[deeth_starr]

Well, rust-belt protectionism played a key part (NAFTA, TPP). I was a Bernie supporter and was really disappointed when Hillary didn't co-op Trump's working-class rhetoric or get energized to at least compete in that battlefield. This is what Bill excels at. Obviously she shut him out of the core team.

Also, she was not that compelling as a candidate. And had all those negatives that I won't go into. Most of them false. But still, why do you put up a establishment candidate on a change cycle (looking at you Wassermann and Brazille, core dems)?

Edit: I don't especially like TPP but I saw it as a strategic shift to Asia for the US. Now China will likely join a TPP-light and really benefit. For better or worse this is going to be a big change over the next 20 years.

[emodendroket]

Because everyone in the party agreed it was her turn.

[baytrailcat]

This has been proven true more than once. Whenever "their turn" candidates run, they loose. See Kerry, McCain, Romney. Socioeconomics aside, Americans love novelty. With Trump in power, the game has been elevated to a different level and I think none of leading Dem politicians can unseat him in 2020. After a sufficient time has passed, when his novelty has worn off, some red blooded alpha-male type has to burst into scene and start challenging him. I am looking at you, Jason Kander!

[bigtex]

Don't forget Bob Dole in 96.

[emodendroket]

You could go all the way back to Henry Clay if you want.

[rayiner]

> This is what Bill excels at.

Bill signed NAFTA, not to mention moved the Democratic Party to the right on many economic issues. He just looked cool doing it.

[deeth_starr]

I meant co-opting your opponents message.