AP: What if Hillary Cllinton Doesn't Run for President?

[LiberalElite]

http://www.juno-news.com/news/read/category/General/article/the_associated_press-what_if_hillary_clinton_doesnt_run_for_president-ap

WASHINGTON (AP) — In Washington, in Iowa, in New Hampshire, really in any place that's already talking about the 2016 campaign for president, just about everyone expects Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president.
But is it possible that Clinton might not give a White House campaign another try?

[hrmjustin]

1. If she announced that she won't run the first reaction would be we are less likely to keep the WH!

Then people who were not fond of running against her in the primary would consider jumping in and we would have to see.


I think Hillary has the best chance but it doesn't mean we can't win without her.

I have no idea who I would support in the primary if Hillary doesn't run.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. My reaction is exactly the opposite.

I think we'd have a better chance not running a 'Dynasty' candidate. She's had high appeal because she wasn't running, and the closer she gets to running, the more her numbers drop. So if she does run, she runs as another Kerry or Gore, who gets roughly half the vote, and you'd just have to hope the 'roughly' puts her over the 50+1. I'd rather see a slate of candidates without all the baggage the 'Clinton' name carries along with it.

[BlueCaliDem]

29. If she doesn't run, I'm hoping for another Barack Obama to rise to the challenge.

Otherwise, I'm afraid you're right. With Jebbie making lots of noise and taking in lots of cash to run in 2016, we might well see another Bush in the White House - something I thought we would never, ever see again. So much for trusting in the judgment of the American people.

Money appears to be the thing that gets a person elected in this country, no matter how hard we scream that it shouldn't, and I don't see another Democrat who has the fundraising power of SoS Clinton. But then again, it's still early.

[Sherman A1]

2. Then

someone else will do so.

[Thinkingabout]

3. If Hillary would decide not to run I would take a hard look at Biden, Tim Caine,

Mike Malloy or Joe Manchin.

[KingCharlemagne]

39. "Mike Malloy" - I'm sure that was just a slip of the tongue, but one that caused a

deep chuckle hereabouts. Pretty sure you meant Martin O'Malley, but not sure. I'd actually drop everything I was doing to work full-time for free for a Mike Malloy candidacy!

[Thinkingabout]

40. Probably the auto correct.

[elzenmahn]

42. I second you there...

...logic, and zero-tolerance for BS -

Works for me!

[jaysunb]

4. I like Jim Webb, whether she runs or not. n/t

[chickenfairy]

5. PARTY!!

N/t

[Sunlei]

6. Anything is possible.

[bigwillq]

7. Jump up and down in celebration!!

[SheilaT]

8. I would be quite happy with that turn of events.

So many people, especially those here on DU, make the assumption that if Hillary runs she will inevitably get the nomination and then she will inevitably win the election. I disagree.

Of course, if she runs unopposed, of course she'll get the nomination, but winning the election depends a great deal on who the Republican nominee is. I'm not going to speculate on that, but I think there's a lot that the Hillary enthusiasts are overlooking. In no particular order her age, her supporting of bad policies such as the war in Iraq and bankruptcy "reform", her lack of real progressive or even liberal stands.

First off, what the Democratic Party needs is a good battle for the nomination, with more than one or two candidates running. A lot of ideas and issues need airing, and that will only happen with more than one or two candidates. Secondly, wasn't Hillary inevitable in 2008? Then why isn't she finishing up her second term at this point? By which I mean that she was at best a flawed candidate then, and she's even more flawed eight years later.

If we can't think of anyone except a retread from 8 years ago -- or more like 24 years ago when her husband was President -- then we're in worse shape than I thought.

[Persondem]

19. This is an incorrect view of HRC and it gets old seeing it repeated by otherwise

knowledgeable people.

"... her lack of real progressive or even liberal stands."

There are many liberal/progressive organizations on this list from Project Vote Smart who would disagree and even more conservative orgs who would disagree emphatically.

Just because a "thing" gets repeated ad nauseum in certain echo chambers does not make it true.

[SheilaT]

20. What I find old is the repeated assertion

that she is the only possible choice and besides that she'd be wonderful.

She still voted for the Iraq War, she still voted for the change in bankruptcy laws, I don't see her out there saying Cheney & Co should be prosecuted (neither does Obama, but we're not talking about him here) and so on. She is an ultimate insider, and over the years the national Democratic Party has become more controlled by a small group of people who simply don't seem to care what is really right, let alone pay attention to the feelings of us little people.

