Actually, I don’t think a single person (well, a single Democrat) here has said she should run again, a display of consensus possibly unprecedented in the history of this forum. See, she’s a unifier!
The correct answer is “it doesn’t matter”. If Hillary ran again she would get nowhere.
She will not run again. Despite all of the conspiracy theory rage, most party insiders realize she’s past her expiration date. Her closest supporters have already lost some clout in the party, and there’s no way the party is going to self-destruct by having a fight over a candidate who has failed to convert nearly a billion dollars in fundraising over a decade into a presidential victory. Consider the history on this one: It took 8 years for Nixon to rehab his image in time for the 1968 nomination, and he probably still would have lost again had RFK not been slain. It took about 8 years for the country to take be convinced that it was safe to vote for George HW Bush’s son, and even 8 years after George W, the country said hell no to brother Jeb. History shows that presidential losers and their politically-involved kin maybe, just maybe, get one more shot, and they usually have to wait at least 8 years. Hillary won’t meet that standard. She’s had her chances. Two of them. Blew them both.
She would probably get soundly defeated before the primaries even started.
Yeah I just don’t think her candidacy would ever get past that conversation. And there’d be a long line of people waiting to have one with her.
What I could see is a more visible Chelsea Clinton. But even if she steps out, she would need to establish her credentials as a senator or House rep. I actually wouldn’t mind having a look at what kind of candidate Chelsea would turn out to be. Maybe she’s trying to figure that out herself.
Why? Seriously. Why? Is it because her last name is Clinton? What other than her last name makes you think she should run for office - any more than any other Democrat who has graduated college and is not a complete moron?
I think the fact that CC did not go to law school makes her political career, at the national level, doubtful.
Well, there’s the bonus of having even the mention of having Chelsea run gets this sort of response from you, so there’s entertainment value in the offing!
“Not a complete moron” is, unfortunately, no longer a job requirement for POTUS.
Yeah, I find it baffling and amusing the way that some Democrats get horribly surprised by really obvious things. Yes, the presidential race is decided by the electoral college, if you didn’t pay attention in civics class you should at least have paid attention to the 2000 election. No, the fact that your candidate won something that isn’t the election doesn’t actually matter, next time focus on winning the election. Yes, Republicans dig up dirt to win and have for a long time, especially against Hillary Clinton. No, complaining that they are a bunch of meany-pants for doing so isn’t going to make them stop, expect it to keep happening and figure out how to deal with it. These are things that have been going on basically forever, there’s no reason to be surprised by them; the electoral college dates back to the US constitution, and dirty politics runs at least back to the Roman republic, where accusing opponents of outlandish sexual exploits was rather ordinary.
She seems pretty educated and reasonably intelligent based on the few television appearances I’ve seen. Beyond that, I’m assuming (maybe incorrectly) that someone who was raised by a father who was governor of Arkansas and President of the United States and a mother who was a United States senator and Secretary of State would maybe know something about the subject. As I said, just to be clear, I’m not saying she’s ready for high office yet or anytime in the next four years - she would need to cut her teeth first. But as I said, if you re-read the post carefully, I would be interested in seeing more of her, which is distinct from saying that I think she should run in 2020.
The only way Hillary Clinton doesn’t run for President again in 2020 is if serious, life-threatening health problems intervene or if another Democratic candidate improbably materializes as an overwhelming favorite. She’s eagerly accepted the excuses for past defeats, her boundless ambition remains intact and her fans remain loyal.
Will she run? I dunno; she might. But pretty much any Democrat or left-leaning Independent at all would beat her in the primaries, so the only way she goes on to the general is if none of them at all choose to run. I know that we had a remarkable dearth of candidates in 2016, but I can’t see that happening again.
When my sink is clogged, I only hire third generation plumbers for the same reasons.
She will be too damn old.
With her lineage and vast experience running the monetary side of The Clinton Foundation, maybe she could change the family motto from **It’s Her Turn ** to You Owe Me.
Chelsea Clinton is on her 30s and has literally never held a real job. The overwhelming privilege she has experienced in her life would make her a horrible representative of an ostensibly left-wing party that claims to represent the middle class. At least her father rose up from out of a trailer park, & her mother spent her life struggling against sexism in work & politics. What struggle has Chelsea Clinton ever known? The pain of being in the public eye her whole life? Then perhaps we should elect some Kardashians too.
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
<slo-mo dive>NooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!</slo-mo dive>
This. It’s not just whether she thinks she’s finished. It’s whether the party will take another gamble on a candidate who twice failed to deliver enough voters.
I’ve already said I disagree. And that article doesn’t persuade me otherwise. It seems more like a case of the author looking for signs and then, whatever the signs are, declaring they’re favorable omens.
For example, he says the fact that the Clinton Global Initiative is cutting back its operations is a sign that Clinton will run again. His argument is that the CGI was a controversial issue during the campaign so the Clintons are shutting it down so it won’t be an issue in her next campaign. Okay, I suppose that’s an argument. But here’s a better argument: the Clintons didn’t shut it down during the 2016 campaign. They apparently felt it was useful to them during a campaign and its use outweighed any negative publicity they received from it. If you have something that you keep operating during political campaigns and you shut it down, that’s a sign that you’re not planning any political campaigns.
It’s the same with the other signs. They could be things that a person would do if they were planning on running for President in three years. Or, just as plausibly (if not more so), they could be things a person would do if they had just run for President and lost. Clinton’s writing a book, giving speeches, and posting online? Maybe she’s trying to vindicate herself in words now that she can’t do it in office.