It’s a very interesting question. My feeling is that Clinton is sooo disliked that almost any replacement would be a net positive for the other team. Just how much of a game changer would depend on who they put in her place. If it were Sanders, I hate to say it, but I think we would be in trouble.
P.S. to my #5. For the record I don’t think that anything short of a felony indictment or diagnosis of a fatal illness would have any chance of knocking the wicked witch out as the Dem nominee.
Before I participate in the schadenfreude of recent events, this was my very real concern, that Sanders would step in and sweep up the mess, make it all right... I’m really starting to doubt that is possible now but I cannot articulate exactly how screwed the Dems are, which is why I ask.
Sanders would be their best bet, because he already has an organization in place, loyal supporters, name recognition, etc. More importantly though, he is an “anti-establishment” candidate like Trump (even if Sanders is a fake). They really need another “anti-establishment” candidate to be able to counter Trump on somewhat equal footing, otherwise they are going to be constantly playing defense.