What we need more than anything is someone who really is independent in her thinking, such as Eizabeth Warren, or his thinking, such as Bernie Sanders. Simply having a real primary competition would make a huge difference, and as long as so many people have the blinders on and don't look past the most surface aspects of Clinton, it won't be good for us.

[Persondem]

21. So you did not support Kerry/Edwards in 2004, right?

Because they both voted for war. A lot of good dems voted for war; it was a tricky time.

I did not say she was the only or even the best choice. My objection is to the broad generalities spoken about her that are NOT true.

Have you ever been an officer in the Democratic Party? I have, and I can tell you that national figures like HRC have little influence on local and state party politics.

By repeating those generalities you " ... have the blinders on and don't look past the most surface aspects of Clinton."

Did you look past the surface and look at her ratings? Her voting record?

[SheilaT]

22. I voted for them. They were not my preferred

candidates, but I didn't find them as distasteful as I find Clinton.

Clearly we disagree on this topic, and neither one is going to be able to convince the other.

[elzenmahn]

43. It was around the Kerry/Edwards campaign...

...that I started to become very attuned to Programmed Corporate Politicians and their triangulating BS.

Both Clintons are merely a continuation of that sordid mindset.

If it keeps out the Repubs, then yes, I'll hold my nose and vote for HRC. But not with any pride.

[karynnj]

23. Kerry voted against the bad bankruptcy bill every time - unlike Clinton and Edwards

The IWR vote is probably the worst vote he ever cast, but he said then, that if Bush did not use it as he said he would, he would speak out. That happened and he did speak out, demanding that we not rush to war. Given Kerry's history and the fact that he, unlike Edwards and Clinton, did speak against the war in early 2003 before the war started, I did not think in 2004 that he was any less "anti-war" than Dean -- who was my second choice. This was from both their statements in fall 2002.

I have never had a minute's regret that I supported Kerry in 2004. He is a very good man.

Edwards was the complete charlatan he was exposed to be in 2008 - he would do or say anything - with wide blue eyes staring forward - that he thought would get him ahead.

Compared to these two, Hillary Clinton is not a fraud like John Edwards. Here, I think her bankruptcy bill the sadder or the two. She had fought the same bill as First Lady, persuading her husband to veto it -- though why any Democrat would not veto it is beyond me. I remember when this came up in 2007 or 2008, their was a claim that she had traded her vote for some change in the bill -- but it was still a completely awful bill that in 2005, she opposed again.

I think these votes show is that Hillary Clinton is a lot like Bill Clinton -- a centrist Democrat, who will make deals that we might be very uncomfortable with, but who will also do some things we will be proud of.

[Maedhros]

28. Who should I believe - your nonsense, or my own lying eyes?

I've watched Hillary since she came into the public consciousness, and she has demonstrated over and over that she is not a Liberal.

Enough of your Third Way propaganda. If Hillary was as great as the Third Way hacks make her out to be, then you wouldn't need to keep trying to convince us that she's something she's not.

/ignore.

[Persondem]

38. God forbid any facts get in the way of your superficial ideas.

Obviously your sweeping generalities carry more weight than her years of voting and the analysis of organizations who focus on particular aspects of her record.

Her voting record and ratings are "propaganda". Ha!! Do you write for Fox "news"??

You know looking out of only your left eye leaves you just as myopic as those fools who only look out of their right.

[Rowdyboy]

9. Would bet every penny I could find on Martin O'Malley being the next Democratic nominee

[BlueCaliDem]

30. He's my preferred nominee, too. But will he have the power of fundraising? Because Jebbie Bush

is going to come out both barrels blazing with cash, so whoever runs for the Democratic nomination better have loads of cash, too. OR, do as President Obama has done - inspire people to the point that the big money guys take notice and decide to donate. I hope Gov. O'Malley has that kind of power.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. I'd take that bet, especially after Brown just got trounced in November

O'Malley has signed some progressive legislation that I like, albeit as the Governor of a consistently blue state with a heavily Democratic legislature. But the election results in November clearly demonstrate his inability to convince the voters that he's moved the state in a positive direction in his 8 years in office.

