Get PJ Media on your Apple

Odds Favor a Hillary Clinton Candidacy

If she can win the Democratic nomination, there's no reason for her not to run. Also read: Hillary Clinton Is ‘Deeply Disturbed’ that the Supreme Court Upheld a Law Her Husband Signed

by
Rich Baehr

Bio

July 1, 2014 - 9:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

It is easier, at this point, to address the issue like this: “Will Hillary be nominated if she runs? If that’s true, then will she run.”

This is not because I think there is much doubt about whether she will run. I expect Clinton to run, and her activities since her defeat in 2008 in the nominating contest against Barack Obama suggest a long, meticulously planned road to get back to where and what she thinks she deserves. But, as Tom Bevan has noted at Real Clear Politics, there are reasons she might choose not to go for it. Bevan provides five possible outs: Hillary is not that good at campaigning, she may lack the fire in the belly, winning is not guaranteed, Obama is leaving a mess, and the country wants real change.

I think any doubt about the fire in the belly misses the Clinton family dynamic — Hillary needs to be running and serving the family to stay relevant. Politics is their industry. Would the Clinton Global Initiative, whatever exactly this is, get the attention and pampering it does from well-heeled people, corporations, and foreign governments if it were perceived that Hillary was done with politics? If daughter Chelsea is being groomed for a future political role, isn’t a Hillary run essential to breaking the ceiling first and keeping the family industry operating?

Bill and Hillary are a perfectly matched couple in that each of them seems to have had ambitions for the highest office from their teenage years. This is not a normal level of ambition or narcissism to sustain for five decades, even among the excessively ambitious political class.

Hillary thought 2008 would be a cakewalk, but was tripped up by a younger, more exciting, and more agile candidate who appealed to Democrats as a true believer rather than the establishment liberal offered up by a Clinton. Hillary and Bill will not find such a threat for the nomination within the Democratic Party this time around. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren may be the closest to setting leftist hearts aflutter with her fake populism and anger at Wall Street, but it is far more likely that Warren will only backtrack on her publicly expressed lack of interest in running if Hillary surprises and chooses not to run.

The near-glide path to the nomination is what makes a Clinton run so much more likely. Yes, her book launch has shown she is not a natural in front of the camera like Bill — or even Obama — when scripted. But if her only potential opponents in the primaries are former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, Joe Biden, and Vermont socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, then she has nothing to fear. Even the Clinton machine’s history of prodigious and wasteful campaign spending will still leave lots of money for more of a general election campaign during the nominating period than is normally the case.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
A number of variables left out of this equation.

1) ANY African American jumps into the fray (Booker, Jarrett, Rice) and the "glide" hits more than just speed bumps.

(The Woodstock Jihad has a firmer grasp of its renegades than the GOP and they tend to stay on the reservation. Obama crossed that line though and didn't wait his turn, spoiling Hillary's coronation. If the enmity between Obama/Jarrett camp is real, there could be a surprise candidate lurking, waiting for a massive cratering of THIS coronation)

2) Health. Granny Crankypants has a blood clotting and fainting problem that quite possibly is chronic. That means excessive air travel exacerbates the issue. She is a weak campaigner to begin with, if she is hamstrung by not being fit enough for a grueling primary followed by a grueling general...a shrewd insider could carve her out of the herd.

3) wild cards. The economy, the Middle East, Iran, Benghazi, Israel, Russia, China, the borders. Obama/Jarrett have left Pandora's Box open and ANY one major catastrophe that she is either tied to or can't distance herself from...could do in her candidacy. If Benghazi blows open and they don't destroy enough material evidence to cover up the dirty understory...she's toast.

4) if Pravda turns on her. The Woodstock Jihad media has disgraced itself beyond its ordinary levels for the past six years. It will always be an in the tank, lapdog disgrace. But it won't adhere to the sniveling, groveling, lying tub of excrement it has been for Obama. Obama is dismissive of them, sees them as tools. (In every definition)

She loathes them and they won't be afraid of her skin tone. We've seen bits of this already.

