Harry Enten examines the reasons that Hillary Clinton may decide not to run for the presidency after all:
The current environment suggests Clinton would need to be stronger than a generic Democratic candidate to be considered the favorite. Instead, her standing has deteriorated. YouGov has been polling Clinton’s favorable ratings among adults over the past six years (adults overall tend to be more Democratic leaning than just registered voters).
I’ll give you several reasons she may decide not to run and one reason she might. The factors against her running are:
- Her trends are going the wrong way. Her popularity is decreasing not increasing.
- Democrats’ trends are going the wrong way. Same with the popularity of “generic Democrat”.
- The underlying economic and political factors in 2016 may not favor a third Obama term which is how she would inevitably be seen.
- She would take a serious financial hit to run for the presidency.
IMO the honest truth is that if Sec. Clinton runs it doesn’t much matter who she’s running against. Her name recognition approaches 100% and everybody’s already made up their minds about her.
Here’s the reason she’ll run. Running for president is a nasty habit like gambling or narcotics. Once you’re hooked it’s hard to shake.
Sometimes the fever eventually abates. I think it might here due to the mix of age & money. But you never know. Romney doesn’t seem to have shaken the fever yet, and both the McCain & Dole runs made no damned sense. Not to mention Biden looking to run again after runs in 2008 and 1988.
My impression though is that it is Bill who has always had the fever. I think she’ll settle for the money and power that they already enjoy.
I think she’ll run. The odds are in her favor if she does, probably more so than they might have been in any previous part of our history. She’s a known quantity, so to speak, the not-too-extreme liberal who won’t really excite other liberals but won’t disappoint them too much either, and who won’t terrorize conservative politicians or voters the way Elizabeth Warren might. She’ll be able to speak with Republicans, just like Barak Obama. She’ll be firm and tough in foreign affairs when it’s necessary, conciliatory and soft-spoken when it’s helpful, just like Barak Obama. She’ll be able to negotiate with Wall Street bankers, just like Barak Obama. She’s the Democrat all Republicans will be comfortable with, in other words, so there won’t be a lot of rabidly partisan anti-Hilary voters coming to the polls.
Also, she’s simply widely viewed as an electable candidate, and I think that’s going to make her very attractive to about 120 million women voters who may not agree with all her politics, but all of whom are going to be thinking that after 240 years of male domination of American politics it would just be fair to finally elect a woman president. I don’t think Hilary would choose to disappoint such voters even if she were personally reluctant to run the office in 2016.
I’ve kinda mixed feelings myself, to be honest. But I tell myself, Israel had Golda Meir, the UK had Margaret Thatcher (and several Queen Elizabeths), India had Indira Gandhi, Argentina had Isabel Peron, Norway and Iceland and Ceylon have all had women as prime ministers in recent decades. We will probably survive HRC as President. I won’t venture any guesses about how successful she might be, however.
She’ll be able to speak with Republicans, just like Barak Obama.
The record has shown that Obama barely speaks with Congressmen & Senators on HIS side, and virtually not at all with Republican Congressmen & Senators.