[Rowdyboy]

55. A valid point but I can't see it as a deal killer

At least not with the field of Democrats I expect in 2016. The OP posits "what if Clinton doesn't run". Warren won't run because IMHO she doesn't want it. Sanders will run for the left and an "Anybody But Sanders" candidate will emerge. O'Malley will have a campaign in place, east coast financial connections and an excellent resume as a functioning liberal Democratic governor.

None of it matters because I feel certain that Clinton will run for and win the nomination. But if she doesn't O'Malley could be formidable.

[CTyankee]

10. If she doesn't run, I think Elizabeth Warren WILL!

And I will support her and work for her as a campaign volunteer!

[RBInMaine]

14. Warren isn't running and if she did she would not win. Hillary can and WILL if she runs.

Warren isn't well known enough, hasn't served long enough, and the WHOLE nation would never elect her. Hillary has MUCH more NATIONAL appeal. The TeaLeft needs to get out of ITS bubble.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. Not gonna happen.

The TeaLeft needs to get out of ITS bubble.

Nope. Not gonna happen.

I like Elizabeth Warren, but if she had trouble running for the Senate the way she had, barely winning the seat from a loser like Scott Brown who couldn't run a campaign if his life depended on it (she won with 53.7% of the vote - in solid BLUE Massachusetts no less!) she has NO chance against Jebbie Bush and his masters' billions.

Consequently, Obama won his U.S. Senate seat with 70% of the vote - a difference of almost 17% compared to Senator Warren. She will have a tough time winning nationally.

It aggravates me to no end that Americans simply refuse to accept a strong progressive like Elizabeth Warren. When will the majority finally wake up?

[TheKentuckian]

49. You really think Keyes was as formidable as any incumbent?

I find the comparison to be ridiculous and a joke of a "point". Keyes was a pure sacrificial lamb, the contest was the primary (if any which is dubious).

It was never a seriously contested race.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. No more and no less than dumbbell Scott Brown.

Dismiss it however you want. He won humongously in a not-so-Blue State compared to Elizabeth Warren's very Blue State - and she was already known on the Federal level, unlike PBO.

To not acknowledge the fact that money trumps everything in an American election - and Jebbie Bush has tons of it while Senator Warren will, due to her position against Wall Street, lack it bitterly - is to do a lot of wishful thinking on your part. She will lose, 100% guaranteed, against Jeb Bush even though she's the better candidate. He'll just have more money to make more negative ads with. The only viable Democratic candidate - currently - who can win against Jeb is Hillary Clinton, whether you like it or not.

It's all about winning the White House for me, and keeping a Democrat in it. It trumps my personal ideology and preferred political wish-list of Liberals. With SCOTUS at stake, and not wanting to see even more Roberts and Alitos get lifetime seats on the highest court in our land since I, well, cherish my reproductive rights, voting rights, civil rights, and gay rights and don't want those overturned - in addition to my health insurance -I'll support the Democratic candidate who can realistically WIN, and so far I haven't seen any evidence - other than a bunch of fawning over her here on DU - that tells me Senator Warren has a snowball's chance in hell against Jebbie.

Consequently? The comparison is spot on even if you don't agree with it, bolstered by the fact that President Obama won both of his elections from very formidable Republicans with 52.9% against McCain and 51.1% against well-funded Romney.

[TheKentuckian]

52. The way I am dismissing is with extreme prejudice. You are being nonsensical about the actual races

in question.

It is straight up dismissive of reality. Relative progressivesness of states doesn't change the conditions of the individual races.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. You are dismissing it based on perosnal political preferences, taking your eye off the big prize.

Good thing that the majority of Americans don't suffer that affliction. I guess it's because we LIKE TO WIN. Better one bird in the hand that ten of them rustling in the bushes.

[Fearless]

11. Pretty please, don't run.

[RBInMaine]

15. She IS running and has the BEST chance to win hands down. And the far left needs to get on the

planet with this. Remember McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Nader, and Kucinich? Gee how did they work out for you? Sanders and Warren are good legislators and right on most issues, but have nowhere near the NATIONAL appeal to win. Plus the fact that Warren has said she is NOT running, and she in fact is NOT running.

Clinton is running and is by far the strongest candidate. If she is nominated, which is likely, only an insane person who wants to help the Republican would not support her. That is the REALITY.

[AtomicKitten]

24. How'd 2008 work out for the TeaHawk?

We've heard these blustery admonitions of inevitability and invincibility before. They were bullshit then and are bullshit now.