5) related to 4) above. The Soros/Ayers hard left want to crush America and Israel. She doesn't fit the role of revolutionary zealot, she's Alinsky-lite. If they think they can finish the job by finding someone willing to be a One World Socialist coup d' grace deliverer...they could put the weight of the cult against her.

She has to be willing to sellout America and Israel. She is and she has...but only as a foot soldier.

Her crown is waiting. But so are the many traps from her left along the way.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not reason for her not to run? How about the fact that she's utterly unqualified for the job.

It says a lot about what is wrong with this country that, as with Obama, that's not considered a disqualification, particularly if some quota is to be met.
22 weeks ago
22 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (34)
All Comments   (34)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
It would be naive' of Republicans (which is all too common) to believe that Hillary's baggage will be any more of a hindrance to her than Obama's empty suit was for him. Her negatives have always been there...and yet, she is the presumptive nominee. Preliminary polling suggests she will beat any male candidate that the GOP puts up. I believe that polling is correct.

Low information voters vote based upon an illegitimate criteria (benefits of socialism)...so voting for an illegitimate candidate ( a socialist) is fully consistent and predictable.

The problem that the GOP faces is white male fatigue. They won't win, no matter how much more qualified than Hillary they are....because there are too many voters who disqualify them based upon their demographic. The only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary is one who cannot be painted with waging the war on women...and thats another woman.

If the GOP, as a party, actually wanted to win the White House...and that is questionable....then they would nominate a woman and do it before Hillary even formally announces. Take the historic sensationalism of the "first female presidential nominee" away from her. We saw what Rick Lazio was up against with her...She was the instant victim and milked that dry...instead of being the fraudulent carpetbagger that she actually was.

The majority of voters are women. The GOP won't garner enough minority votes to even get close to winning. It will take a larger than expected female vote to beat Hillary....and only another woman can deliver them.....especially one with chief executive credentials...My choice? Nikki Haley.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
The American people will vote for a woman even if they known that it will doom us all. I know...I have a sister who says she'll vote for her no matter what the situation is in the country. If they elected a Chicago nobody twice, then they will elect an elitist snob like HRC.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
She's old, likely frail, cannot abide being denied, thin-skinned, has a long lackluster career- for a reason ...
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Plus I understand her Secret Service detail has special orders to watch out for buckets of water that could be thrown on her...they ain't worried about mermaid fins.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren?

Ugh…what a choice...

My head says Hillary Clinton, since she is – believe it or not – less likely to ruin the country.

But my heart so loathes her…the notion of her sitting behind the desk, so smug…just, ugh.

To paraphrase Kissinger: it’s a pity they can’t both lose (I just assume either would win the general election).
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm glad you explained the "pity they can't both lose." I was thinking YES -- BOTH the Democrat and the Republican.

But unfortunately I don't like any of the third parties, either.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
She's running and if the fools who voted for Obama cuz he be black vote for her cuz she be a woman...coupled with more voter fraud than anywhere on earth (I count entitlements voter fraud) ....

.....she's a shoo-in.

Know any single women?....try to educate 'em, OK?
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps a 45 year old, Native American, Female, Disabled Veteran, Bi-Sexual could beat her. That trumps the 60 + white chick.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
But veterans are so last year. See 'Veterans Administration scandal.'

Now Jane Fonda following a sex ch ... I mean, gender reassignment surgery ... that I could see. With careful faking of the rest, of course.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are plenty of reasons for HRC to not run. It's still probably only a 50/50 proposition at this time ... perhaps less now given the reception of her and her book this past coupla weeks. She went over like the proverbial brown thing in the bottom of a punch bowl with all but the most hagiographic worshippers on the feminist circuit.

But we'll soon see. HRC has to announce one way or the other by the end of the calendar year. If she decides to not run and that decision comes too late for the other candidates to gear up their campaigns (which really need to get going before the end of this year) she will be resented and rightfully so for her selfishness.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Are there any semi-qualified Hispanic candidates waiting in the wings? This could be the Dems chance to cement another minority block into their coalition.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Everybody assumes that identity politics is the sole consideration for the Democrats. People are forgetting about ambition and the concentration of power in the Dem party in three major power centers: New York City, Chicago, and Hollywood (with maybe a fourth center in Silicon Valley).

