Rumors Are Flying That Hillary Clinton Will Be Replaced By The DNC

Is the Democratic Party really considering dropping Hillary Clinton from the 2016 ticket after her recent, seemingly-cured bout with pneumonia? The Internet has been overrun with those rumors for the past several days, with many speculating that Bernie Sanders would be the only logical choice to replace her. But is there any merit to the story?

The short answer: We don’t know for sure, but probably not.

The rumor started when Al-Jazeera reporter David Schuster tweeted on September 11th that the Democratic Party was planning to hold a secret “emergency meeting” soon to consider potentially ditching Clinton and replacing her with an unidentified candidate. This information allegedly came to Schuster via high-level party operatives.

With Hillary Clinton being one of the most disliked and untrusted presidential candidates in American history, and with Schuster being a pretty reputable source, this rumor has all of the ingredients necessary for internet combustion. But everything being said beyond Schuster’s Tweet is little more than speculation and guesswork, educated and otherwise.

Snopes and many Hillary Clinton supporters were quick to counter the story by claiming the DNC’s bylaws prevent the party from replacing Clinton unless she first steps down from the race. But believing that requires a level of grade school political naivety that is frankly upsetting to see in adults. If they really want Hillary Clinton gone, they’ll definitely and easily find a way to either skirt that rule or force Clinton into abandoning the ticket.

The real question few seem to be asking isn’t whether or not the DNC can replace Hillary Clinton, but why they’d want to replace her to begin with. And if you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter, the answer is about to make you yell a few vulgarities at your screen. Make sure there are no children around. All clear? Good… Hillary Clinton is a dishonest and untrustworthy person.

You want me to stick what where? Yeesh… kiss your mother with that mouth?

Every single time Hillary gets caught up in a scandal, regardless of the scale, her kneejerk response is always to lie to the public. Always. Not sometimes, not occasionally… always. You could have an argument over whether or not Hillary Clinton is the most dishonest candidate in American political history, but that’s about as fruitless as arguing over whether John Bonham or Neil Peart are the greatest drummer in history. Everyone has their favorites.

Pneumonia? She lies to the public. Having classified emails on her private server? She lies to the public. Taking sniper fire in a foreign country? Not true. It would probably take five listicles to go through Hillary Clinton’s greatest hits. If you think she’s an honest person, you’re either delusional or something far, far worse.

Worst of all, she’s secretive when she really has no need to be. Why on Earth would Hillary Clinton conceal pneumonia — something you, me, and everyone else has had at least once or twice in their lifetimes — from the public? Why is her default state always to cover things up, to keep secrets, to mislead voters?

That’s why Clinton is performing so poorly in the polls. With less than two months to go before election day, Hillary is barely treading water over Donald Trump. In fact, she’s only ahead by 2 points as of this article being written. If Bernie Sanders had won the primary, he’d easily be 20+ points ahead of “The Donald” right now. Trump would be losing so badly the replacement rumors would be coming out of the Republican camp.

So yes, David Schuster’s claim does hold a certain degree of merit so far as being logical is concerned. It’s obvious the Democratic Party has reasons to want to replace Hillary Clinton, and they certainly have the means to do it as well. But does that prove the rumor true? Absolutely not.

If the 2016 Democratic Primary taught the nation anything — especially those of us who supported Bernie Sanders — it’s that the party will bend over backwards in support of Hillary Clinton. You can travel to literally any State in the nation and find voters (by the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or even millions) who will tell you personally about corruption and fraud they either witnessed directly or heard about first-hand from someone they trust. It was that widespread. So it’s questionable at best whether the DNC would actually replace their beloved Hillary, particularly with an “outsider” like Bernie Sanders… even if Sanders consistently polled stronger against Trump than Clinton, which he did all throughout the primaries.

If there is any truth to this story, we’re going to find out pretty quickly. It’s pretty late in the game to consider replacing Hillary Clinton as the nominee, so the party would need to act immediately if they hoped to salvage the race. As beloved as Bernie Sanders is, he’d need time to get into the full swing of a national campaign after having been off the trail for several months.

Of course, the story might be true and go the other way; party leaders might meet to discuss replacing Clinton, but ultimately decide to keep her. And if that’s the case, we’ll likely never get a full answer about what really happened.

If there’s one big takeaway from this story, it’s this: Hillary Clinton needs to become a better candidate, and she’s running out of time. The secrecy, the deceit, that stuff all needs to end right now, or Hillary will continue to sink in the polls. Her supporters can argue until they’re blue in the face, but the simple, undeniable fact is that Hillary Clinton has a proven track record of secrecy and dishonesty, and the American public knows it.

If Hillary loses this election, she has no right to blame Jill Stein voters, or former Sanders supporters who refuse to trust her, or “vast right-wing conspiracies,” or anything else. The only person Hillary Clinton gets to blame for a loss in November is Hillary Clinton. And when facing off against the likes of Donald Trump, failure really isn’t an option.

Photo by veni markovski