So Hillary cant even CONSIDER running again?
Notice how Hillary and ONLY Hillary cant even consider running again, for president.
Why even just mentioning it will bring out such rage.
Lets play a game, which men CANT even consider running again? Either party...
Go...
= new reply since forum marked as read
… not going to... but she would change if she thought she would be the best bet to beat Trump or Pence in 2020. And, your thesis is correct as people don't seem to rule out many men, including Kerry and Romney.
Thanks for making this clear.
Humphrey has been dead for 40 years, so I think we can all agree that it would not be wise for him to run again. 
However, Beto was CHEATED OUT OF a Senator seat and Andrew/Stacey were cheated out of 2 governorships. Florida and Ohio are gone from the Dems for a long while IMHO due to all of the cooked-in GOP voter-suppression there in those 2 states. Georgia has a chance to come out of it sooner than those other two states, and so I believe that if Stacey wants to run again for Gov. it's hers, as she and Dems in Georgia/Congress will be assisting her in working on voting rights et al in Georgia. Something's going to befall that cheating, rotten, racist Kemp. Mark my words.
Hillary was cheated out of a presidency. In fact, NO Dem was going to win the 2016 presidency with all of that head wind, going against them. There was ruskie interference, wikileaks, voter-suppression, voter purging, voter cross check, gerrymandering, 30 years of LIES/corporate media hate going against her. Bush was GIVEN a damn presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000. So uh no, there were times when not even the BEST Dem running would have won whatever they were running for. The deck was stacked against them. The dye was cast, whatever analogy you want to use, NO DEM was going to win the 2016 General Election.
I agree with Stewart Safrin 1,000 percent Bfd 
hurt ! 
Donald Trump.
I win !!
We need a couple a spring chickens..is what I hear when Hillary's name comes up.
Followed by , "How bout Bernie or Biden?"
But the majority of people responding to my thread thought otherwise. You can take a look here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211441340
The point is, though, that no one seems to think Beto shouldn't run just because he lost the mid term. What's the difference? 
ick.
All others who lost presidential races are allowed to run again - even encouraged. Wonder why it is that HRC seemingly isn't allowed. 
HRC 2020
This again.
Dynasties.
I know I don't! We need someone we can all unite behind. Going through the Bernie / Hillary debacle will almost guarantee another 4 years of Orange Shithead. 
First off, I don't believe ageist bigotry is so powerful that it inevitably will outweigh all other factors. Look at how beloved Notorious RBG is of all the younger generations, and Bernie Sanders' populist appeal to many young people even if his arthritic shoulders and neck didn't allow him to wave his fist in the air. In 2016 both parties, in fact, had younger candidates and passed them over.
I don't argue that the bigotry isn't real and effects growing. All these old people living longer than they used to are new, and our culture hasn't adjusted to this disturbing rise in the generations of old people who, instead of considerately retiring and then dying off and leaving everything to younger generations, actually think they should be able to keep the best jobs and authority away from younger, more deserving generations. It'll be some while before society adjusts to this new kind of diversity and competition. Right now ageism is as rampant and completely and righteously without shame as racism once was, and we're going to hear a lot of strident, even angry noise from people who don't feel any need for dog whistling.
So of course advancing age at the top will be a continuing political topic, and it's understandable that some younger politicians are pushing it as a negative for their own advantage. A person who feels he's ready at 35 or 55, has a great deal of heavyweight competition to get out of the way. But voters of all ages are going to have to decide, and any notion that they're going to simply slice off and discard everyone advantaged with an extra 20-30 years of experience and prestige is as unrealistic as imagining old people are going to do it to themselves.
And it's only going to get worse now that middle age extends through the 60s for healthy people and competition grows for positions held by those professionals who remain healthy and vigorous right through their 80s. We did away from mandatory retirement, though, both because old people needed to work longer to support themselves but also because growing numbers of old people who liked working and were good at it said the hell with that. Age power!
I think that the age range of prominent people in politics is going to widen as some of the current clusters of geriatrics leave, but ultimately end up wider in both directions, both younger and older reflecting their demographic power, but with older always dominating, reflecting their built-in advantages.
Of course the current judgement of the ageist doofuses among the electorate is going to be felt.
Many have no idea, and for most no interest in wondering, what 50 years of facing continual challenges and new situations requiring constant learning makes of high achievers. There really are people who can believe lots of younger members of congress can fill Nancy Pelosi's shoes. They have no more idea than Trump. During work lives, most people attain maybe 2 to 5 years of actual learning experience (in each line of work) and then mostly don't need to keep learning, until retirement. Voting lack of understanding is nothing new, though, and it seems likely some candidates in 2020 will make old age, not young, an issue.
Where I completely agree with you is that old views and knowledge that don't keep current and valid in a changing world, and don't allow fierce, insightful interest in understanding how to make the most of the future, are completely unacceptable, but those people we can and should weed out by examining every aspect of candidates, not their age.
As for no skin in the game? Really? These grandparents all know they're not going to have more decades to continue work on what they started, or to worry about their own careers and future endeavors. And, generally speaking, wouldn't you think that knowing their own will have to live with what they leave has to be far more real to them than it is to younger generations?
Oh, btw, our nation did choose Hillary to be our first woman president and I think we'd do it again and better in 2020 if she ran and became our nominee. But frankly, with the narrow electoral margins political scientists say are likely to be with us for a while, no matter who our candidate is I'll be afraid right up until the winner in the electoral college is called. I don't see anyone on the horizon who'll rescue me from that.
