Decision 2012

Remove all ads!

Oh, I'm certainly not arguing against her qualifications for the job. She's extremely well qualified. There aren't too many people who can list First Lady (not an elected position, nor even a direct position of power, but certainly one with a lot of influence), Senator, and Secretary of State on their resumes. But I do agree that 2016 represents the "now or never" point if she has any designs on ever becoming president.

The only negative thing I could say about a potential Hillary run is that she will be running against a lot of history - and I don't just mean being the first woman with a real shot of winnning. It is extremely rare for the same party to win three presidential elections in a row - since FDR's four straight terms, the only time it's happened is in the 1980, 1984, and 1988 elections. The usual thought is that parties learn from prior election failures and don't repeat them. (Granted that learning process may not apply to the current Republican party.) OTOH, Democrats certainly seem to have a electoral college advantage with the current distribution, and that advantage will still be in place in 2016.

 

IMO, the current model is simply that the citizenry tends to get tired of the dominant political party in the office of president after 8 (but not yet 4) years and then replaces them. W. is thought of very poorly now and yet he won his second term without a lot of trouble. The thought today of re-electing The Dub is about as preposterous as it gets, and yet there he was in 2004. He replaced Clinton after 8 years. Obama has now replaced him for 8 years and won his second term without much gusto. I think it's just a default 8 year cycle now.

Also, Hillary won't give up on political aspirations until she's in the ground, lol. If she could steal the office of president out from under Obama somehow, I have little doubt that she would.

 

Did you inadvertently reverse the two? W won a squeaker against Kerry. 1.7% advantage in the popular vote, and he needed Ohio (which he won by just 60,000 votes) to get the victory in the election. (He finished with 285 electoral votes, of which Ohio had 20 at the time - so he absolutely need to have it.) OTOH, it looks like Obama, after all the counting becomes official will win the popular vote by 2.3%, and will finish with 332 electoral votes, and he could have lost both Florida and Ohio and still won the election.

So the guy who just barely won did so "without a lot of trouble", and the guy who wins comfortably did it "without much gusto"? Like I said, did you just inadvertently switch the names?

 

lol ... I mean W. as compared to the notorious 2000 election, and Obama without much gusto, as in without a lot of popular favor and in the face of a weak economy, etc. He backed in, basically. If he was exceptionally well-regarded, he would have taken the popular vote by more than 50.5%. There was far from a mandate in either his or W's re-elections, though I'm not really here to argue election statistics. My point is - they both won despite voter blahs, imo because voters, while uninspired, were also not yet tired enough of either of them to kick them out. That seems nowadays to come after 6 years or so.

 

Eh, it really depends on her health and overall mentality. I mean, she's at an age where living it high, not having to be on edge 20 hours per day and having ample time for the Margarittas has its charms. I could be wrong, and a lot of things can happen between now and 2016, but I wouldn't immediately put her as a 2016 presidential candidate.

 

I don't think it's particularly likely she'll prevail either at this point (at some point the try-and-try-again types like Al Gore just seem to fall out of favor), but I do think she'll want it until the end. Remember how tenacious she was in the 2008 democratic primaries? I think that race was more hotly contested than the subsequent presidency, heh.

I'd hate to go up against her in any battle of wills ... she'd roll right over you and grind you into fine particles. Scary woman - and an effective secretary of state.

 

Gaear,

Maybe it's me - but I'm just not getting any of these analogies you're making. The try and try again types like Al Gore? When did he run for president other than in 2000? He didn't even compete in the primaries in 2004. I think he tried to win the Democratic nomination once previously - I seem to remember that, but that's nothing unique. Joe Biden has tried to win the Democratic nomination half a dozen times (not hyperbole - I think his first attempt was when he lost to Dukakis in 1988, and I think he attempted it every election thereafter, including 2008, eventually accepting the VP spot). And of course Romney attempted to secure the nomination in 2008 as well.

Now Gore certainly ran for office many times - he held multiple terms as both a Congressman and Senator for Tennessee, but that's not really try and try again, as he was winning. (Maybe that's where the disconnect is coming - I tend to view "try and try again" to apply when you fail but keep attempting to succeed.) I'm pretty sure the only presidential tickets he was on was the two with Clinton when he won, and the infamous 2000 election where he won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

 

I'm sure it's just a matter of perceptions and perspective Aldeth, which tend to be different for most everybody. To me, Gore represents the composite career politician. Came from a long-ish career in congress following hs dad, rode shotgun to Clinton for eight years with the constant knowledge that in 2000 he would be handed the mantle, did indeed run in 2000 and lost in probably the most contentious election I can remember, hung around for months afterward while it was all sorted out, flirted with the idea of another go in 2004 for quite a while if I'm not completely off my rocker (I honestly didn't remember he wasn't a formal contender then, he's so ingrained in my inner politcal landscape), and then morphed into the harbinger of global warming doom, where to this day he maintains his constant perch atop the earth's future tombstone and issues daily morbid warnings on human folly. The fact that he's a wooden indian and has no rhythm only makes him more impossible to ignore.

Anyway - that comment wasn't even about Al Gore!

 

Come on guys! The election is over! Surely you must be all electioned out for now? You should take a break from all this for a few years and come ready to get back into it in 2016.

 

Oh, well if that's your point, you should have just said so. I'll readily agree that prior to 2000, the only thing he really did after graduating with his law degree was politics. (And that's largely true of Hillary true - while she didn't hold elected office until 2000, being the wife of a politician means you have to master quite a bit of political skills yourself.)

On Gore, you are correct that he thought about running again in 2004, but eventually decided against it. Between 2001 and 2003, his global warming work really took off, and he decided he wanted to continue with that rather than run in 2004. So he didn't even run for the nomination. Most people did expect that he would run again in 2004, and the Democratic party was then left holding the bag with a choice between John Kerry and Howard Dean, neither of which were optimal selections.