What Would Make Hillary (Not) Run?

Tom Bevan presents five reasons that Hillary Clinton will not run for president:

  • She’s a poor campaigner
  • Her desire to be president might not be great enough
  • It won’t be a coronation
  • Obama is leaving a mess
  • The country is hungry for change

Rather than making an argument as to why she won’t run, I think that Mr. Bevan is actually making a better case for why if she runs she won’t win.

I think a better argument was made a while ago and which I took note of at the time, that this whole fan dance has been a cynical ploy for making money.

Quite to the contrary, I think that a taste for the presidency is an appetite that doesn’t go away and she’s had it for some time. Remember too, the notions of risk and reward required to seek and gain high political office are very different than yours or mine. Politicians are constitutionally optimistic, not inclined to consider costs, and inclined to over-estimate their own abilities. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Mitt Romney ran again.

20 comments… add one
  • ...

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • Presumably her 2016 campaign slogan

  • jan

    The Clintons’ raw ambition (both Hillary and Bill) for sequential power is palatable. Sometimes Hillary’s candidacy, leading to a presidential win, seems inevitable. How do you counter the enormous machine they’ve built up over the years, augmented by the democratic party’s urgency to now claim ownership of the first woman American president, following their prize accomplishment of having the first Black American president? After all, the throngs of dem voters out there do seem more impressed and drawn to the gender/ethnic make-up of their candidates, than by any significant economic/foreign policy records created while in office, let alone the personal qualifications they may have forged outside of their government service.

    Nonetheless, this Selena Zito piece brings up a “sleeper” condition out there that subtly hangs over us, like a fog bank ready to inauspiciously blanket an election shoreline. It’s called populism, and was the basis of an outside-the-beltway revolt creating the Tea Party movement in 2010. Some are suggesting it was involved in the recent defeat of Cantor in VA, being that ordinary people are unhappy — the ones that are first financially tapped and then strapped in paying for this country’s inane, oftentimes lopsided policies.

    Populism is much more complicated than most people realize; it cannot be manufactured, cannot be forced, and no one person or handful of people can claim to inspire it. Populism, at its core, is driven by personal economics, disconnection from representative government and frustration with the lack of power to change either.

    Only this particular backdrop of “mood” makes me wonder if HRC has what people really want — more of the same.

  • TastyBits


    Hillary Clinton will never be president. Anybody can bookmark this comment and let me know if I am wrong.

    The American people are not stupid. They may not move as quickly as you or the other side would like, but eventually, they move. When they do move, hubris usually takes a beating.

    Expect the shrill cries to increase. You cannot hear it – “tick-tock, tick-tock”, but they can. Time is not their friend, and they know it.

  • steve

    I think (hope) people are tired of these political families. I think they will reject Hillary, Jeb, Rand and Mitt. Not sure the new folks will be much better, but we know what the old people give us and it is not good.


  • Guarneri

    You need to add another dot point: her computer crashed and all her emails were lost. All her contacts and all the information she needs to run has been lost.

    I know. Simply amazing. But its a problem that’s been going around.

  • michael reynolds

    Two parties will advance candidates. We will choose between them. If they are named Clinton and Bush then we’ll chose one or the other.

    If populism matters in this round it will be at the nomination level. The only “populist” in the Democratic Party who can challenge Clinton is Warren. But there are dozens of Tea Party and fringe candidates on the Right.

    Problem is that right-wing “populism” is toxic. Paul, Santorum, Cruz . . . these are people that start with a third of the vote and can get it all the way up to the low 40’s maybe, but not beyond. So if it’s Hillary vs. any of those folks, Hillary wins. The only chance the GOP has is to run Bush 3 or Christie or some other mainstream Republican.

    So, bottom line, IMO, populism will likely have no impact on the blue team, and can only harm the red team.

    As much as I’ve been warning against arrogance, this is Hillary’s to lose. Remember the African-American turnout for Obama? Blacks are 10% of the population, women are 51% and Democrats already have a gender gap in their favor.

    If I were running the GOP I’d be looking at Kelly Ayotte or Susana Martinez. Failing that, you go to Bush 3 or Christie (depending on the way the bridge thing plays out.) If I were putting money on it I’d guess it goes to Bush 3, always assuming he wants it.

    It will be especially fascinating to see who Hillary picks as Veep. Latino? Another woman? Or an establishment white guy to calm Jan down?

