylvania. I did not say that she was never going to win Pennsylvania. I said that it is not believable that she would win Pennsylvania or Florida, while losing Michigan and Wisconsin. Therefore, the correct strategy was to focus more on PA and FL than on other states, like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.

Second, it is not accurate to say that she took Pennsylvania for granted. She was all over the airwaves in PA. She had a huge ground operation. And she made more appearances there then in any other state, in a tie with Florida and Ohio.

Yes, sometimes parts of a strategy can be successful, but still not good enough to secure a win. And, obviously, every campaign has successful parts to their strategy and unsuccessful parts.

I am not making excuses, I am contradicting your recollection of the details. For example, pointing out how many rallies she had in PA is not making an excuse, it is correcting your numbers. And when someone has a different analysis than you, that doesn't mean they are making excuses, it means they have a different perspective.

We should also be careful not to learn the wrong lessons from 2016. We should not learn that all that matters is where you hold your rallies, and not take time to raise money so that we can run lots of commercials. We should not learn that it is a bad idea to spend too much time preparing for the debates, since it doesn't matter if you destroy your opponent in all three of them. Finally, we should not learn that Comey was of minimal importance, so we don't have to prepare in advance for the next swift boating operation for our eventual candidate, which most certainly will come.

[betsuni]

87. +1 to all your posts.

[boomer_wv]

97. 31.4%

That's how much of Clinton's time after Sept 1st was spent in NC, OH, AZ, and IA. How much was spent on Wisconsin? 0.

Having air time is good, but it loses effectiveness due to diminishing returns. You still have to be there on the ground. Trump did a better job of dividing his time and in the broadness of states he visited.

It was clear from mid summer that Ohio and Iowa were not going to go for Clinton, but she refused to let them go and focus on states that she needed to win.

There were lots of ways to believe you could win FL and lost the rust belt, they arent very alike. While it may have been unlikely to win PA and lose MI and WI, it wasnt impossible and it was very possible that the race was going to narrow and that years given polling bias, which is always unknown until election night, could have ended up with losses in all of them.

Clinton spent nearly a 3rd of her most important resource, her time, in four states that she was unlikely to win and could afford to lose instead of in states that were more likely to decide the election. If you think that's sound strategy then good for you.

[StevieM]

103. By no means were IA and OH out of play until the very end.

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2019, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

And if she had not focused on them the media would have excoriated her over it. As it is, we have been hearing, ever since the election, a silly story about how she ignored the Midwest. I can only imagine how bad it would be if she actually did ignore Iowa and Ohio.

I cannot even begin to imagine why it would make sense to do anything other than go all out in North Carolina. She was leading in almost every single poll there until the end of the campaign. To not make that one of her most important target states would have been unprecedented.

I agree that you need to be on the ground, and that is why Secretary Clinton had a larger ground operation in Wisconsin than Barack Obama had in 2012.

And, no, she was never going to win WI and MI while winning PA.

[boomer_wv]

105. Because

She was over invested there.

I watched polls pretty close and it was clear she wasnt winning Ohio well before election day. She didnt spend enough time in the states she needed to cut off his only path to victory.

[Kentonio]

102. Her own campaign manager said it "definitely could have alienated" her voters.

The idea that the deplorables comment had no effect on the race is crazy.

After the election, Diane Hessan, who had been hired by the Clinton campaign to track undecided voters, wrote in The Boston Globe that "all hell broke loose" after the "basket of deplorables" comment, which prompted what she saw as the largest shift of undecided voters towards Trump.

[StevieM]

104. She is largely wrong.

The shift towards Trump was largely the result of her falling down on 9/11. And she quickly rebounded from that, establishing a bigger lead than she had ever previously had.

[Kentonio]

106. Ah right, so both the woman hired to track this stuff

And her campaign manager Robbie Mook were both wrong, but you’re right. Ok then..

[hlthe2b]

42. It causes me a great deal of pain, but no.

Nothing about how HRC has been treated and what has happened in the past is fair, judicious, nor honest. She deserves so much better. But, life is not always fair and it seems to be her destiny to take the hit for all of us. That angers me too, Hillary, but that's where we are. For your own well-being, just NO.

[comradebillyboy]

43. Sounds like she's trolling the pundits. She's been doing that a lot lately.

I'm really enjoying the unfiltered Hillary.

[redqueen]

45. She's firing up the right wing base.

Doesn't seem smart.

[comradebillyboy]

54. How let down will they be when she doesn't run?

[Raine]

46. NO! Not again, not one more time! nt

[pandr32]

47. By rights she should be running for her 2nd term

And even with Russia doing their damnedest to steal the election she still won 3 million more votes than their guy. People know about Russia's role now, that she had run a clean campaign, was 100 percent correct about Donald Trump and what he would do if elected, and what it would mean round the world.
Hillary Clinton was horribly maligned and victimized. The presidency was stolen right out from under her yet she remained composed and revealed true class and good character.
I would be proud to vote for her again.

[Bayard]

48. No

That is all.

[samnsara]

49. no no no no no no.. I love her.. I supported her and I voted for her, cried for her, but she..

...got beat up by both sides. how much can one person take? She needs to just sit back with a nice glass of red wine and enjoy the show..