The power centers are so defined by their concentration of Democratic donors, media, and generations-long relationships. A candidate doesn't have to be from one of those centers (as Obama was), but they darn well better have great relationships with the power brokers that are (the Clintons and their lock on money in NYC and Hollywood being an obvious example).

So look to the powers that be in those three or four power centers .... that suggests candidates like Gov. Cuomo, Mayor Emmanuel, and Gov. Brown, more so than the liberal flavor dujure, Elizabeth Warren.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Odds favor a Hillary Clinton candidacy." And the odder they are, the more they favor it.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sorry... I couldn't get past the title.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
A number of variables left out of this equation.

1) ANY African American jumps into the fray (Booker, Jarrett, Rice) and the "glide" hits more than just speed bumps.

(The Woodstock Jihad has a firmer grasp of its renegades than the GOP and they tend to stay on the reservation. Obama crossed that line though and didn't wait his turn, spoiling Hillary's coronation. If the enmity between Obama/Jarrett camp is real, there could be a surprise candidate lurking, waiting for a massive cratering of THIS coronation)

2) Health. Granny Crankypants has a blood clotting and fainting problem that quite possibly is chronic. That means excessive air travel exacerbates the issue. She is a weak campaigner to begin with, if she is hamstrung by not being fit enough for a grueling primary followed by a grueling general...a shrewd insider could carve her out of the herd.

3) wild cards. The economy, the Middle East, Iran, Benghazi, Israel, Russia, China, the borders. Obama/Jarrett have left Pandora's Box open and ANY one major catastrophe that she is either tied to or can't distance herself from...could do in her candidacy. If Benghazi blows open and they don't destroy enough material evidence to cover up the dirty understory...she's toast.

4) if Pravda turns on her. The Woodstock Jihad media has disgraced itself beyond its ordinary levels for the past six years. It will always be an in the tank, lapdog disgrace. But it won't adhere to the sniveling, groveling, lying tub of excrement it has been for Obama. Obama is dismissive of them, sees them as tools. (In every definition)

She loathes them and they won't be afraid of her skin tone. We've seen bits of this already.

5) related to 4) above. The Soros/Ayers hard left want to crush America and Israel. She doesn't fit the role of revolutionary zealot, she's Alinsky-lite. If they think they can finish the job by finding someone willing to be a One World Socialist coup d' grace deliverer...they could put the weight of the cult against her.

She has to be willing to sellout America and Israel. She is and she has...but only as a foot soldier.

Her crown is waiting. But so are the many traps from her left along the way.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are two things I see as potential trouble spots for Hillary: Her precarious health & the fact that the media outlets are not cutting her much slack at all, Diane Sawyer & Terry Gross being glaring examples. Then there is Klein's tell-all, gossip-laden book that certainly doesn't paint a very pretty picture of her. Doesn't help one bit either that she's a classic case of being her own worst enemy.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy bobbcat
Your definition of "...not cutting her much slack at all..." and mine must be different. Granted they slobber less over Clinton than they did over Obama, it's still "in the tank" coverage.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, on the surface the "in the tank" crowd may seem dominant ... but look how quickly the same folks dumped HRC in 2008 as if she was yesterday's pair of panties. It's what one might call support that is a mile wide and an inch deep. There are already quite a few lefty commentators and media outfits that have already started dumping on her - it took far longer into the 2008 election cycle for that to happen, and that happened only when they had the silver tongued teleprompter reader to send tingles up their legs. Today, with no visible competiton for the left wing media's attention, they are already snuffling and harumphing that HRC is not that shiny new toy they were pining to find under the Christmas tree.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Much of the character of the low level griping from lefties about HRC's unimpressive debut on the talking head circuit goes like this:

"She's had, what, six years to get ready for this moment ... and she can't even answer a simple question about her wealth without sounding defensive and dishonest and inauthentic? Sheesh!" And these comments are coming from her supporters!
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Go take a peek at those interviews, MTG. Both ladies put her on the spot & her reaction was rather defensive. She had a chip on her shoulder & they both managed to knock it off. Their lines of questioning were a far cry from the usual soft-ball fare that the libs typically get. It was as if both were out to embarrass her & they succeeded quite nicely.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All