  • CStanley

    I’m pretty surprised at the tepid reaction to her pre-campaign rollout, and at how poorly she has performed. She seems to have been caught off guard at questions about their finances, which only shows how thoroughly she expects the media to fall in line, I imagine that a lot of arm twisting is currently going on behind the scenes,

    It will be especially fascinating to see who Hillary picks as Veep. Latino? Julian Castro would be my bet.

  • Jimbino

    As much as I find Hillary’s socialist tendencies distasteful, I have to admit that she’s a smart cookie who can speak Standard Amerikan English, as opposed to Bill’s “…between Hillary and I….” type of solecism.

    If she had a clue about STEM, I could vote for her, considering that none of her opponents, nor POTUS, none but Breyer on SCOTUS, and few in COTUS have a clue either.

    I’ll be long gone before Amerika ever elects to POTUS a multi-lingual, scientist, atheist, and female leader like Angela Merkel. No doubt the USSA will be long gone by then, too, and for that reason.

    I try hard to think of an Amerikan woman in politics with those qualities. We haven’t had anyone in SCOTUS or POTUS who comes close, male or female, and I haven’t even heard of a multi-lingual, atheist, female scientist in Amerika, though there must be millions in China and Japan.

  • jan

    “If I were running the GOP I’d be looking at Kelly Ayotte or Susana Martinez. Failing that, you go to Bush 3 or Christie (depending on the way the bridge thing plays out.) If I were putting money on it I’d guess it goes to Bush 3, always assuming he wants it.”</i.

    I continue to be caught off guard when I agree with you Michael. But, the last post you wrote makes lots of sense, especially the part speculating about Ayotte or Martinez. If nothing else, either of these steady, smart women would make excellent VPs. I don't think Jeb will run, even though I think he wants the job. There is just too much antipathy towards the Bush name. Also, Romney is done with seeking the presidency. I don't think he really was all that into it, even in 2012 — it was more that 'duty called him,' than a personal burning desire to be POTUS, such as what plagues HRC.

    “It will be especially fascinating to see who Hillary picks as Veep. Latino? Julian Castro would be my bet.”

    That would be a safe wager to make. Julian Castro is being groomed for the job.

  • ...

    Castro has the thinnest resume of anyone ever considered for national office. Check out his salary as Mayor of SA to see what I’m getting at. But at least he’s a real Hispanic, unlike Ted Cruz, lol!

  • jan

    “Castro has the thinnest resume of anyone ever considered for national office.”

    He’s perfect, then, following in the footsteps of the current POTUS!

    Also, continuing with a stream of thought about potential slots to be filled in the GOP: There is political contemplation for a possible job that Jeb Bush might less conspicuously slip into in 2016, delivering Florida to a GOP ticket. As for Mitt Romney, he seems more comfortable in the role of Kingmaker than presidential candidate.

  • CStanley

    The recent padding of the resume is what makes me suspicious, ice pick.

  • michael reynolds

    The Veep choice is interesting because it will go to her vision of her campaign and potentially government. If she’s going for unity, she goes safe white dude. If she wants to sharpen the GOP”s definition as the white man’s party, she goes Latino.

    Julian Castro is too young, too green. Here’s my out-of-left-field guy for Veep. Entrepreneur. Latino. Combat vet, disabled in service. https://www.microtech.net/meet-ceo.

    Ultimately of course vetting has a lot to do with it. The bench isn’t that deep.

    Now, who does Christy go with? Has to be someone to his right, not so freaky he scares off the establishment, but someone marginally at least acceptable to the crazies. Can he go to Marco Rubio? Can’t do Cruz, Cruz is nuts and a loose cannon. Too bad any black man in the GOP is mentally unbalanced. If he can’t do a Latino he has to go female. So who’s a right-wing female with some cred?

  • Andy

    I’m depressed wear already talking about the next campaign.

  • Andy

    Ugh, “we’re” – stupid ipad

  • michael reynolds


    Have you started shopping for Christmas 2017 yet? Don’t wait til the last minute.

  • Andy

    Well played sir!

  • ...

    Andy, what’s depressing is that the choices are so horrid. And I thought the gubernatorial race in Florida was bad this year. (The Dems are a complete joke down here. The best they can come up with for a candidate is a former & failed Republican governor in the hip pocket of one of the nation’s biggest ambulance chasers. Revolting.)

  • Andy

    Ice, I’m with you on Florida, but hey, there’s always Crist, right?

Leave a Comment