General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you want to lose the Millennial vote completely, nominate Hillary Clinton. [View all]onenote
(42,704 posts)Well, for one, because this is politics and the likelihood of a non-career politician being able to mount a credible run for the party's nomination and the presidency is pretty low. Maybe a third party campaign, but that would just hurt the Democratic candidate, imo.
Sanders' problems are twofold (apart from the question of whether his having worn the socialist label makes him palatable in a national election): one is that he isn't a Democrat and its nigh near impossible for someone who hasn't been part of the party to take the party's nomination; the other is his age. After having slagged McCain repeatedly over his age, a lot of folks would have to swallow hard to accept a nominee who on election day would be even older than McCain was. Clinton isn't a spring chicken either, but at least she'd be essentially the same age that Reagan was when he was first elected (while Sanders would be older than Reagan was when Reagan was re-elected). Fair? No. But reality isn't always fair.
Brown is an interesting idea. I'd feel better about him if his support in Ohio hadn't fallen preciptiously between 2006 (when he captured 56.2 percent of the vote) and 2012 (when he won with only 50.7 percent).
Whether Clinton loses the Hispanic vote will depend on a number of factors. Who is her opponent? What does the repub platform say on immigration. How hard do the repubs push back on Obama if he carries through (finally) with his promise to use his executive power to move the ball forward on immigration? The repubs may have gained some ground with Hispanic voters in 2014 because of Obama's foolish (at least in retrospect) timidness on immigration. But the repubs will have a heck of a time containing the xenophobes in their own party if Obama makes a move.