US Hildawg 2020 Megathread - She rules out 2020 run, but says 'I'm not going anywhere'

  • Thread starter Thread starter RG 448
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
she’s considering another presidential run, telling a New York City audience on Friday that she would be well suited to the office.

During a far-ranging interview with Kara Swisher of the technology website Recode(Ms. Swisher is also a contributor to The Times’s Opinion section), Mrs. Clinton initially said “no” when asked whether she wanted to run for president again. She then paused and repeated “no.”

But after Ms. Swisher noted the slight hesitation, Mrs. Clinton seemed to reconsider her response, saying that a major task of the next Democratic president will be improving the international standing of the United States.

“Well, I’d like to be president,” she said, during the public taping at the 92nd Street Y of Ms. Swisher’s podcast. "The work would be work that I feel very well prepared for having been at the Senate for eight years, having been a diplomat in the State Department, and it’s just going to be a lot of heavy lifting.”

Mrs. Clinton has become a more visible presence in recent weeks, increasing the number of her public appearances and raising money for Democrats across the country. Last week, she spoke at a fund-raiser for Donna Shalala, a former Clinton administration official, who is running for a House seat in Florida.

“She will always be a winner and I’ll always be with her,” said Ms. Shalala, introducing Mrs. Clinton to a room full of 200 Democratic donors in Miami.

Mrs. Clinton said she wouldn’t consider a possible run in 2020 until after the midterm elections next week.

“I’m not even going to even think about it until we get through this Nov. 6 election,” she said. “But I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure we have a Democrat in the White House come January of 2021.”

Should she mount a third presidential bid, Mrs. Clinton would be entering a Democratic field crowded with potential contenders, a major shift from 2016, when nearly no Democrats were eager to challenge her.

Mrs. Clinton said she expects a crowded field of as many as 20 Democrats.

“I think we’d have a number of excellent candidates who would be really formidable on the campaign trail, but let’s wait and see who it is,” she said. "I’m just going to wait and watch what happens.”

Mrs. Clinton dismissed some of the calls for her to retreat from public life as sexist.

“There were no articles telling Al Gore to go away or John Kerry to go away or John McCain or Mitt Romney to go away,” she said. “Mitt Romney is going to the Senate, that’s where he’s going.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/...njrGrvSt4OQXEaaRhIucX1lF0uxBqgQZE1z56E4Giq7xU
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's almost like they want to lose everything. If democrats run Hillary in 2020 then they deserve to crash and burn.
 
They probably will lose everything if she does decide to run because

1) She and her cronies might be egotistical enough to essentially to squander the DNCs campaign treasury just to promote her candidacy at the expense of everyone else;
2) Her candidacy would also completely rile up the Republican base again; and
3) Her candidacy would make a number of Democrats sit out again or vote for Trump (unless he does something unforgivable)
 
A survey shows that if the 2016 presidential election were held today Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote. The American Barometer was conducted by Hill.TV and the polling company HarrisX.

Based on the responses, the poll found that 36 percent of voters would vote for Trump again while 44 percent would vote for Clinton.

4 percent said they would vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 2 percent said they would vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Other options allowed respondents to choose not to vote in this hypothetical situation, to decline to vote, or choose someone else.

When these options were taken away and people were asked to choose between Trump or Clinton, the number of people who would vote for Trump increased to 40 percent while Clinton surpassed him with 50 percent. The survey was conducted online between September 14 and September 15 among 1,000 registered voters. The results were weighted for age within gender, region, race and ethnicity, income and education. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

During the 2016 election, Clinton had won the popular vote with 48.2 percent. Trump still managed to win the Electoral College and land the presidency.

"In 2016, I think a bunch of Americans thought to themselves “let’s just blow things up and see what happens,'” John Podesta, Clinton campaign chief, said to Hill.TV regarding the poll. "Now that they have actually seen what happens, they wish they could get back to the strong, steady leadership that Hillary has always provided."

"I think that the [44] percent or so that said they supported Hillary Clinton, that's not enough to get you reelected,” Democratic pollster Molly Murphy told Hill.TV regarding the poll. “I think that that's people who liked Hillary Clinton who still like her, and still would vote for her again," she continued.

A different survey conducted by Hill.TV showed that 46 percent of people approved of Trump while his disapproval rating is higher at 54 percent.

In a poll conducted by the Republican National Committee in September, 45 percent of respondents said they would vote for a Republican candidate who supports President Trump, while 50 percent said they would choose a Democratic candidate who would be a check and balance for the president.

https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-cl...jSMRgpq-8TmD6V5c366-BA_jgoVYdB14p0guZ13xBHyRw

I'm sure they said something similar first time around too.
 