[TwilightZone]

50. "absolutely not in my plans"

I'm not sure that could be any clearer. Politico (and others) is just shit-stirring. It's also another opportunity for supporters of a couple of selected candidates to continue the charade that they're running against Clinton and not the others actually in the race.

[MustLoveBeagles]

72. +1000

After the shity way she was treated, and is still treated, by the media and even some Democrats? Why in hell would she even want to? She was robbed three years ago and I will always be angry about it. But that ship has sailed.

[samnsara]

51. I would like to see her appointed as 'acting' Secretary of State...will go past Senate..

....and we go at the same time

[madaboutharry]

52. madaboutharry in 2016:

100% on Team Hillary, gave generously to her campaign, and was devastated on election night.

madaboutharry today: Go Team Pete!
Hillary 2020? NO!

[ismnotwasm]

55. She's trolling

And I am here for it.

[broiles]

56. Please NO!

[3catwoman3]

57. As badly as she was treated, why in hell would she want to...

...go anywhere near that again?

I hope she does not.

[sacto95834]

58. Interesting...

She can't seriously be thinking about running again; has she seen her poll numbers? I doubt it can be fixed before the primaries. Is she trolling for a VP slot? Cabinet? Can't figure this out.

The Clintons can't be that tone deaf. Their "Evening with the Clintons" tour was nothing short of a disaster. Surely that was a wake up call about their popularity.

[Joe941]

59. Nope. Please no!

[defacto7]

60. I think there's worry among some democrats

that the center left isn't well enough represented and they're worried about Biden. With Bloomberg and maybe Clinton checking the tide plus the other billionaires joining and not doing so well I think there's a bit of worry we're going too far left.
For the record, I am definitely not among those who feel that way.

[Demsrule86]

62. She needs to stay out of this race period...I was all in for her and she would make a great

president but she will not win a general in 20 . Please folks put your personal ambitions aside and help us take down Donald Trump.

[iamthebandfanman]

63. hahahahah

hahahahahahhahahhahahhahahahahahhaa


third times a charm right ? lmao

[aikoaiko]

66. Oh Hillary.

[aka-chmeee]

68. Aw! I think she's just redecorating

that free room she has in Trump's "head"; Especially using that "many, many, many people" phrase

[kacekwl]

69. NO.

[jalan48]

70. No Thanks

[peggysue2]

71. Love Hillary, supported her in 2016 110%

She would have made a great President.

That being said, I think she knows her moment has passed. Why would she volunteer to dive back into the meat grinder?

Honestly? I think she's trolling Trump with this message: the many, many, many people.

That doesn't sound like Hillary Clinton. Sounds like frigging Donald Trump!

[customerserviceguy]

73. The fact that she's

not giving a Shermanesque denial means that she thinks she'll be someone that a deadlocked convention can turn to.

[Polybius]

74. That's her strongest indication yet that she's running

I wonder if she'd win the nomination.

[berni_mccoy]

76. There is an old, unspoken rule in American Politics:

You get one run at the General Election as a candidate. That’s it.

[Demsrule86]

79. Nixon being the only exception I guess...who went on to win...can't think of anyone else.

[The Valley Below]

85. Are you whippersnappers too young to remember Adlai Stevenson?

[ForEverGlades]

88. Don't you remember

William Jennngs Bryan? Why it seems like just yesterday...

[The Valley Below]

89. LOL. Got me.

How about Thomas Jefferson?

[Demsrule86]

100. That too...ah well I will be quiet now as clearly I am out of my depth.

[Demsrule86]

99. I am too young but I could have looked it up...embarrassed...

Thank you.

[The Valley Below]

101. No cause for embarrassment. As a general rule, you had it right.

[Polybius]

77. Posted in LBN now

n/t

[cwydro]

90. I have to agree.

Although I’m still heartbroken about the stolen election, I don’t think this would be a good idea at all,

[Buckeyeblue]

91. I like Hillary but she had her chance

I think she got cheated but so did Gore and probably Kerry. But it's someone else's turn now.

[TidalWave46]

92. Probably the most prepared to take the office.

But it’s a no.

[Evergreen Emerald]

94. I love Hillary: She is above and beyond anyone in the current field.

I support Hillary.

[pinkstarburst]

95. Ugh, no!!

I supported Hillary. Twice. But I don't think 2020 would turn out any differently than 2016. Yes, we can go into all the specifics about what happened and why and there were myriad factors that were not her fault. Do we think any of those factors will be any better this time around? I don't. Hillary has her share of detractors who don't like what she's selling. They didn't like her in 2016. What makes you think they're going to suddenly fangirl over her in 2020. Spoiler alert: they're not.

The only thing these late entries, and teaser trial-balloon late entry interviews are doing is to erode confidence in the current democratic field, particularly the top 4, one of whom will likely be our nominee. So if Hillary, Bloomberg, Deval Patrick, and all the other names I've seen floated in the past five days want to do something to help the party, they can 1) stop attacking different parts of the democratic agenda (which no matter who is the nominee is going to suppress voter turnout in the general) and 2) turn that energy on defeating Trump and calling attention to what the Republicans are doing wrong rather than what you think your fellow Democrats are doing wrong.

[The Valley Below]

98. HRC knows that some people are easily triggered.