[elzenmahn]

44. HEAR, HEAR!!!!!

I've been saying this for a long time:

2008 was HRC's to lose. And SHE LOST IT.

She allowed herself to get complacent, betting on a knockout blow on Super Tuesday. That the knockout blow didn't come should have been a wake-up call to her and her campaign.

This inevitability BS (brought on in large part by the MSM and the Clinton's formidable fund-raising apparatus), I fear, will cause the same type of complacency. If she really wants the presidency, she will have to earn it on the campaign trail.

[Fearless]

35. Best chance to maintain the oligarchy I suppose.

[Ramses]

56. "far left"

Um hmm.

[craigmatic]

12. We still have Biden and a bunch of blue state dems to run.

[davidpdx]

16. I would say with 99.9% certainty she's going to run

It's just a feeling, a very bad one.

[Thinkingabout]

41. She will not win, she is very good in her foeld of expertise but not for the office of president.

She is smart enough to know she is not comfortable outside of her expertise. The last time an economists got a bill passed in Congress was gramm bliley leach act.

[Hoppy]

17. Why, Thank you, Jesus.

[joshcryer]

18. If Hillary Clinton does not run, a Republican wins the White House.

Simple as that. Really fucking simple.

Only Clinton, and Clinton only, can espouse the virtues of the Democratic Party. Every other potential candidate with a "following" has for the past few years shit on most other Democrats. They cannot and will not win. You don't shit on your own party and expect to win the Presidency. It's absurd.

[elzenmahn]

45. Really?

So cozying up to the Big Banks and telling them that she thinks that the outcry against their fraud was "counterproductive" is a Democratic Party virtue?

So her War Vote is a "Democratic Party" virtue?

I'm not sold, joshcryer. The only reason I would vote for her is to keep the Repubs out.

But she's too Corporate and too much of a hawk for me to lend any additional support.

[Reter]

25. Then we all jump for joy

n/t

[oneview]

27. What if the sun doesn't rise again tomorrow? What if the Spring never comes?

What if pigs had wings, and then opted not to fly?

She's running. Get ready!

[rogerashton]

31. She would be a formidable candidate and better than any Republican.

But she is 67. I don't mean that as an issue. It is probable that she will still be healthy and vigorous in 2024, and, president or not, I wish her that good fortune. My point is, at our age (I'm a bit older) there is a non-negligible probability of life-changing or life-ending health problems in any year that passes. Which means she may be unable to run. If we don't have anyone on the bench, the Democratic Party would be in trouble. That's one reason I hope other prominent Democrats will give her at least a challenge.

[mylye2222]

33. If so Biden could run.

Or even Dean. Anyway. ... if she decides not to run...well.... time to celebrate a fair primary season!

[Jester Messiah]

34. It would be a political earthquake.

Both major parties would be thrown for a loop. The strategies for '16 have been laid, including Hillary as a major factor. Anyone seeking the Dem nomination (aside from Hillary herself) is going to have planned on defining themselves in contrast to Hillary. Anyone planning on running against her in the general is going to have planned on devoting resources to exploiting Hillary's strengths & weaknesses since she's the presumptive nominee. People will have chosen their campaign staff based on how well they can support a Hillary-centric campaign.

If she doesn't run, that all gets thrown out the window. It'll be chaos and swirl as everyone races to retool their strategies and organizations.

[1step]

36. Heidi Klum will make me her personal sex slave

And then trade me to Julianne Moore.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Good!

[WhoWoodaKnew]

46. Jeb will win.

[Persondem]

47. Bush may win the Rep. nomination, but he does have a serious problem to his right.

Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-might-have-a-tea-party-problem-in-2016/

[MADem]

48. You can be certain that there would be a cadre of people who would be terribly disappointed

solely because they'd have one less thing to complain about.

The "Happiest When Miserable" cadre would have to find another whipping boy/girl upon whom to heap their disdain.

[tularetom]

51. I don't like her and the idea of a Clinton-Bush choice in 2016 pisses me off

And I live in a reliably blue state so my vote in a presidential election is moot.

Nevertheless, if she is the candidate, I will probably vote for her as the lesser of two evils, just as I did in 1964, 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2012.

Or I might just write in Elizabeth Warren or somebody else, just so I can spend the next four years on DU saying "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Hillary".

[RussBLib]

57. ANNOUNCE ALREADY and get it over with!

WTF is taking her so long to make it official?