A survey shows that if the 2016 presidential election were held today Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote
lmao she won the popular vote in 2016, it just doesn’t matter because that’s not how we pick our presidents.
 
Just come out and say you're running you old hag. Get it over with, no one thinks otherwise.
 
"In 2016, I think a bunch of Americans thought to themselves “let’s just blow things up and see what happens,'” John Podesta, Clinton campaign chief, said to Hill.TV regarding the poll. "Now that they have actually seen what happens, they wish they could get back to the strong, steady leadership that Hillary has always provided."

I'm across the pond, and the most blowing up I've seen is with extreme lefties throwing tantrums at every little thing they could think of while claiming everyone else is far right and every attempt at a dialogue is hate speech. The news that keeps blowing up is when a republican sneezes while an entire crowd of commie mongs destroying a city block and punching random people gets the same speech that an abusive husband screaming at his wife while smashing plates gives; "See!? This is what happens! This is your fault for making me mad! Clean up this goddamned mess!"

Or to put Podesta's spin on it; "Now that you've actually seen what happens when you don't do as you're told, you're going to wish you'd done the dishes and made me dinner on time. Now turn around, drop your pants and bend over so we can get back to a strong, steady relationship that I've always provided for, bitch."
 
Why even vote if electoral college will determine it anyway?

American politics has a LOT of cleaning up to do.
The electoral college is just a way of attributing point values to victory in each state. The idea is to give states with smaller populations a more equal say in who gets to be president, since it still affects them equally (meaning not at all) too. The only thing that really needs changing is that EC voters shouldn’t be allowed to go against their states.
 
Why even vote if electoral college will determine it anyway?

American politics has a LOT of cleaning up to do.
I think at the least each electoral vote should go the direction its constituents vote, instead of every one in each state going in one direction as a lump. I believe Maine is currently the only state that allows this, although they only have 2 votes so it's never going to make a huge impact. Lumping all electoral votes by state made more sense in the country's early days when states were a lot more sovereign than they are now, when the office of the president was weaker than it is now, and when the college itself was needed as a bargaining chip just to get the southern states to sign up for revolution in the first place.

I wonder how California would feel about that popular vote if they saw 15 or 20 of their own state's landlocked districts going red because the gigantic blue population of the coastal cities wasn't enough to sway the whole state?
 
They did and she still lost, as you know. The democrats only hope to stand a chance is to run a populist. Richard O'jeda just announced his bid for the presidency in 2020, and even if he's an underdog he stands more of a chance than Hilary ever will.

https://www.bdtonline.com/news/rich...cle_e2bddebc-e6e8-11e8-856d-6bafff0e6f22.html

Literally anyone besides Hilary stands a better chance. I'd like to see a Sanders/Gabbard ticket personally. If Bernie doesn't keel over by the next election.

Some info on Gabbard if you don't know about her:
https://gabbard.house.gov/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIb2lmHgd5s(when she was on JRE)
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/bills?cid=N00033281&cycle=2018
 
Why even vote if electoral college will determine it anyway?

American politics has a LOT of cleaning up to do.
Because 50 states are more important than 10 of the most populated cities in the county, three of which are in California alone and another three of which are in Texas alone.
 
Last edited:
Why even vote if electoral college will determine it anyway?

American politics has a LOT of cleaning up to do.
The electoral college was designed so that someone running for president wouldn’t only hit the most populous areas to get votes. It’s designed so that a person running for president has to appeal to rural, suburban, and urban places. Without the electoral college, some places that would have a say in presidential elections would be San Francisco, New York, Miami and Los Angele ( notice they are only large cities). It’s also part of the Constitution so if you were to get rid of it, an overwhelming majority would have to agree, which I don’t see less populated states agreeing to anytime soon.
 
I think at the least each electoral vote should go the direction its constituents vote, instead of every one in each state going in one direction as a lump. I believe Maine is currently the only state that allows this, although they only have 2 votes so it's never going to make a huge impact. Lumping all electoral votes by state made more sense in the country's early days when states were a lot more sovereign than they are now, when the office of the president was weaker than it is now, and when the college itself was needed as a bargaining chip just to get the southern states to sign up for revolution in the first place.

I wonder how California would feel about that popular vote if they saw 15 or 20 of their own state's landlocked districts going red because the gigantic blue population of the coastal cities wasn't enough to sway the whole state?
It's up to each individual state how they apportion electors, and I'd like to keep ot that way. Pretty sure anything else is unconstitutional anyway
 
Back
Top Bottom